Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ian goldsmith <iangoldsmith1969 AT yahoo.co.uk>]

Walter.
Thank you for your insight into the origins of the
names of the OT characters, they are... interesting.
But I return to a point already stated in a previous
discussion. The lack of physical evidence that dates
the OT as older than Babylonion or Assyrian or any
other texts doesn't mean that it isn't so.
 
The whole basis of your argument for the OT names of
the Lord being derived from some other earlier
narrative hangs on those narratives being 'earlier'.
Just because we have them written down for us doesn't
make them neccasarily 'older' and therefore more
relaible, physical evidence is only part of the
puzzle.

I may be going out on a limb here, but to make
'Elohim', 'Yah' etc. come from 'Enki' is a bit of a
stretch of the imagination, who's to say that the
babylonian myths aren't derived from Genesis. In the
end it has to come down to what you prefer to believe,
there isn't any 'conclusive' evidence either way.

Personally I choose to believe that the Genesis
account is more historically reliable than those of
its contemporaries. The openning chapters of Genesis
are grander and philosophically more appealing and
challenging than any of the babylonian or canaanite
myths, in which the deities described are less
admirable than many human leaders.

There is a simplicity and granduer to Genesis that
makes it an unlikely candidate for a re-working of an
inferior tale like that of the 'Enki' myth. 

At the end of the day you can put any spin you like on
archaelogical evidence, much of it will depend on what
you want to find in it. Sadly until something gets
discovered in the Middle Eastern desert somewhere I'll
have to just believe that Genesis pre-dates existing
finds. 

Thanks for stoking the fire though.
 


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie