Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

You’re right that I don’t have proof. On the other hand, merely looking at the volume of writing that made up the records later incorporated into Genesis, and merely that which preceded Abraham (and who’s to say that his library was limited to what is now preserved in Genesis?), recognizing that he had to schlep his library around with him to preserve it, makes the probability that he used cuneiform on clay vanishingly small. The same goes for stone tablets.

Another thing, stone and clay are not only heavy, but fragile. So while clay and stone tablets could be stored in fixed locations, leather, which is both lighter and far more forgiving of rough handling, would be the substrate of choice for a traveling library.

Getting back to your point, I don’t have proof, but I have probabilities, and the probabilities are strongly against the use of cuneiform by the patriarchs.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:53 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

…, but I'd like to know how we could test for it. If we can't, you have to admit that you are purely speculating here. There's nothing wrong with speculating, so long as we recognise that it's speculation and don't give it any dependent weight.