Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

You are doing a crucial error in your analysis, namely taking the story out
of context.

If you argue that the story of Abraham is basically accurate, then you have
to argue that Exodus is also basically accurate. Further, that Exodus
happened after Abraham by centuries.

The next question: is there any archaeological evidence for the Exodus? The
answer is “Yes.” During the 13th Dynasty.

Historical evidence from the 12th and 13th Dynasties shows that there were
large numbers of “Asiatic“ slaves in Egypt, many with Hebrew names. They
then left so suddenly that some men abandoned their tools, and some women
forgot their jewelry, as later found by archaeologists. After that, the
Hyksos were able to take over Egype “without a battle” as there was no
Egyptian army to oppose them (it was drowned in the Red Sea).

If you want to argue for the “p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy of the
Patriarchal narratives”, then you can’t take them out of the context of the
other narratives of Genesis, Exodus, etc. I know of no one who accepts
statements, even narratives, taken out of context as being valid. Yet here
you are arguing that by taking these narratives out of context, you can
prove that they are true.

This is just illogical. There is no way Prof. Levin can follow your
suggestion without becoming the laughing stock of his university.

You ask, “What more could one ask for?” How about starting with logical
consistency? Don’t take things out of context.

Karl W. Randolph.


> In my considered opinion, one key to understanding and appreciating the
> p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is to
> compare Amarna Letter EA 197 straight up with Genesis 14: 5-6.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>