Sodom and Gomorrah Discovered

[tabibito]

The text closest to Hebrew language is proto Canaanite not known to exist before ~900 - 1000 BCE, establishing the link between earlier Canaanite cuneiform texts and phonetic language and later Hebrew language.

Biblical Hebrew is attested from about the 10th century BCE.
Biblical Hebrew has been written with a number of different writing systems. The Hebrews adopted the Phoenician script around the 12th century BCE, which developed into the Paleo-Hebrew script. This was retained by the Samaritans, who use the descendent Samaritan script to this day
In its earliest stages Biblical Hebrew was not highly differentiated from Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite.
The inscription on a pottery shard dating to 1000 BC parallels but does not cite sections of the Bible.

Hebrew on Shard.jpg


Just as an aside: The existence of Jezebel (circa 900BC) is confirmed.

[Jedidiah]

Before the invention of writing, lore or folklore must have existed orally. I very much doubt you, shuny, would even try to prove that less than 99% of the early tablets with writing on them contained stories that were never oral before being written on stone.

The story of Gilgamesh must have been oral before being written on stone. Why should the fact that the OT was not written out until centuries later necessarily implies that the OT contents are young relative to the Gilgamesh story? It is possible, is it not, that OT contents are far older than the Gilgamesh story? BTW, note how many varieties there are of the Gilgamesh story!

I have long said the same thing. Good on you.

[shunyadragon]

Well, that's already one non-sequiter. Buddy, every culture of the world has a flood story, so to say that they ripped it off from the Canaanites doesn't really work. What 'does' work, however, is saying that the flood stories all descending from a common source, which would be the case if the flood actually happened.

The flood story in Ugarit tablets is close to the Genesis flood story. What does not work is the actually geologic evidence trumps any parallel of cultural stories. it is a fact that these cultural stories occur where there are river valleys where catastrophic floods are common.

As for the Psalm argument, yeah, I heard that before, it's not really substantial. It basically states that certain Psalms use imagery of storms and thunder to demonstrate God's power, therefore it must have originally been meant for a Canaanite storm god. However, as you said, Cuniform tablets prove that the Psalms are much older than the invasion of Canaan, so if you want to prove that they modified the book of Psalms, the burden of proof is on you to show it.

The evidence of the Psalms in Ugarit tablets, and other texts, have a sound academic foundation, your assertion does not.

Your evidence!?!?!? Still waiting.

[shunyadragon]

Biblical Hebrew is attested from about the 10th century BCE.
Biblical Hebrew has been written with a number of different writing systems. The Hebrews adopted the Phoenician script around the 12th century BCE, which developed into the Paleo-Hebrew script. This was retained by the Samaritans, who use the descendent Samaritan script to this day
In its earliest stages Biblical Hebrew was not highly differentiated from Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite.
The inscription on a pottery shard dating to 1000 BC parallels but does not cite sections of the Bible.

Already addressed this. In the history of known Biblical stories and writings in cuneiform tablets this is a bit late. Still no evidence that OT text existed before the proto Canaanite writings and cuneiform tablets. More then just an aside, it is not Biblical Hebrew, it is proto Canaanite. Evidence? Still waiting. . .

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1075[/ATTACH]


Just as an aside: The existence of Jezebel (circa 900BC) is confirmed.

[shunyadragon]

This is a reasonable start point:
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.
Contrary to the popular belief that anything and everything would be attributed to an action of God, this declares otherwise: if God acts, that action will be prophesied. For example: If Ananias and Saphira had died without a prophecy being spoken, their deaths would properly be attributed to coincidence, not to an act of God.

This is the reason why writings of ancient literature used added prophesy to give weight to the threat of disobedience of God(s) commands. We do not have any academic evidence of the existence of prophecies prior to any of the catastrophies, like the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah destruction.

[tabibito]

..

It is imperative to come to grips not only with Ugaritic but also with the often brilliant formulations of Mitchell Dahood in all current studies of the Psalms. Of course, Segert said that Dahood's commentaries illustrate the Hegelian tendency of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis, in that Dahood went too far, though his work is useful, and someone had later to come back and correct his work and remind everyone that the Psalms are written in Hebrew, not Ugaritic, and that is not something that should be overlooked.

There are many words employed in the Hebrew text whose meanings are unclear and, sometimes, unknown; translators prior to the 20th century, surmized, by various means, their possible meaning. But when the same words occur in the Ugaritic texts, progress is possible. The meaning of words occuring only once in the Hebrew Bible (called hapax legomena), but fairly frequently in Ugaritic can now be determined with reasonable certainty.

From which, I deduce that the Ugaritic records don't include the psalms at all, much less pre-dating the Hebrew, but that words appearing in the Old Testament and particularly in the psalms have equivalents in Ugaritic which makes possible a more certain understanding of obscure words in the Hebrew text.

[shunyadragon]

..

From which, I deduce that the Ugaritic records don't include the psalms at all, much less pre-dating the Hebrew, but that words appearing in the Old Testament and particularly in the psalms have equivalents in Ugaritic which makes possible a more certain understanding of obscure words in the Hebrew text.

