But then, Karl, your argument depends on the patriarchal narratives being written by the patriarchs, who wrote about themselves in the third person. I'd love for us to be able to confirm this, but again, what is the evidence you have for this? Not even the texts themselves claim this. Do you have anything other than speculation?
GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) Sydney, Australia From: K Randolph <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 1:55 AM To: George Athas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: B-Hebrew <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] II Samuel vs. Patriarchal Narratives 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.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
