[b-hebrew] Re:PS /g/
trepp at telus.net
trepp at telus.net
Fri Nov 19 09:52:57 EST 2004
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:30:24 -0500
> From: gfsomsel at juno.com
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/
> To: kwrandolph at email.com
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20041117.133024.-734617.1.gfsomsel at juno.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:08:18 -0500 "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com>
> > George:
> > What do we know about Hebrew prior to "putative Moses"? Only what is
> > referring to earlier events written in Hebrew. Did Moses edit those
> > earlier stories to make them conform to the Hebrew of his time?
> > There is no way that I know of that we can tell, either way.
> Just what are these "earlier events written in Hebrew"? If Moses
> supposedly is responsible for the entire Pentateuch, then how are you to
> distinguish which are earlier?
> > As for the dating of the Ugaritic texts, there was a debate in this
> > forum not long ago concerning the accuracy of traditional dates. But
> > even the earliest dates for the Ugaritic literature that I have seen
> > (ca. 1200 BCE) is still well after Moses (who wrote ca. 1450-1400
> > BCE). If Rohl and others like him are correct, even that date is a
> > couple of centuries too early.
> That's an absurd date for this supposed figure. BTW: There probably was
> a "Moses" to whom many legends accreted, but this was not the Moses
> portrayed in the Pentateuch.
> > As for the literary style I referred to, it was not unique to
> > Hebrew, rather it was one shared by other cultures as well, where
> > the title and author were listed at the end of a document, not the
> > beginning. There are several places in Genesis that hint, if not
> > more, at inclusion of documents using this style.
> I think you will find that these documents mentioned are not quoted
> extensively. Only small selections are used.
> > As far as *your* dating is concerned, in the absence of historical
> > documents other than Tanakh that can either confirm or disprove the
> > accuracy of Tanakh as a historical document, how can your dates be
> > anything other than theologically based?
> There are inconsistencies within the Tanak itself as well as the "lack of
> evidence" from archaeology whose shouting is becoming deafening.
Even if some of Karl's statements were merely speculative, not one of George's
have been evidenced. What does he even know of anyone in Ugarit to the degree
that all Israeli agrees about Moses? I have seen the Supernatural (even
witnessed by non-Christians at work) and see through the naivity that uses
unbelief in the Supernatural alone as the curb and filter of all knowledge.
Nonetheless, I too might have suffered a like doubtfulness if I had not seen
what I saw.
More information about the b-hebrew