Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TimBowe · 09-28-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Regarding the question of historicity itself, it is important to point out that the argument for historicity is generally not based on literary, internal grounds (that the stories purport to be historical records), it is rather based on an argument from analogy, that the history of the early Second Millennium is so strikingly similar to the background of the patriarchal narratives that the conclusion, that they must correspond in fact, is seen as directly following. In other words, the ability to maintain the historicity of the patriarchal narratives depends on the cumulative weight of an analogy as well as the actual correspondence of the various factors drawn for different sources. Historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which willfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts. The immediate difficulty of such a hypothesis, however attractive it may be, is that to attach this original tradition to real historical events of the early Second Millennium demands that some means of transmitting this tradition intact for over eight hundred years must be assumed.

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham Thomas L. Thompson

semiopen · 09-28-2009, 07:00 PM

The patriarchal narratives are not especially similar to conditions then. They seem to be more based on conditions after the fall of Israel.

A defense of the narratives should site specific situations that were unique to the 2nd millenium.

Quote:

it is rather based on an argument from analogy, that the history of the early Second Millennium is so strikingly similar to the background of the patriarchal narratives that the conclusion, that they must correspond in fact, is seen as directly following. In other words...

...the writer apparently can't site any examples and therefore proves it with generalities.

My favorite example of things that were not the same is the domesticated camel. If the camel wasn't widely used as a caravan animal in the 2nd millenium, the entire book of Genesis must be placed in the first millenium. Simple, elegant, and even probably true.

Anat · 09-29-2009, 08:50 AM

There are also the arguments from geography (dating of the various places mentioned) and from the anonymity of the Pharaohs of Genesis (and the Exodus) as opposed to Necho of the late pre-exilic times.

andrewcriddle · 09-29-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

My favorite example of things that were not the same is the domesticated camel. If the camel wasn't widely used as a caravan animal in the 2nd millenium, the entire book of Genesis must be placed in the first millenium. Simple, elegant, and even probably true.

This is an argument that the present form of the book of Genesis should be placed in the first millenium. It is quite compatible with Genesis containing much older material.

Andrew Criddle

semiopen · 09-29-2009, 12:50 PM

The coin thing is also interesting from the Joseph Coins probable hoax perspective. Joseph's brothers were paid with the 20 pieces of silver or whatever.

Then there's the money the brothers brought Joseph for the food.

Money comes again in the wilderness with the half shekel payable in the census.

semiopen · 09-29-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

My favorite example of things that were not the same is the domesticated camel. If the camel wasn't widely used as a caravan animal in the 2nd millenium, the entire book of Genesis must be placed in the first millenium. Simple, elegant, and even probably true.

This is an argument that the present form of the book of Genesis should be placed in the first millenium. It is quite compatible with Genesis containing much older material.

Andrew Criddle

The redaction issue is different between Judaism and Christianity, where Classical Judaism claims the Pentateuch has never been redacted. Not sure which view is more advantageous. The Classical Jewish one has the advantage of being clearly wrong.

I agree that there could conceivably be some parts of Genesis that are old, but don't see they could be older than say 9th century BCE. The old crap in the Pentateuch are a few things like the Song of the Sea, which might be middle of the 9th century BCE. I know some intelligent guys say it could be 1300 BCE but personally, that's hard to believe. Genesis however seems mostly recent, I don't know of any passages that are considered "old."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-29-2009, 08:50 AM	#3
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	There are also the arguments from geography (dating of the various places mentioned) and from the anonymity of the Pharaohs of Genesis (and the Exodus) as opposed to Necho of the late pre-exilic times.

09-29-2009, 12:50 PM	#5
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	The coin thing is also interesting from the Joseph Coins probable hoax perspective. Joseph's brothers were paid with the 20 pieces of silver or whatever. Then there's the money the brothers brought Joseph for the food. Money comes again in the wilderness with the half shekel payable in the census.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.