Reply
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Template For Letter For Community Service Hours
Prelude to begin discussing whether "the Old Testament is a historical source?"
Reply
a question of this magnitude is a daunting task impossible to address here. Moreover, scholars in the field (which are few and I was fortunate to be students of Dr. Bernardo Gandulla) have even failed to agree a minimum. Reply
What can you say, then, in these lines? Describe the two main "streams" that have shaped current debates on this controversial topic. We'll get out of the debate
those inclined to believe that the biblical accounts are true 100%. Recall that we treat a scientific debate, not of faith or theology. That is, the scriptures speak of as a historical source that would allow us to know certain aspects of the life of the societies of the ancient Near East.
few more details, The Bible as we know it today is drafting a text that goes between the late Hellenistic period and the first century of our era. Ie between the (c.) 323 BC and 100 AD These editors and copyists often not understood or accommodated the information according to their own contexts.
CALLED THE MINIMALIST.
For so-called minimalists, they are not considered part of a stream, but is the nickname he placed his adversaries, the Bible is totally historical value. Their main arguments are:
The history of the Palestinian territories surrounding relies entirely on sources outside the Bible, such as archaeological and anthropological and linguistic analogies. Furthermore, the Bible has no historical criteria and, at best, is a child collection of traditions. Finally, supporting the idea that in the history of Ancient Near East (especially the territories named in the Bible) come into play factors and current interests: political struggles, ethnic / religious (like the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis). Finally, in conjunction with this, the well known claim that opponents ignore the archaeological evidence and defend existing interests under the guise of a historical debate. THE MAXIMAL
agree not deny a priori the possibility of using the Bible as a historical source. Propose to use the reconstruction method to separate the "historical" than "incidental." They believe that the Old Testament is not a source of "genuine", ie first-hand. In the same way they believe they are convinced that the Bible is like a little modern history book, however has folk traditions that can have a real historical background. Is say that the scriptures may contain some valid historical information. Finally, note that several sites such as Jerusalem and Samaria, among others, were repeatedly destroyed and rebuilt. And many times we used the rubble in reconstruction. But that's not all, also adds another difficulty, some sites are inhabited today and this makes it difficult to archaeological exploration. For that reason, in many cases, the Bible is not only the best source, but almost the only one. Emilio
Tomassini (UNLu)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment