Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> >I don´t still see the grounds why you thought the biblical tradition to be
> >seriously challenged by Kuntillet.
>
> The biblical tradition is from the second century BCE, isn't it? That's at
> least the earliest forms of some of the books, though I think some works are
> earlier and some later. If they are no earlier than the third century, how
> can you expect an apparently non-literate society to know much about what
> happened beyond the society's vague communal recollections?

This is the crux of Ian's reasoning.  If it's wrong, then the rest of the
material falls.  But the idea that the biblical tradition is this late is a
definite minority view (and with good reasons) and the idea that
Israel was "an apparently non-literate society" has no evidence at
all to back it up.  So I suggest that Michael focus on this erroneous
premise, and everything else will pretty much fall into place.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated."  C. S. Lewis