Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Ian,
> Jonathan Bailey wrote:
> 
> >Better [evidence...], I think, than Kirk's supposition that Moses wouldn't 
> >have carried written records around with him. 
> 
> 1) Why do you insist on calling Peter only by his surname?

Why should you care?

> 2) Have you got any verifiable evidence for a non-sedentary scribe in the
> ancient world circa 1000 BCE or earlier?

Have you got any verifiable evidence against it?  What constitutes 
verifiable evidence?  Is there such a thing, or are you just (again) 
setting up conditions that can't possibly be met?

> 3) Have you got any contemporary evidence to suppose that Moses was a
> scribe, or that he had received the necessary scribal training?

Have you got any contemporary evidence to suppose he wasn't?  It 
seems to me there's at least as much burden of proof on you to 
disprove these things as there is on him to prove it.  Trying to shift 
the burden of proof is a nice maneuver, but it really doesn't 
demonstrate anything.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                                   Psalm 86:11