Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

Sometimes the simplest explanation, if sufficiently supported (and that
includes relations and analogies) - is the best one..
I'm not advocating a return to fundamentalism. My claims, as well as my
research, have all been based on the premise that the Torah is not a
unified work of Mosaic origin. But why should the latest attribution of
Biblical texts necessarily be the best one? (Same goes for the earliest
attribution).
I think, Nils and Thomas, that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed,
as I believe Ken Litwak has cogently argued in his comparison of the
assumption of lateness for Biblical historiography vs. the assumption of
earliness for the classical Greek and Latin authors. But time (and
further epigraphic finds) will tell.
Sincerely,

--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel