There is a very simple answer to almost all of your arguments here:
they are simply arguments from silence.
I notice that in your quote Redford speaks of a "post-Exilic editor".
So is it really true that "he concluded... that Genesis was written in
the Post-Exilic period"? Apparently not; he is not supporting your
position that "Genesis is a Post-Exilic creation". I find Redford's
position, limited post-exilic editing, much more plausible than yours
- although I wonder why the editing could not rather be in late
pre-exilic times.
Peter Kirk
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: "Post-Exilic" Genesis (long)
Author: <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com> at Internet
Date: 21/01/2000 20:42
<snip>
Redford is an Egyptologist, he concluded on the basis of his research that
Genesis was written in the Post-Exilic period:
"The Egypt that shows through in the Table of Nations is the Egypt of
Psammetichos I and his descendants, the 26th Dynasty. To contend that the
Hebrews must have been familiar with Egypt from high antiquity is to belabor
a truism. But the post-Exilic editor was publishing for his contemporaries;
and the Egypt he felt obliged to explain for them was the Nilotic power of
his own time." (p.408)
My research, quite independent of Redford's, and following a different line
of inquiry (Madai's descent from Japheth) arrived at the same conclusion,
Genesis is a Post-Exilic creation.