[b-hebrew] FW: mishnaic Hebrew + Deborah

Yigal Levin Yigal.Levin at biu.ac.il
Sun Nov 27 13:07:09 EST 2011


Please read a couple of basic books on ANE archaeology, and on
archaeological method in general. You will find out that very little
"depends" on Manetho without external corroboration. Manetho supplied early
scholars a very basic framework for Egypt only, into which Egyptologists,
once Hieroglyphics were deciphered, imported data from tens of thousands of
contemporary inscriptions, as well as comparative data from other parts of
the ANE. Today we know that Manetho, while right about some things, was
wrong about many others. Ugarit is connected through over two centuries of
cross referencing to Mesopotamia, Hatti, Canaan, Cypress and Egypt. 

Yigal Levin

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of K Randolph
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 3:27 PM
To: George Athas
Cc: B-Hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] mishnaic Hebrew + Deborah


How were the Ugaritic writings dated? I was told that it was by finding
connections with the Ramasid pharaohs and the Sea Peoples. Others have
found archaeological data that dates the Ramasid pharaohs and Sea Peoples
as late. I find that evidence as stronger than the Manetho derived dating
which is clearly wrong. What evidence do you have that Ugarit is older?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM, George Athas
<George.Athas at moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Karl, I don't know of anyone other than yourself who seriously doubts that
> Ugaritic was around in the 14th century BC. I know of no cogent argument
> for seeing Ugaritic as contemporaneous with Nebuchadnezzar II of the
> Neo-Babylonian Empire. In fact, to be quite honest, the suggestion is
> outrageous. Not that I'm averse to stirring the pot, but this just seems
> nonsensical in the extreme.
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list