Evidence for the Exodus (part 1): Introduction and Authorship of the Pentateuch
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 02. 2021
- Okay, this new series on the Evidence for the Exodus hasn’t gone quite to plan. In this video, I will explain how things went a bit awry. I’ll also begin our treatment of the topic at large by giving my opinion about the Documentary Hypothesis and the authorship of the Pentateuch.
A summary with the title of Ben Noonan's book can be found here: www.asor.org/anetoday/2020/06....
If you feel like directly supporting the work, also consider becoming a patron on my Patreon account / egyptandthebible . Also consider purchasing my book, “The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey.” Available now through most major book retailers. And in October I will be hosting a tour with Tutku Tours.
For more information about this tour in Egypt, please visit Tutku Tours www.tutkutours.com/00_EGYPT_T....
At 4:50 "...because we'd be doing this for 12 weeks, and I think everybody would be sick of the Exodus at that point."
Numbers 14:4 (ESV): 4 And they said to one another, “Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt"
Ha ha ha... probably. :)
Thank you for your willingness to engage with comments on these videos. That is a great thing, and also makes it easier to engage with your take on these issues. :-) Too many academics seem to have their own specific "presentation" which they stick to (and get paid for - no bad thing in an of itself!) - but when they are seemingly unwilling to think off the cuff and engage us "little people" with a back and forth, it can make me somewhat suspicious of their point of view and their whole shtick. I also respect how you deal with rude or deranged "heresy-hunters" in the comments (seriously, who calls someone "satan" over these debated technicalities!?) I know an argument is an argument, regardless of who presents it, but it does make it easier to receive things when the person positing ideas is polite, willing to engage, and be vulnerable to scrutiny. I say this as a Christian who believes in God because of experiences I can't explain, but who also struggles with the historicity of important portions of Scripture (like the Exodus!) God bless you.
Thank you for your kind words. 😀 And there is nothing wrong with being paid for your work--I wish I was being paid for this. It would sure make life easier. But I love engaging people and answering their questions. Blessings...
I love it when archeology, history, and the Bible meet. Going to love your channel.
Quality! That’s what this is. I had never heard any of that before. The only similar comparison I had heard before was that the author of the story of Samson accurately described a philistine temple several centuries after there were no more Philistines. I have always believed that there had to be a writing system in use since before the exodus. Thank you. Can’t wait for the next one.
Thanks for embodying St. Anselm's motto, "Faith seeking understanding." (Subbed!)
Fascinating! Seriously looking forward to this series.
This is perhaps the most important subject for an expert on the Bible and Ancient Egypt to cover. As least in my opinion.
SO EXCITED for this series
This is invaluable information Dr. Falk! So glad I discovered your channel; been trying to work my way through the content from beginning to end and have finally reached here! Love the immense variety: The Exodus, then hieroglyphics, archeology, the history of Ancient Egypt, their religious beliefs, what they ate and how they made it(more ancient egyptian cooking videos please! XD). Holistic thinking like this is what, I think, will make the biggest impact when it comes to educating the public on Ancient Egypt and maybe hopefully drawing them in to a more closer examonation of the Exodus account. Again tremendous job!
Thank you so much for the encouraging comment. 😊
I will not get tired of your exodus videos. Keep em' coming, please!
Okay, I'll keep making them. 😄
Found your channel through Inspiring Philosophy highlighting one of your reaction videos. Found you you Exodus series by skimming through your video list.
Cool! I hope you enjoy the content. 🙂
David, im a new subscriber in your channel but man i really love your videos lol :) i hope u get 1k soon my man, happy easter
Thank you very much. 😁 And happy Easter to you too. Blessings!!!
I liked and enjoyed watching band learning from this video. Looking forward to watch the rest too.
Just when I got done watching all of ip's vids I see your channel and man oh man am I happy about it
Hey since I know you believe the conquest happened I was wondering what you think of the theory that the isrealite actually just emerged from the canninites
@@j.gstudios4576 I don't think he will get a notification if you respond to your own comment. Post it again but as a separate comment.
@@benrex7775 thanks will do
Same!
I need more like this.
MOAR!
Great stuff Dr Falk.
Looking forward to watching this series. Thx for uploading
Late to the party, but what a good party so far. I'd never heard about the donor words argument before, and that is not an insignificant argument against the Documentary Hypothesis. Looking forward to gleaning more info as this series progresses.
Just want to say again I appreciate what you do here. Before I discovered your channel, I was listening to Answers in Genesis videos. A lot of their stuff sounded good at first but the more I listened to other views, their most recent content just seemed off to me. I like how you are willing to admit your bias, as everyone has a bias whether they realize it or not.
You have no idea how much more blessed your life will be here rather than there. AiG makes great converts...for atheism!
I love the musical jingle you always use in the beginning
Thank you!!! The music was done by Velocirabbit. czcams.com/channels/ksBYDO8m4dScpLCMvZ0CgQ.html
Can't wait to sink my teeth into this series! Have one for the algorithm!
Excellent point, which is the same conclusion I came to, that being the text itself using lone words from Egypt, in the same way later Bible texts use Babylonian and Persian words after the exile. So if one knows Persian and Babylonian words entered the texts because of being exposed to such culture due to captivity, one can argue the same for the texts using Egyptian words earlier on.
I would love to hear your views on the book of Daniel and it’s dating. Great video!
Another thing, which books you recommend for non scholars that might give us some perspective about ancient Egypt? And which other book try to link ancient historical events with the Bible that are worthwhile to get?
Wow. Thank you for your great work! It always fascinates me to think about how we got our Bibles. Where can I find more reliable evidence (preferably digestible) for an early dating of the Torah?
Inspiring Philosophy is a great channel for it.
YOU ARE A BEAST! A gentleman and a scholar!
People have been saying that a lot. I'm not always sure that's a complement. 🤷♂️
@@ancientegyptandthebible Let me assure you that it is most certainly a compliment. Thank you for your work and your channel.
@@ancientegyptandthebibleIt depends. How many plates are you pushing, pulling, and squatting? If it's a lot, it's a compliment.
Great video Dr Falk! Are you planning to make a series of videos about evidence for the book of Numbers??
Not at the moment. I'm just trying to get through the teaching goals I've committed to..
Thanks for this video Dr. Falk! I am mainly an apologist and I must admit that the DH is relatively new to me. I'm trying to find the best recourses I can to understand the DH, so far what I've been recommended was William Henry Green refutation of the DH. Do you have any suggestions for reading material to get a good overview of the DH both for and against? Sorry to bother you for sources! Thank you for your work!
God Bless!
A classical critique of the DH was done by Cassuto. A recent critique has also been done by Joshua Berman.
Thanks!
At least in Amazon, you book is 'out of stock'. I live in the United Kingdom and I would like to acquire you book about the "Ark of Covenant".
I have a technical question: is that a green screen or a real bookshelf in the background? (I'm only half joking, the contours of Dr Falk on the background are suspiciously crisp, lol)
That was the best $5 green screen that money can buy and no expense cutting measure was spared in the production of these videos. However, the background bookshelf is really a photo of my bookshelf. I very much love my books.
hey dr. falk! love your channel. do you have any papers or articles to recommend regarding the egyptian "day-book" phenomenon? to me, that seems like a very valuable observation that heavily strengthens the reliability of the torah and id love to learn more about it.
Do you believe that the prominent reason that scholarship rejects The Exodus is because of the supernatural implications or is it really based off of archaeological evidence
The Documentary Hypothesis is not necessarily connected to being written in Babylon. Richard Elliot Friedman dates the oldest stratum, the Jahwist source, to the ninth century.
I've often wondered about the need to present Egypt as all bad and Israeilists having to escape. They were there for hundreds of years. There had to have been some type of osmosis during that time with some beliefs (among other things) being incorporated iand/or adapted into Israelites over time. Egypt had control of quite a bit of territory including the Canaanite area from what I read. The story, doesn't negate to me Israel and then later Christianity it just broadens the scope of understanding - for me anyway. Somehow during this presentation I get the sense that the DH hypothesis wanted to negate Egypt entirely. I don't know if I'm reading/hearing you correctly or imposing my own thoughts into your presentation. Would like to know if I'm going down a dead end path with this.
I've always believed the hatred for the Israelites was a gradual process. Demographically, they were growing too large, and I can't help but wonder if their settling in the land of Goshen (which was said to be the best of the land) was also a source of bitterness, especially when the rest of the population was bartering their own land for food.
You're correct in what you're thinking except I doubt that Dr. Falk presents Egypt as all bad. There had to be some osmosis in hundreds of years. Egypt was the first superpower for over a thousand years. Egypt controlled the trade routes to what we call the middle east, Europe, and I believe even parts of Asia. Its beliefs in one way or another had to permeate other thought/belief patterns - even if unconsciously and vice versa. This doesn't negate Israelites leaving or other issues at all. I just tells me history is all much more complicated than we want to believe.
So since I know you believe the conquest happened I wanted to know your thoughts on the idea that the isrealites just emerged from the canninites after they had an economic collapse?
Hey Dr Falk! Ever the sceptic here, what peer reviewed papers have you published regarding your hypothesis? Can you send links? Also, do you have any videos of you engaging other non-religous egyptologists who disagree with your evidence?
Hi Jerry, if you want read my peer-reviewed work and my CV, you can check out my academia.edu page. I have not debated other Egyptologists since my Egyptology work is quite uncontroversial and they are not really interested in the Bible or exodus. My ideas are generally much more controversial among other Christians. However, feel free to enjoy the content I've posted.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Hi David, I introduced my friend Jerry here.
Just letting you know.
I've been introducing people to your channel as it's one of the very few ones by people who are actually scholars. It's very important for my research. Me and Jerry got into a debate and he's a staunch atheist.
I don't mean to be critical just giving context.
Great video again, Dr. Falk. Can you give a source for the absence of Old Iranian words in the Torah?
I've put a link to the source in the video description. Best!!!
@@ancientegyptandthebible I guess I was blind haha. What do you say to those who think the absence of these loanwords in the Pentateuch is an argument from silence when Haggai, though written after the exile, Zecheriah 1-8, and Isaiah 40-55 and 56-66 also have no Old Persian/Iranian loanwords?
Hi @@amolinguas
> I guess I was blind haha.
Just set aside off them rose-tinted specs and you'll be fine. ;)
> What do you say to those who think the absence of these loanwords in the Pentateuch is an argument from silence when Haggai, though written after the exile, Zecheriah 1-8, and Isaiah 40-55 and 56-66 also have no Old Persian/Iranian loanwords?
It’s not really an argument from silence since we are arguing the presence of what is actually in the text. It is possible to argue against (although never completely disprove) a null hypothesis by the demonstrating what is present (positive evidence) instead. If we have a choice between out of Babylon or out of Egypt or even some other choice, any positive evidence is going to weigh in on that balance. So if I show that a text has exclusively Egyptian loanwords, that goes towards the balance of evidence. In other words, where does the preponderance of evidence rest? That's not an argument from silence since we are using positive evidence, i.e., the relative proportions of donor languages that actually exists in the texts. The presence of 30 Egyptian donor terms in the Torah is positive evidence that will weight in on the outcome. It might not be the only evidence one needs to make a case--and if you recall I did not use the donor word evidence in isolation--but it is evidence that should not be casually ignored.
But let’s look at your counter-examples since the claim of silence was made contingent upon counterfactuals. First, many of the loanwords are concentrated in certain chapters. So, slicing up books to weed out certain passages is selective evidence. This is how I would view the slicing of larger works into sub-canonical “works”, e.g., Zech 1-8.
