Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

Karl wrote:-

>For those who take the modernist approach, that Torah was written
>mostly post-Exile by a group of people with an editor putting it all
>together, then there is no evidence either way, and it could be that
>Israel adopted Hebrew after the Exodus.

This is an over generalisation. I would suggest anyone who thinks this way
that they read some commentaries on the Torah. I'd recommend anything in
the Anchor Bible, Hermenia, or NICOT Series. They are not difficult to get
hold of. For example, Milgrom from the Anchor Bible series on Leviticus
does not take the view the book is a unified work written by Moses, but he
certainly views many parts of it as having an origin well before the
exile. Speiser's commentary on Genesis is a bit dated now but
he certainly doesn't take the view that its mostly post-exilic.
A post-exilic editor putting together a scroll of the Torah is certainly a
very different idea to it being written in the post-exilic period.

Just in general, I would appreciate it if participants on this
list would be more respectful of views they disagree with. Earlier
Karl also wrote:-

>(no I have not read any commentaries based on higher critical
>religion)

At the time I read it I just let that slide as one of Karl's many snide
remarks about those he disagrees with, but it does get tiresome.
Particularly when clearly defective definitions (e.g. science)
are advanced year after year despite people pointing out the
problems.

Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'