"admittedly syncretistic Kuntillet Ajrud fragments"
mc2499 at mclink.it
Thu Jan 24 11:06:55 EST 2002
>> The pundits must realize that the earliest recognisable biblical text is from
>> Qumran. Was any biblical text written long before that?
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Mine was not a rhetorical question, but one asking for a revision of assumptions
based on no evidence whatsoever. One cannot argue that the texts were written at
a particular date without evidence. The evidence cannot come solely from within
the document (unless it shows that an early date is not possible through
>The earliet manuscripts of the Classical Greek and Roman authors, poets,
>philosophers and playwrights date from the Middle Ages. Are we to conclude
>from this that the dialogues of Plato, the histories of Xenophon and
>Herodotus, and the plays of Sophocles and Aristophanes were not written long
Jonathan, you need to look through the texts found at Tebtunis and other Egyptian
sites containing ancient text troves.
>BTW, the Nash Papyrus was written long before Qumran. Isn't that a biblical
The Nash Papyrus is *still* problematical, despite analyses by people such as
Albright and his acolytes. You'll see that it has been dated extremely widely
on only a whiff of the finest evidence.
>> Syncretism is the equating of one god with another, or at least the absorption
>> of traits from one to another. Polytheism is visible, but is syncretism?
>There seems to be an artificial limitation here of the theological
>possibilities: monotheism, polytheism, syncretism. I haven't seen
>henotheism, or monolatry, mentioned. True, henotheism isn't monotheism; but
>then it isn't syncretism either.
Agreed. My original comment on this thread was about the citation in the subject
line, which I thought misleading.
More information about the b-hebrew