Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Friday 06 August 2004 02:39, Jonathan D. Safren wrote:
> Brian Roberts has presented sme cogent evidence for discounting anything
> Josephus has to say in the matter of the Cushite wife.
> The fact remains: Numbers 12:1 mentions an apparent attack on Moses by
> Miriam and Aaron because of his Cushite wife, and this is not related to
> any of the major themes of the Torah or any of its supposed "sources". It
> appears, as it were, "extraneous". This alone, in my opinion, is sufficient
> cause to give weight to its authenticity.
> As I wrote in my previous posting, "Sometimes the authentic info may
> contained in slips of the pen or 'between the lines or in cryptic passages
> or passages that seem out of place."

I really don't follow the reasoning here.  If something fits the context 
(according to the reader's view) why does that automatically make its 
"authenticity" (whatever that term may mean) suspect?  Conversely, why should 
something that the reader perceives as stuck in the middle of nowhere with no 
rhyme or reason have a higher claim to "authenticity"?  What constitutes 
"authenticity" and why should one just assume that the bulk of the Torah, or 
whatever is "related to any of the major themes" has little or no claim to 
such?  I don't get it.  I see no good basis for such an assumption.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk