Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jucci:

I downloaded that file and as I read it I notice that it does not
answer Jack Tladatsi's question.

On the very first page it makes the assumption, with no evidence to
back it up, that it is "an integral part of the pre-Deuteronomic
Retterbuch" whereas historical sources indicate that it followed
Deuteronomy by more than a century. Then he plays freely with the
text, changing it to fit his presuppositions; redefining words,
rearranging words and sentences, even changing words from what is
written, making any archaic grammar and vocabulary that of his own
devising, making any proof from the text one imagined in his own mind,
not demonstrable from the text itself. No, I did not read the complete
few hundred page article, the first ten pages already set up a pattern
that, if the rest of the article follows it (and I see no reason to
expect anything otherwise), it is an exercise in ideological fiction,
not one of linguistic nor historical studies.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 11/8/06, Jucci Elio <eljucci AT unipv.it> wrote:
>  a useful and agreable tool :-)
>
>  Thomas F. McDaniel, The Song of Deborah.  Poetry in Dialect.  A
> Philological Study of Judges 5, Translation and Commentary (2003)
> http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/Deborah.pdf
>
>
> Elio Jucci
>     Pavia
>     http://dobc.unipv.it/SETH/
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have read any number of times in various venues and by various authors
> > how both the Song of Deborah and the Song of the Sea appear to be the
> > oldest parts of the Bible.  However, the various writers more or less take
> > this assertion for granted and move on.  They never make any argument to
> > support it and I have yet to find one.  So, is there some basis for this
> > claim, archaic grammar or vocabulary?  Any thoughts would be appriciated.
> >
> > --
> > Jack Tladatsi