Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Nov 11, 2007 1:16 AM,  Jim Stinehart wrote:

> You repeat the traditional view of Genesis 15: 13, 16, a view which is  the
> same as the view of academic secular scholars.  But have you ever considered
> that such  view is not supported by what the text actually says?

Yes, before I wrote what I wrote, I also considered your point and it
didn't add up.
This is related to one of the points that I mentioned in my criticism of your
methodology -- always assume the other person has considered other 
alternatives.

> 7.  The pinpoint historical  accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is
> breathtaking.  The analysis I have set forth above (i)  fits the text of 
> Genesis 15:
> 13, 16 perfectly, and (ii) fits the archaeological  record perfectly as 
> well.

As I suggested in my previous posts, your pinpoint accuracy with the 14th
century Amarna is achieved only after several unlikely assumptions, and the
equation of Abimelekh = Abimilki, which is linguistically fine, but is simply
the equivalent of associating two John Smith's.

> I am defending the integrity, and historical accuracy, of the Patriarchal
> narratives.

I don't know why the integrity or historical accuracy of the
Patriarchal narratives
is a cause in itself.  For me, it is important to know what the author of the
text meant when he wrote it (and if it is possible to discern several stages
in the development of the text, what the author of each stage meant when he
wrote it).

I am not interested in debating the specifics of your theory with you.
 It didn't
convince me, and I offered the Picasso analogy to that end.

Yitzhak Sapir