Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Hi,

Quoting Petr Tomasek <tomasek AT etf.cuni.cz>:

> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 02:52:32AM -0700, K Randolph wrote:
> > Petr:
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Petr Tomasek <tomasek AT etf.cuni.cz> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 08:58:31AM -0700, K Randolph wrote:
> > > > James:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:20 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It does raise interesting linguistic questions about what language
> > > > > they likely spoke in different periods of their wanderings:
> > > > >
> > > > > a) while in Canaan before the slavery
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What evidence do we have of Canaanite language from the early   
> > bronze age?
> > > As
> > > > far as I know, the only evidence that survives to this day is Genesis.
> > >
> > > Huh! What evidence do we have of Genesis comming from the early   
> > bronze age?
> >
> >
> > What sort of question is this? The text of Tanakh is evidence. Whether you
>
> No! It's definitely not an "evidence". The Hebrew Bible is ideologicaly
> biased text and not a historical record.

By the definition you've just given there is no such thing as a  
historical record. Everything that has ever been written has a bias of  
some form.

Also, grouping a whole bunch of independent sources 'the hebrew bible'  
and painting with the same brush could be viewed by some as more than  
a little short-sighted. Each text must clearly be evaluated on its own  
merit.


> On the contrary, it can be
> proven, that "dating" itself "long in the past" served Hasmonean writers
> of Tanakh for their ideological purposes...

It evidently can't be 'proven' because you have failed to convince  
either myself or Karl. Just because you've managed to 'prove' it to  
yourself does not mean it can be universally proven to everyone. We  
are all working with the same data and there are many possible  
interpretations of that data. Obviously only one interpretation can  
ultimately be true but none of us can absolutely prove which one it  
is. The best we can do is eliminate those interpretations which are  
clearly wrong and be left with a subset of acceptable interpretations.  
Which one you choose to believe is a matter of your own personal faith.


> > trust it or not is a different matter. Further, the sentence I wrote above
> > does not specifically claim that Genesis is from the early bronze age,
> > rather that Genesis is the only historical record that gives any indication
> > of the language of early bronze age Canaan.
> >
> > The claims of Tanakh: Solomon started building the temple 490 years after
> > the Exodus, which was 430 years (LXX) or 645 years (MT) after the promise
> > given to Abraham. That puts Abraham in the early bronze age.
>
> Those are just claims. No proofs.

By this definition there are no proofs. All we have to work on are a  
set of conflicting claims. As none of us was there to see these things  
ourselves we have to make some choices about which claims we hold more  
authoritative. Again, you are touching the area of belief.


> On the other hand, If (as some scholars pointed out recently)   
> according to the
> Tanakh "chronology" the year 164 BCE occured "4000 years after the   
> creation" and
> the exodus happened 2666 years after creation (which is 2/3 of 4000), it's
> clear that the Tanakh was COMPOSED in year 164 BCE by/for the   
> Hasmonean rulers!

I'm sorry but that has to be the most baseless claim I've ever heard.  
You are postulating that hundreds of years of history was made up by  
the hasmonean rulers in a date that long post dates the split into two  
kingdoms. In order to fuel your absurd theory you have lumped the many  
different writings of the tanakh as if its one book.

Just so that I can be amused even more by the worst based conspiracy  
theory I have *ever* heard could you please explain to the list  
members just how, according to your theory, the Samaritans ended up  
with their own version of the Torah and a post torah history of Isreal  
with key differences to those presented in the writings of the Tanakh.

I only ask for the comic value of listening to your reply. Please  
don't interpret my question as me taking this conspiracy theory  
seriously in any way.

James Christian







> > Karl W. Randolph.
>
> --
> Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek>
> Jabber: butrus AT jabbim.cz
> SIP: butrus AT ekiga.net
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.