[b-hebrew] Job: Who Influenced Whom?
George F. Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Fri Jun 11 13:38:11 EDT 2004
Harry Truman's middle name was 'S' -- nothing else.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:34:51 +0000 <david.kimbrough at charter.net> writes:
> It is important to re-state what the debate is about.
> QUESTION: Is there any evidence that the Sumerian Job-like poems of
> 1700 BC were influenced by a pre-existing Hebrew poems?
> ANSWER: No there is no evidence that any such Hebrew poems existed
> or that any language existed at that time that might be called
> AMPLIFICATION: It is impossible to prove a negative. It can never
> demonstrated that Job was not written in 3,000 BC or 2,000 BC or
> 1,000 BC. The fact that something cannot be disproven, proves
> nothing. I cannot disprove the fact that there are little green men
> living on the far side of the moon. That however is no argument
> that they actually are there.
> It can be proven that Job was not written in 1,000 AD however. This
> is because is evidence, in the form of the LXX and DSS, that in fact
> there were written versions of Job around 100 BC, in both Greek and
> ADDITIONAL POINTS:
> 1) Job is said to own 3,000 camels. It is pretty well established
> that camels were not domesticated too much before 1,000 BC. Job is
> also presented as being a sedentary individual, not a migratory
> shepherd as would be more appropriate to a Israelite of the
> patriarchal era.
> 2) Job-like poems were an entire genre in Sumer and Babylon. One of
> the earlier ones (Ludlul Bêl Nimeqi) was written around 1700 BC.
> Now according to traditional chronologies, this is the period of
> Egyptian captivity for the Israelites. Now how could the Sumerians
> be copying Israelite poetry when they were enslaved in Goshen and
> 3) There is a misunderstanding about the argumentum ex silentio.
> For example, Paul never mentions the virgin birth of Jesus in any of
> his letters. Does this prove that Paul did not know about the
> virgin birth? No, it does not. This is an example of where the
> argument from silence is a logical fallacy.
> 4) There is a however a valid use for the *argument from silence. I
> ask a man *Do you know Harry S Truman middle name?*. He says *Yes*.
> I ask him, *OK, what is it?*. He says *I wont? tell you.* *Well
> why not?* I reply. *I won?t tell that either* he replies. Here
> there is valid reason to question whether this man does know
> President Truman?s middle. Here an argument from silence would be
> valid. (His middle name was S BTW).
> 5) The fact that the historical record is ?silent? as to the
> existence of a Hebrew Job around does not prove that there was not
> one. It does prove there is no evidence for one.
> David Kimbrough
> San Gabriel
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew