[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 120, Issue 25
Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Sun Dec 16 22:05:31 EST 2012
dear b-hebrew moderators,
>>>...If so, would it then have been possible for the first written version of
the Patriarchal narratives, done in the Amarna Age, to have been written using
the alphabet, rather than cuneiform?
as far as i know, there is no evidence, other than the OT itself, for the
existence of any WRITTEN pre-exilic hebrew religeous text. let alone one which
contains the patriarchal narratives. it is quite possible that this text had
been kept orally for many centuries before being written down.
this applies also to the book described in IIkgs 22. there is no
evidence tying it to the amarna age, or to the patriarchs, or to deut.,
even if we believe it was indeed found in the temple. it might have
equally been written down (in hebrew letters...) in the time of david
or solomon, i.e. some mere 300 years earlier, or even a later version
copied by the temple scribes. who knows?
in view of the above i suggest that we avoid delving into
further speculations upon speculations on a hypothetical
text whose existence cannot be verified independently. this futile
exercise in "maybe" would spur, once more, an endless exchange of
emails and will lead us nowhere.
PS >>> I believe that the famous Qeiyafa Ostracon may give us a pretty
definitive answer to that question.
jim, the queiyafa ostracon is NOT in cuneiform.
More information about the b-hebrew