Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Dear Walter:

There are a few weaknesses in your theory that, if false, could nullify the 
whole thing.

Back when I was an undergraduate, I read Dr. Samuel R. Külling’s dissertation 
“Zur Datierung der Genesis ‘P’ Stücke”. I don’t know how others have 
responded to his dissertation, but that it is a dissertation says that that 
already passed peer review before publishing. In it, he made the assertion 
that the division of Genesis into J, P, D and other sectors was based on the 
philosophic presuppositions of those who made those divisions. Most of the 
dissertation was taken up in quoting from books and articles as early as 
1807, several by 1820 in French, German, Dutch and English, through Gesenius 
and so forth. The point of the quotations was that these theories were 
ideologically based, with minimal historical or linguistic support. The early 
writings were much more open than the later writings (even as early as 1870) 
in admitting the ideological basis of the theories.

One of the most basic of those presuppositions was a strict adherance to 
naturalism, the belief that a deity does not act into history. What if that 
presupposition is wrong? Many people don’t buy that presupposition, even many 
scholars. Dr. Külling’s thesis was that absent the philosophic 
presuppositions, there was insufficient linguistic evidence to aupport the 
theories.

As a poor college student, I read the book in a library, and do not have a 
copy of it.

As for proto-Sinaitic, there are sites on the web claiming that examples in 
that writing have been found at sites dating as late as 800 BC. Yet several 
of its glyphs are recognizably antecedent to paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician, a few 
almost identical. (As for unicode, it should be encoded by 
paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician because  it is identical to the latter, only the 
shapes are different.) As for earlier use of proto-Sinaitic in Canaan is 
consistent with the Biblical indication that Abraham, Isaak and other early 
Hebrews were literate.

How do you know that the Philistines spoke Aegean? The late Dr. Cyrus Gorden 
claimed that many of the people of the Aegean spoke semitic languages, that a 
decypherment of proto-Cretan (in Greek letters) and Linear A would probably 
be found in Semitic dialects.

How do you know that the dates you quote are correct? I read that even 
Egyptologists argue about dates, up to a couple of centuries in varience. 
With such disagreement, it is possible that Raamses II benefitted from his 
allaiance with Solomon, his sister or daughter married to Solomon only to 
lead an invasion a few years after Solomon’s death. His nickname was Sesi, 
very similar to the Hebrew $$Q.

As for evidence for your theory, I find it highly speculative without good 
linguistic evidence that I can recognize. But I appreciate the linguistic 
notes that you included.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph. 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter R. Mattfeld" <mattfeld12 AT charter.net>

> Most Conservative scholars understand, based on 1 Kings 6:1 statement of 480
> years elapsing between the Exodus and Solomon's 4th year when he began
> building the Temple ca. 966 BCE, that the Exodus event was ca. 1446 BCE.
> 
> The following questions must be addressed. If this "is" the date for the
> Exodus, and "IF" Conservatives are correct in assuming the Exodus was headed
> for SOUTHERN SINAI and presentday Gebel Musa, what evidence is there of
> "writing" in this area ca. 1446 BCE ?
> 
> Archaeologists have identified TWO SCRIPTS in the Southern Sinai ca.1446
> BCE, Egyptian Hieroglyphic and Canaanite (so-called "Asiatic") popularly
> known as Proto-Sinaitic.
> 
> Now Moses, allegedly being a "Prince" of Egypt, raised up in Pharaoh's
> household, might be expected to be able to read and write in Egyptian
> Hieroglyphics. Being a Hebrew, he may also have learned later the
> Proto-Sinaitic script. So, we have in the SOUTHERN Sinai TWO SCRIPTS, either
> of which Moses would have been conversant with according to the biblical
> story.
> 
> Archaeologists have determined that the Proto-Sinaitic is attested for an
> earlier period of time, in Canaan about 19th-17th centuries BCE, it being
> found at several locations. So, they conclude that Proto-Sinaitic was not
> "invented" in the Sinai, it was invented in Canaan.
> 
> Now, as to the original Query, "IS Phoenician script being _borrowed_ by
> Hebrew ?"
> 
> Karl has rightly noted that the earliest inscriptions from Late Bronze Age
> times in the area we call Phoenicia, are NOT in an "Alphabetic script," they
> are in AKKADIAN CUNEIFORM, or Babylonian script, and date for the most part
> from the Amarna era and the world of the Pharaoh who honored the ONE GOD,
> the Aten, Pharaoh Akhenaten. The Akkadian script is also in use in Canaan,
> letters from the mayors of Canaan are using Akkadian as an international
> linga franca (whilst the script is Akkadian the words, however, reveal
> Canaanite dialects).
> 
> <big snip>
> 
> 
> Regards, Walter
> Walter Reinhold Warttg Mattfeld, M.A. Ed.
> matfeld12 AT charter.net
> www.bibleorigins.net
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers