Harris wrote this book in 1939, so it's questionable how much he actually knew
about Ugaritic since the site wasn't discovered until 1929 and the language
deciphered some time afterward.
I haven't read that study
> but I'm making some reasonable assumptions here: 1) this study does
> suggest Hebrew is a 1st millenium development of earlier Canaanite/Ugaritic.
No idea whether this assumption is accurate or not, since I haven't read the
book either.
> 2) During the mid 20th century, the scholarly consensus was that the
> Patriarchal Narratives were historical.
I'm not sure where this came from, but my reading has suggested just the
opposite.
3) Scholars who formed the scholarly
> consensus in (2) readily accepted the conclusions of Harris including (1).
There again, it's questionable how many of those scholars had read Harris.
Without a fairly extensive survey of the relevant literature, it's impossible
to say.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.