Re: Genesis in cuneiform on tablets

From: PASAlist@aol.com
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 23:44:20 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: higher criticism"

    Paul: < In the ancient Near East in the time of the patriarchs, only about 5%
    of the
    > population could write. One had to hire a scribe (a lawyer) even to send a
    > letter to someone, and at the other end, one had to hire a scribe to read
    the
    > letter to you.

    Peter: < It probably wouldn't be easy to document such a figure of 5%, even
    its
      order of magnitude. I consider it a plain speculation.>

    Paul: The figure is based on the indications in the tablets themselves. It
    is not based on mere speculation. In her recent book, Daily Life in Ancient
    Mesopotamia (2002), Karen Nemet-Nejat, professor at Yale U., says (p. 54),
    "Most people were not literate. With approximately six hundred signs with
    multiple values, education was confined to the few. Even priests, kings,
    governors, and judges were illiterate, with few exceptions." In the most
    authoritative up to date source on civilizations in the ancient Near East,
    William Whitt writing in CANE, vol 4 p. 2395, says, "The most we can suppose
    of craftsmen, merchants, and landowners is that they possessed the skills to
    compose and read simple texts, such as accounts or inventories; there is no
    reason to believe that very many of them could read difficult literary or
    religious texts [which is what Genesis 1-37 is]. Most men in this group would
    be considered semiliterate by today's standards. The size of this segment of
    the population is difficult to estimate and must have varied from region to
    region, but in the Levant it was probably less than 10% of all adult males.
    The rest of the men, almost all of the women would be considered illiterate
    in the modern sense of the word." Note that when the women are factored in,
    you have less than 5% of the population able to read and write, and even that
    is only at a semi-literate level.

    Paul: > I have never heard of a semi-nomadic tribe carrying around cuneiform
    tablets.>

    Peter: <You have if you read P.J. Wiseman.>

    Paul: I have read P.J. Wiseman, and I have still not seen it.

    Paul: >Gen 5 or 11 could have existed, but Gen 12 - 36 is about a private
    family of
    > semi-nomads with lots of details about their history. There is nothing
    > really comparable to that in the thousands of tablets thus far discovered
    and
    > translated. I could accept that maybe the genealogies per se were written
    > down, though they are kept orally in most tribes, but the idea that Gen 12 -
    > 36 was all inscribed on tablets before the author of Genesis got it is
    > historically improbable.>

    Peter: <Wiseman estimated that (by 1936) 250,000 clay tablets had been found.
    He
    mentions some examples of very ordinary, every-day letters. Abraham's
    family history contained some very important divine promises for future
    generations. There is nothing really comparable to that in the rest of
    ancient history. I think the supposition that Abraham's family wouldn't
    have inscribed these things on tablets is historically improbable.
    Wiseman calls the supposition of a merely oral tradition of the Genesis
    material a fiction spun out of thin air.>

    Paul: What Wiseman did not say about the ordinary letters is that they are
    rare and a scribe probably composed them. In addition, letters are not
    comparable to Gen 1-36. Nor is there any objective evidence that Abraham's
    family wrote down anything or even that they probably would. As for Wiseman's
    opinions about oral tradition, they are out of date and never were supported
    by objective evidence. There is objective evidence that nomadic tribes commit
    even the genealogies which are the foundation of their political and economic
    power to oral tradition (R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical
    World) If they are willing to trust their political and economic power to
    oral tradition, then it is probable that they would trust divine promises to
    it as well.

    Finally, if Gen 1-36 was written down on clay tablets in a series of "books"
    beginning with one written by Adam, it was probably done by way of hiring a
    scribe. Since there is no truly comparable such literature in the cuneiform
    tablets so far discovered and translated, I do not find this probable. In
    fact, I find it chronologically impossible. Here's why:

    The art of writing before 3000 B.C. and probably somewhat later was a matter
    of pictographs without grammar. That is, it was not capable of expressing the
    ideas present in Gen 1 ff. The first literary texts that we have are from c.
    2600 B.C., but could conceivably have been written somewhat earlier. Wiseman
    proposes that Gen 1-5:2 was composed by Adam near the end of his life. Since
    Adam would have needed a genuine writing system with grammar to compose such
    a book, he must have died no earlier than 3000 B.C.

    >From Gen 5:2 to 10:1 Wiseman says two books were written, one by Noah
    (5:3-6:9a) and one by the sons of Noah (6:9b to 10:1). This latter book
    includes the story of the Tower of Babel, as remembered and told by Noah's
    sons according to Wiseman. Since the Tower of Babel must antedate 2200 B.C.
    because it is mentioned as being rebuilt by King Sharkalisharri who is dated
    c. 2200, you have 800 years at the most (3000 to 2200) between the death of
    Adam and the Tower of Babel. So, according to Wiseman's theory, you only have
    800 years at most to cover the genealogy of Gen 5. from the death of Adam to
    the sons of Noah. But, the genealogy clearly requires more than 800 years, so
    Wiseman's theory is chronologically impossible.

    There are other inconsistencies in Wiseman's theory that make it improbable,
    but the one impossibilbity is decisive against it.

    Paul



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 08 2002 - 23:56:02 EDT