dear b-hebrew moderators, >>>...If so, would it then have been possible for the first written version of the Patriarchal narratives, done in the Amarna Age, to have been written using the alphabet, rather than cuneiform?
as far as i know, there is no evidence, other than the OT itself, for the existence of any WRITTEN pre-exilic hebrew religeous text. let alone one which contains the patriarchal narratives. it is quite possible that this text had been kept orally for many centuries before being written down. this applies also to the book described in IIkgs 22. there is no evidence tying it to the amarna age, or to the patriarchs, or to deut., even if we believe it was indeed found in the temple. it might have equally been written down (in hebrew letters...) in the time of david or solomon, i.e. some mere 300 years earlier, or even a later version copied by the temple scribes. who knows? in view of the above i suggest that we avoid delving into further speculations upon speculations on a hypothetical text whose existence cannot be verified independently. this futile exercise in "maybe" would spur, once more, an endless exchange of emails and will lead us nowhere. best nir cohen PS >>> I believe that the famous Qeiyafa Ostracon may give us a pretty definitive answer to that question. jim, the queiyafa ostracon is NOT in cuneiform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khirbet_Qeiyafa nir cohen _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
