Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_[b-hebrew]_etymology?_--_[was_=BB"virgin"_v?= _s._"young_woman"_in_Isaiah_7:14=AB]?=

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_[b-hebrew]_etymology?_--_[was_=BB"virgin"_v?= _s._"young_woman"_in_Isaiah_7:14=AB]?=
  • Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:37:40 +0100

On 04/04/2005 14:15, Jim West wrote:



Karl Randolph wrote:

On the Ugaritic, I'll have to double check. The last source I read indicated that its surviving texts were from about the same time as Raamses II the Great or later, which was centuries after Moses wrote Torah (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit ). Apparently there's some disagreement?


I would take wikipedia stuff with a huge grain of salt. some of the articles are just plain falsely wrong. unless the writer has the background to write a sensible accurate article you might as well read the enquirer and get your scholarly information from it.

Maybe the articles are unreliable, but are you disputing "Ugarit was at its height about 1450 BC to 1200 BC", or the dating of most of the surviving texts to the last part of that period? I know that some e.g. David Rohl prefer a later date, with the final collapse around 1000 BC, but surely Wikipedia here reflects the scholarly consensus.

The contentious point is of course that Karl dates the Torah to the time of Moses, and that to around 1450 BC I think. But don't blame Wikipedia for this position of Karl's.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page