You are as unconvinced as me. I go for a date of nearer 1000BC. I find much
Biblical criticism as very tendentious and unconvincing. Lots of strong
argumentw on virtually no evidence.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Clarke" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3
> Hi George
> I have always found this sort of argument about the dating of Genesis 1
> contrived and based on some untestable assumptions about how the Bible
> together. But perhaps that is my ignorance speaking. So some questions.
> a 6th century date for Genesis 1 (henceforth refered to as the late date)
> justified with respect to the following:
> 1. The exile was not the first exposure to the Israelites to Babylonian
> as the patriarchs also came from that background (or do those who argue
for a late
> date believe there is no historical basis for the patriarchial story)?
> 2. Canaanite religion was similar to Babylonain religion in is veneration
> stars (although to a lesser degree). The Egyptians also worshipped the sun
> moon. Could the down playing of astronomical bodies might as much be
> these religions as the Bablyonian?
> 3. The Samartian Pentetuch includes Genesis 1. Given the increasingly
> relationship between Jews and Samaritans when some Jews returned from
exile is it
> likely that the Samaritans would have adopted anything compiled by the
> 4. Do not some Psalms ascribed to David contain references to Genesis 1
> waters above in Ps 96, for example)?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 17 2002 - 17:23:27 EST