Sodom and Gomorrah Discovered

[tabibito]

Not to mention that complaining that the scriptures weren't written in Hebrew script is kind of like complaining that they weren't written in Modern English script. 1000 BC - neither alphabet existed. Written Hebrew as we know it developed from Aramaic, and didn't fully replace the prior Phoenician based script until around 500 BC.
We have a full and proper reason - right there - for the lack of any written Hebrew documentation prior to 600 BC ... the Hebrew alphabet didn't exist.

[shunyadragon]

Not to mention that complaining that the scriptures weren't written in Hebrew script is kind of like complaining that they weren't written in Modern English script. 1000 BC - neither alphabet existed. Written Hebrew as we know it developed from Aramaic, and didn't fully replace the prior Phoenician based script until around 500 BC.

False analogy. Actually both Aramaic and Hebrew share similar origins in Canaanite and related languages such as Phoenician. The Hebrew language did not originate from Aramaic, they shared common origins.

We have a full and proper reason - right there - for the lack of any written Hebrew documentation prior to 600 BC ... the Hebrew alphabet didn't exist.

Still the evidence trail leads to Ugarit, Canaanite, pre-Babylonian, and Babylonian origins. No other evidence exists for the text.

[shunyadragon]

(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.

Correct!!

[shunyadragon]

Not to mention that complaining that the scriptures weren't written in Hebrew script is kind of like complaining that they weren't written in Modern English script. 1000 BC - neither alphabet existed. Written Hebrew as we know it developed from Aramaic, and didn't fully replace the prior Phoenician based script until around 500 BC.
We have a full and proper reason - right there - for the lack of any written Hebrew documentation prior to 600 BC ... the Hebrew alphabet didn't exist.

Respond to Mr. Anderson's post!

[shunyadragon]

Dateline - 2010

Sort of old news, but need an actual reference. I believe what is found is not Biblical Hebrew, but the already discussed proto Canaanite fragment resembling possible a primitive Hebrew.

The evidence does not indicate the 'Kingdom of Israel' existed. It demonstrated that possibly something existed prior to 600 BCE. We need a great deal more substantial evidence that a 'Kingdom' existed.

[tabibito]

Still the evidence trail leads to Ugarit, Canaanite, pre-Babylonian, and Babylonian origins. No other evidence exists for the text.

With the discoveries of David's palace and Jericho, we have reasonable provenance. Assuming of course, that the final results of those sites don't contradict evidence to date.

The discovery of that pottery shard shows that at least part of the Old Testament existed in some form, 400 years earlier than you have been claiming. That is hard evidence... The 600 BC estimate is shown to be incorrect.

[tabibito]

(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.

New things have been discovered in the interim. Response complete.

[shunyadragon]

With the discoveries of David's palace and Jericho, we have reasonable provenance. Assuming of course, that the final results of those sites don't contradict evidence to date.

The discovery of that pottery shard shows that at least part of the Old Testament existed in some form, 400 years earlier than you have been claiming. That is hard evidence... The 600 BC estimate is shown to be incorrect.

No not hard evidence as previously dealt with. You need a reference here that it is actually a part of the Hebrew OT, because it is a proto Canaanite text, and not necessarily even a primitive Hebrew as such. As already covered there is abundant earlier evidence of Ugarit, pre Babylonian and Canaanite evidence for earlier origins then this.

The discovery of what is called David's Palace and Jericho do not justify the origins of the Pentateuch and Psalms text. I will discuss the problems of the above discoveries next.

[tabibito]

Assuming the story of the exodus is based in fact, there would be no written records dating earlier than that time: only an oral tradition could be expected. Anything resembling written records from the immediately post exodus period would most likely be based on Egyptian writing systems. With adoption of a different writing system, anything written prior to that time would lapse into irrelevance once it had been transcribed: it would not be maintained.
Anything that might be preserved from the time prior to the adoption of the new writing system would be due to nothing more than happenstance.

[shunyadragon]

New things have been discovered in the interim. Response complete.

Response not complete. Later discoveries have supported this.

[shunyadragon]

Assuming the story of the exodus is based in fact, there would be no written records dating earlier than that time: only an oral tradition could be expected. Anything resembling written records from the immediately post exodus period would most likely be based on Egyptian writing systems. With adoption of a different writing system, anything written prior to that time would lapse into irrelevance once it had been transcribed: it would not be maintained.
Anything that might be preserved from the time prior to the adoption of the new writing system would be due to nothing more than happenstance.

Confusing at best. There are no writings to support Exodus from the time it is claimed to have taken place nor shortly after in any language. The evidence in Palestine does not support the Hebrew conquest of the region nor the large numbers of Hebrews claimed to have moved into the Palestine region. By far the dominant evidence is for a 'home grown' Hebrew culture, and eventually a Kingdom.

Actually the question of the occurrence of Exodus as described is nothing more then an anecdotal claim without supporting evidence.

[tabibito]

My post #76: Written Hebrew as we know it developed from Aramaic
Your post #77: The Hebrew language did not originate from Aramaic, they shared common origins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ebrew_alphabet
Following the Babylonian exile, Jews gradually stopped using the Hebrew script, and instead adopted the "square" Aramaic script (another offshoot of the same family of scripts).

The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום) is an abjad offshoot of the ancient Semitic alphabet and closely related to the Phoenician alphabet from which it descends. It dates to the 10th century BCE or earlier. It was used as the main vehicle for writing the Hebrew language by the Israelites,

Until 600BC, written Hebrew looked like this:
310px-Paleo-hebrew_alphabet.jpg
THIS is Hebrew from well before 600BC. The words are Hebrew, but the lettering hasn't developed to be distinctively Hebrew.
Hebrew on Shard.jpg

[tabibito]

As to whether the exodus account has a reasonable level of basis in fact - if the Jericho find ever gets consensus, there'll be more to go on. Until now claim and counter claim are raising too much dust to get a clear picture.
If it is established that Jericho did in fact fall as described in the Bible - a good part of the exodus story is substantiated.
If it is established that Jericho didn't fall as described in the Bible - the exodus story has to be assigned to probably mythical.
Evaluations of the events between Exodus and toward the end of the time of the judges hinge on what transpires with Jericho.

[Mr. Anderson]

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 . . .

Priestly blessing found in gravesite on a small silver scroll dates to 800 B.C. Definitely from the Pentetuach. Not sure whether it was written in Proto-Canaanite though.

[tabibito]

http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/old_courses/class%20of%2051/jericho/kenyon.html Kenyon is arguing that Jericho fell long before the time that the Bible indicates. She also seems more or less satisfied that the Bible chronology is messed up - not that the record of the fall of Jericho is incorrect, just the timing.
The ruins of Jericho tell a story of a thoroughly anomalous sacking that did not conform in any way with normal city sieges of the time. The walls collapsed as described in the Bible (though Kenyon does ascribe the collapse to wholly natural causes).

This site gives a bit more detail, but seems not as dispassionate.