Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 6:02:55 GMT -5
The greatest biblical myth today is that we owe the Jews of the Babylonian captivity for
crafting the bible. All the stories of Abraham, Joseph, the Promised Land, even King David,
were all made up, so some scholars and their minions hope.
I encountered this recently.
Joseph, Seer of Egypt *
www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/maclaren/genesis/joseph-the-prime-minister.html
Seems our Babylonian Jews were especially clever - not only did they have a detailed knowledge
of the Bronze Age, but they understood the ancient Sumerian language, too.
Where did they get this information? From more ancient texts obviously. Archaeology hadn't been
invented then, and it is argued that ancient Sumer had vanished from memory.
Did these texts come from Babylonian libraries? If so, where is the evidence, and why would the
Babylonian keep such details about Hebrews in Canaan?
The fact is the Jews are a very clever race, and if other nations kept their history, then so
did they. We call it the bible.
* The proclamation made before him as he rode in the second chariot has been very variously
interpreted. It has been taken for a Hebraised Egyptian word, meaning 'Cast thyself down'; and
this interpretation was deemed the most probable, until Assyrian discovery brought to light
'that abarakku is the Assyrian name of the grand vizier' (Fr. Delitzsch, Hebrew Language Viewed
in the Light of Assyrian Research, p. 26). Sayce proposes another explanation, also from the
cuneiform tablets: 'There was a word abrilc in the Sumerian language, which signified a seer,
and was borrowed by the Semitic Babylonians under the varying forms of abrikku and abarakku. It
is abrikku which we have in Genesis, and the title applied by the people to the "seer" Joseph
proves to be the one we should most naturally expect.' The Tel el-Amarna tablets show that the
knowledge of cuneiform writing was common in Egypt (Sayce, Higher Criticism and the Monuments,
p. 214). This explanation is tempting, but it is perhaps scarcely probable that the proclamation
should have been in any other language than Egyptian, or should have had reference to anything
but Joseph's new office. It was not as seer that he was to be obeyed, but as Pharaoh's representative,
even though he had become tho latter because he had proved himself the former.
But in any case, the whole context is accurately and strongly Egyptian. Was there any point in the
history of Israel, down to an impossibly late date, except the time of Moses, at which Jewish writers
were so familiar with Egypt as to have been capable of producing so true a picture?
crafting the bible. All the stories of Abraham, Joseph, the Promised Land, even King David,
were all made up, so some scholars and their minions hope.
I encountered this recently.
Joseph, Seer of Egypt *
www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/maclaren/genesis/joseph-the-prime-minister.html
Seems our Babylonian Jews were especially clever - not only did they have a detailed knowledge
of the Bronze Age, but they understood the ancient Sumerian language, too.
Where did they get this information? From more ancient texts obviously. Archaeology hadn't been
invented then, and it is argued that ancient Sumer had vanished from memory.
Did these texts come from Babylonian libraries? If so, where is the evidence, and why would the
Babylonian keep such details about Hebrews in Canaan?
The fact is the Jews are a very clever race, and if other nations kept their history, then so
did they. We call it the bible.
* The proclamation made before him as he rode in the second chariot has been very variously
interpreted. It has been taken for a Hebraised Egyptian word, meaning 'Cast thyself down'; and
this interpretation was deemed the most probable, until Assyrian discovery brought to light
'that abarakku is the Assyrian name of the grand vizier' (Fr. Delitzsch, Hebrew Language Viewed
in the Light of Assyrian Research, p. 26). Sayce proposes another explanation, also from the
cuneiform tablets: 'There was a word abrilc in the Sumerian language, which signified a seer,
and was borrowed by the Semitic Babylonians under the varying forms of abrikku and abarakku. It
is abrikku which we have in Genesis, and the title applied by the people to the "seer" Joseph
proves to be the one we should most naturally expect.' The Tel el-Amarna tablets show that the
knowledge of cuneiform writing was common in Egypt (Sayce, Higher Criticism and the Monuments,
p. 214). This explanation is tempting, but it is perhaps scarcely probable that the proclamation
should have been in any other language than Egyptian, or should have had reference to anything
but Joseph's new office. It was not as seer that he was to be obeyed, but as Pharaoh's representative,
even though he had become tho latter because he had proved himself the former.
But in any case, the whole context is accurately and strongly Egyptian. Was there any point in the
history of Israel, down to an impossibly late date, except the time of Moses, at which Jewish writers
were so familiar with Egypt as to have been capable of producing so true a picture?