Announcement

Collapse

World History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to World History 201.

Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.

This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.

The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Will the real date of the Exodus please stand out.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The exageration of numbers is only an example. It is not as simple as that.
    O ... K .... but Caesar still wrote seven books and ordered writing of eighth book of Bellum Gallicum.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    NO!
    Your shouting no won't change that this is my argument.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No, historians rely on corraborating evidence and archaeological evidence outside the Bellum Gallicum.
    For his being the real author?

    Give me a break, I am a Latinist, I know how authorship assignment works in relation to Latin / Roman antiquities!

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    There is no archaeological evidence.
    I said it was another matter, I did not say I would agree there was none.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The fact that some events in Egyptian history are found in Exodus does not lend any credibility to the Exodus being an accurate account of the time. Historical events are found in ancient legends in many different cultures of the world and there is no reason assume that they are accurate first person accounts.

    The bottom line remains there is no evidence for the account of Exodus in the Pentateuch being a first person account by anyone including Moses.
    Moses actually, like Caesar after him, wrote Exodus in third person.

    "Historical events are found in ancient legends in many different cultures of the world and there is no reason assume that they are accurate first person accounts."

    In this case there is, as there is an ancient authorship assignment.

    Accepting these does not depend on archaeological confirmation, it is rather that discarding an ancient and in ancient times undisputed authorship assignment needs a special reason.

    We accept Bellum Gallicum as genuinely Caesar's, because we have no special reason to discard it, and it is in general probable that actual author of a text is reflected with an attribution of it.

    So, what are your positive special reason's for discarding Moses' authorship? A negative reason like mere lack of archaeological evidence is not how authorships are discarded in academia related to Rome and Greece.
    Last edited by hansgeorg; 01-04-2017, 07:21 AM.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
      It couldn't by any chance go back as far as Moses, a half millennium before the place you give it?
      Moses probably would've written in proto-Canaanite.

      Assuming an Exodus between roughly 1250 and 1100 BC, it's possible, but it would likely be a translation into Hebrew from proto-Canaanite.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by psstein View Post
        Moses probably would've written in proto-Canaanite.

        Assuming an Exodus between roughly 1250 and 1100 BC, it's possible, but it would likely be a translation into Hebrew from proto-Canaanite.
        How many of the changes would have been affecting only vowels?
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by psstein View Post
          Moses probably would've written in proto-Canaanite.
          More seriously, I don't believe in glottochronology. It is impossible to determine accurately how many centuries earlier than observed divergence x the languages xa and xb were a pre-x proto-language.

          When it comes to accumulated changes, it is a very fair guess it took some 500 - 800 years between French and Spanish on the popular level of pronunciation.

          But Hebrew and Phoenician need not have developed at same pace. Just because a tablet of Ugarit has a divergent language, I don't know by how much, one need not presume both Biblical Hebrew and Phoenician developed from the language of Ugarit. Instead, Hebrew can have been same, and Phoenician can have converged toward Hebrew from Ugarit parameters to known Punic ones.
          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

          Comment


          • #95
            And back to "How many of the changes would have been affecting only vowels?"

            When a written language already exists with normative old texts, these shape the spelling, and this despite changes in pronunciation. Most words are very similar between Chaucer's English and today's in spelling. Pour cause ... there has been no respelling between the times. There have been attempts to normalise spelling variants (cloaths, cloathes, clothes, victory for last spelling, as with stoan vs stone), but there has been no change of basic system as there was back just before Chaucer, when [ü] (now extant) changed spelling from Anglo-Saxon y to English u, and when [u] changed spelling at least when long from u to ou, after French.

            Similarily, Fredegar of Tours is basically using same spelling as Cicero (with less unity) despite pronouncing a language which would be more phonetically spelled in Spanish / French / some mix than in Latin.

            When pronunciation changes, a written language need not be lost, nor changed, but the pronunciation rules may change to accomodate the new pronunciations.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              And back to "How many of the changes would have been affecting only vowels?"

              When a written language already exists with normative old texts, these shape the spelling, and this despite changes in pronunciation. Most words are very similar between Chaucer's English and today's in spelling. Pour cause ... there has been no respelling between the times. There have been attempts to normalise spelling variants (cloaths, cloathes, clothes, victory for last spelling, as with stoan vs stone), but there has been no change of basic system as there was back just before Chaucer, when [ü] (now extant) changed spelling from Anglo-Saxon y to English u, and when [u] changed spelling at least when long from u to ou, after French.

              Similarily, Fredegar of Tours is basically using same spelling as Cicero (with less unity) despite pronouncing a language which would be more phonetically spelled in Spanish / French / some mix than in Latin.

              When pronunciation changes, a written language need not be lost, nor changed, but the pronunciation rules may change to accomodate the new pronunciations.
              Not really the subject of the thread.

              I am not certain how this is relevant to the topic, since there are not any ancient writings of Exodus subject to interpretation problems because vowels were not used nor pronunciation issues.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment

              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
              Working...
              X