Fog index too high need more specific quotes. Where did this citation come from? The Psalms are written in Biblical Hebrew, but Biblical Hebrew did not exist before ~600 BCE, neither is there any Hebrew records of the OT text. From this reference and others the translation of the Ugarit psalms are sound and accurate, and even offer corrections to the Psalms as the appear in the Bible. Dadood definitely has an agenda.

[tabibito]

This is the reason why writings of ancient literature used added prophesy to give weight to the threat of disobedience of God(s) commands. We do not have any academic evidence of the existence of prophecies prior to any of the catastrophies, like the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah destruction.

Do you have evidence to show that the any of the textual records have been falsified, or is this just bare assertion? The beliefs of the writers that giving false testimony about God would invite retribution is enough to call your claim into doubt.

[shunyadragon]

Before the invention of writing, lore or folklore must have existed orally. I very much doubt you, shuny, would even try to prove that less than 99% of the early tablets with writing on them contained stories that were never oral before being written on stone.

The story of Gilgamesh must have been oral before being written on stone. Why should the fact that the OT was not written out until centuries later necessarily implies that the OT contents are young relative to the Gilgamesh story?

The evidence.

It is possible, is it not, that OT contents are far older than the Gilgamesh story? BTW, note how many varieties there are of the Gilgamesh story!

Yes, it is possible, but possibilities to justify religious assumptions does not have much weight here. Still waiting for actual evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Do you have evidence to show that the any of the textual records have been falsified, or is this just bare assertion? The beliefs of the writers that giving false testimony about God would invite retribution is enough to call your claim into doubt.

There is absolutely no evidence that these stories were remotely written at the time. The nature of ancient literature most definitely brings their validity of actual historical records to doubt, not only the OT, but other ancient texts as well. The actual evolution of text from ore ancient Ugarit and older cuneiform texts supports this. It is very common in many ancient cultures to use fortune telling warnings, and prophesies to justify God(s) wrath for disobedience as in the Orient.

[tabibito]

I would say that possibilities used to justify religious assumptions have every bit as much weight as possibilities to used to discredit religious assumptions.

[tabibito]

It is interesting to see the influence that the Hebrews and Canaanite had on each other as they lived as neighbors. And it seems that no matter how hard the priestly, and prophet casts of Israeli society tried to purge the early Yahweh cult of such influences much slipped in and was adapted to fit the archetypes and metaphors of the people.

OK - deduction based on the foregoing text was not quite as cut and dried as it appeared. However, this piece does make whether various records might have originated with Hebrew or Canaanite a matter for conjecture.
However, with regard to Psalm 29 - I think it possible that David swiped it from the Canaanites. There would have been a religio-political one-upmanship advantage.

[shunyadragon]

I would say that possibilities used to justify religious assumptions have every bit as much weight as possibilities to used to discredit religious assumptions.

The problem of the elephant remains in the room. No evidence of absolutely any Biblical text in Hebrew prior to ~600 BCE. The evolution of ancient text from pre Babylonian cuneiform, Ugarit, Canaanite and Babylonian texts remains the only evidence we have.

Need something more then an emotional attachment to the validity of ancient Biblical text to justify an argument. Still waiting . . .

[tabibito]

Dateline - 2010

The discovery last year of Hebrew writing on a piece of pottery from the 10th century BC may mean the Bible is hundreds of years older than previously thought, researchers say. Similarities in language and content indicate that portions of the Hebrew Bible were written before the commonly accepted date of 600 BC, scholars say.

The artifact “indicates the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE,” an Israeli professor tells LiveScience. “At least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.” The text “uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew,” and its commandments regarding the treatment of slaves, widows, and orphans resemble those in Isaiah, Psalms, and Exodus.

[Mr. Anderson]

Already addressed this. In the history of known Biblical stories and writings in cuneiform tablets this is a bit late. Still no evidence that OT text existed before the proto Canaanite writings and cuneiform tablets. More then just an aside, it is not Biblical Hebrew, it is proto Canaanite. Evidence? Still waiting. . .

(Cross and Lambdin 1960:21-26) Among the texts discovered in ancient Ugarit is one giving in parallel the signs of the Ugaritic alphabet and corresponding syllabic cuneiform signs providing the pronunciation of the first syllable, as in: g : ga - for gamlu "throwstick" Both concluded that this text provided confirmation of other evidence that the names of the Proto-Canaanite signs as well as their order are at least as old as the 14th century B.C., and adds additional support to the view that the acrophonic principle, integral to the names of the signs went back to the invention of the script.


This is no proof of Biblical texts written in Proto-Canaanite let alone Hebrew. Yet it leaves the door open that such texts were possible at the time. Scientific method will require that such texts be found before actual proof can be declared. But such method doesn't shut the door on said possibility, it takes a person with a particular ideological mindset to do that. And that mindset, like religious belief, is also outside of the scientific method.