Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Gad:

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:25 AM, G. Zack <atdgz AT hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Karl, if by "the text that we have" you mean the Bible one may point out
> many anachronisms in language and toponyms, let alone archaeological
> findings.
>
> These anachronisms in language, toponyms and archaeological findings can be
shown only by starting with certain assumptions. But what if those
assumptions are wrong? Even the interpretation of archaeological findings
are dependent on those assumptions.


> So we know that this "text", while serving as a good guideline and
> containing many stories and references that can be shown as plausible, in
>  line with period linguistic analysis, topography and even archaeology, many
> may be shown as later day adaptations etc.
>
> Claiming a kernel of truth in stories such as the Exodus, a kernel that may
> be shown most plausible following Hoffmeier and others, explains certain
> period accuracies as wel;l as the absence of massive period findings.
>
> As mentioned, the numbers mentioned in "the text" , if taken with a grain
> of salt and suspended, allow for some interpretation.
>
> At any rate, as it is a Biblical Hebrew Language  Forum, most pertinent to
> the forum is the text of Miriam's song, which, to my understanding, can be
> __shown__ to be one of the oldest in the bible alongside the later dated
> Deborah song (curiously--both are women-poets...-) and, I believe, even
> dated.
>
> I am surprised no reference was made to this point inthis forum and
> context.
>
> Can someone comment on that (which would also assist in dealing with the
> issue of the date of Exodus...)?
>
> Gad Za"k
>
> Let's play devil's advocate for a moment. What if the author of this site,
http://www.specialtyinterests.net is correct in making Raamses II "the
great" as contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar and the beginning of the
Babylonian Exile? He makes this claim based on archaeological findings
indicating that the Ramasid pharaohs postdated the Nubian pharaohs. Further,
let's assume that Exodus was compiled either during or shortly after the
Babylonian Exile as some claim. Do you think that the author of Exodus would
have used the new name for Avaris, if he wanted to make the book appear old?
Would he even have known the new name of Raamses?

Keeping on with our devil's advocacy that
http://www.specialtyinterests.netis correct in dating Raamses II as
late seventh, early sixth centuries BC,
what does it do to the interpretations of all the archaeological finds that
indicate that they are contemporanious to him? What does it do to
interpretations of archaeological data vis-a-vis the Bible? What does it do
to the "anachronisms in language and toponyms, let alone archaeological
findings"?

Apart from this devil's advocacy, what evidence do we have of lingistic
development of Biblical Hebrew language? Where are the hundreds if not
thousands of documents of demonstrable chronological sequence needed without
which we cannot trace linguistic development? Well? They're missing.
Therefore the claimed "anachronisms in language" are no more than the
outworkings of philosophic presuppositions, i.e. religious faith, due to the
lack of evidence. And since they are merely religious faith, why should they
be more convincing than any other religious conviction?

Without a cloud of dateable documents, how do we know that the song of
Miriam or of Deborah predate the prose text into which they are inserted?
Where's the evidence?

My conclusion based on reading numerous sources is that K. Kitchen and
Hoffmeier are presiding over the sinking Titanic. While I don't know if any
of them is correct, the cumulative efforts going back decades shows that the
"mainstream" history cannot be correct. So when a professional archaeologist
at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp claims that there is
ample evidence for the Exodus, I consider it as a possibility.

Which all goes back to why, in the absence of evidence, history is off the
table for this forum.

Karl W. Randolph.
 <http://www.specialtyinterests.net/>