One comment on two snips
- Some snips from earlier posts...
First, this snip...
It doesn't matter how accurate these recollections are, their very existence is suggestive of records. ...
...The potential existence of historical records which may have been available to biblical scribes in their creation of any pseudo- historical book of faith is of extreme significance. All the best, Jon Smyth
And this snip...
Apparently you have forgotten your courses in Introduction to the Old Testament which you undoubtedly took in your seminary years since critical scholarship did NOT move these books BACK to the time of ancient Israel. George F Somsel
To the last snip first: When I was an undergraduate history major and I told one of my professors one day, in casual conversation, that I was toying with the idea of going to a seminary to study biblical history, he laughed and said that seminary professors don't know a thing about historical research. For one thing, he said, those people try to make their texts as old as possible on the naive assumption that old means authentic, whatever "authentic" is supposed to mean. (I paraphrase, but that is about what he said. His words ring in my ears just about every time I read any so-called "critical" biblical scholarship.) As to the first snip: It really does matter how accurate these recollections are, not because we want to know if the Bible is "true" (whatever that might mean) but because we need to let the ancient scribes be who they really were. If we can see from evidence (and we can see consistently from much evidence) that the biblical scribes had access to earlier sources (e.g Deir Alla's Balaam ben Beor) and that the scribes consistently failed to bother to preserve their sources but rather made creative re-use of them, then that ought to tell us something about the GENRE of the biblical narratives. The biblical scrolls are not (emphatically not) "pseudo- historical book[s] of faith." They are not trying to be historia and they are usually not expressing the faith of the scribes who wrote them. My consistent beef with so-called "critical" biblical scholarship is its unwarranted, undefended a priori assumption that the anachronistic concepts of "faith" and "history" can be pasted on to the data without further comment.
Ok, that is all that I will say today.
K. L. Noll
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]