Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:08 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Karl wrote:  “You still haven’t acknowledged that the Tell Amarna letters 
> describe a
>
> Canaan consistent with the archeological findings for 9th to 8th centuries 
> BC, not earlier.”  And in a later post Karl wrote:  “[T]he ‘secular’ 
> history of Egypt contradicts the history presented in the Bible. You have 
> to make a choice:  either the Bible is accurate history and ‘secular’ 
> Egyptian history wrong, or the Bible is inaccurate and ‘secular’ Egyptian 
> history is correct, or both are inaccurate, but what you cannot logically 
> say is that both are accurate.”
>
>
>
> As to that second comment, I respectfully disagree.  I see the 
> well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE ….  No aspect 
> of my view of the Patriarchal narratives involves changing any mainstream 
> scholarly views as to the dating of secular historical events in the 
> ancient world.
>
>
>
> The second issue, however, is fundamental to how we view the Patriarchal 
> narratives.  If the Patriarchal narratives are chockfull of accurate 
> information about the secular history of the Bronze Age (my view), then the 
> Patriarchal narratives must have been composed in the Bronze Age, not many 
> centuries later (by multiple authors, in the mid-1st millennium BCE
>
>
This is what Genesis presents, written at the latest in the mid second
millennium BC


>  -- No way!).
>
>
This reaction is so unprofessional.


>   But if the Patriarchal narratives were composed in the Bronze Age by a 
> single contemporaneous author (my view), then historically it is impossible 
> that the Patriarchal narratives will passively report what literally 
> happened, year after year.
>
>
This is speculation, pure and simple, pulled out of thin air.


>   No such composition exists prior to Greek-style histories, which were not 
> invented until about a 1,000 years or so after any historical Patriarchal 
> Age.
>
>
You have just made a strong argument against the accuracy of the Egyptian
history. Here I agree with you, that the Egyptian history is inaccurate. It
makes more sense to put Thutmosis III as the pharaoh who sacked Jerusalem
after Solomon died, it fits archeology and other histories better, than the
present claim of 15th century BC.

When one corrects Egyptian history to match archeology, and corrects
misdated histories (misdated to correlate to misdated Egyptian history) of
the other Mid-East ancient countries to fit their archeologies, then it all
fits together. Accurately.

But even the Greeks did not write history as we think of it today, rather
they recorded past events as long as they made rollicking good stories—if
they were accurate, all the better, but strict accuracy took back seat to
narration.

Contrary to what you wrote above, the rest of your article gave reasons why
we should not accept Genesis as accurate history. This is self-contradiction
in its purest form. This is why we say your postings make no sense, except
in the post-modern dream world where logic and making sense don’t count.

>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
Karl W. Randolph.