Haggai is, well, just two very small chapters. I would say the same for Zech 1-8. Yes, it might be 8 chapters, but they are really small chapters. Zech 3 is only 10 verses. The sample sizes of these selections are too small to be significant for a statistical analysis of this kind. Any statistical analysis (and objection to it) will be stronger with a larger sample size than a smaller sample size.
As for Isaiah, again I’m not fond of the idea of source-critical methods where the first tool of choice is a razor blade. With the so-called “2nd Isaiah,” I would expect that Isaiah would have few Old Iranian words anyway, since I would regard Isaiah as having a primarily 7th cent. BC authorship date. I’m not convinced about source-critical theories regarding the authorship of Isaiah although I would recognize there might be some possible stitching of texts that occurred during the exile. Yet, I am really jaundiced towards attempts to late date portions of Isaiah on the basis of ex eventu prophecy-that seems like a circular assumption. And while ex eventu is possible, I wouldn’t instantly late date something that might be prophetic utterance instead. I'm not making a supernatural argument here, instead I think that there is a genre possibility that could be considered--but that is a technical argument beyond the scope of the question you've asked. But these are the kinds of shenanigans that have soured me to extreme source-critical approaches.
But then again I think there is strength to Noonan's approach. He is taking large bodies of text (Torah, former prophets, latter prophets, and writings) as groups for comparison, i.e., a bigger sample size, and he does so according to their self-reported context and genre. So he avoids the problems of front-loading source-critical assumptions.
@@ancientegyptandthebibleWe would expect to see more Persian loanwords in the Maccabees; do we?
@@MeanBeanComedy I don't know if Noonan applied his study to Maccabees. I'm not that familiar with Persian as a language and am not that into Maccabees as a text. So I can't really say.
And yes, it has scribal glosses. They're to prevent people from forgetting where things were and who people were as the data became obsolete.
Interesting to hear these things against the Documentary Hypothesis. What are your thoughts about the claim that Moses never existed?
Hi Disciple of Christ, most of those who deny the historicity of Moses also deny the general historicity of the exodus account. My research points to a historical 13th century BC exodus account and my work on the Ark of the Covenant revealed a Ramesside period context for the wilderness account. After showing the general historicity of both the exodus and wilderness accouts, it would make little sense for me to turn around and state that there was no Moses at the centre of it all. If everything else is historical (geography, culture, ritual, etc), I would have grave doubts about the consistency of any scenario that asserted that the central figure of the account was fictitious.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Good point, I should have thought of that. It seems ridiculous that people deny that Moses existed. It seems to me like you could use the some of the same arguments that people like Bart Erhman use to prove a historical Jesus could also be used to prove a historical Moses. Maybe I'm wrong and missing something there though. Looking forward to the series! This is channel is a hidden gem of CZcams.
@@Xenotypal Thank you. Hopefully, it won't remain a gem that is too hidden. ;)
Could you please point me to some articles/books that support the "Day Book Hypothesis". I find it an very interesting alternative to the documentary hypothesis. Thank you.
It's not exactly a formal hypothesis. It's more of an observation. Day-books are a well-recognized literary genre from ancient Egypt. It just strikes me that the much of the Pentateuch is reminiscent of the structure we find in day-books.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Sounds like a potential dissertation topic to me. I'll log this idea away for later.
Great video, what did you call it, a day-book?
Yes, a day-book or day-scroll. It's a scroll used to record the events of the day.
I'm going to show the sons of Levi narrative of Moses being drawn out is so much like Franglais. Its what english people living in France call what they end up speacking, loads of french words used when they talk. It really sounds like that story is in egypssebrew. Its really stuning.
UsefulChart made his own video on the Torah, what are your thoughts on it
Excuse me, Doctor
I am from Argentina and your videos are not available in Spanish. I only have two questions: is he a theist or an atheist? And two, do you believe in the historicity of the Exodus?
Atte,
Daniel
>> is he a theist or an atheist?
I am a theist.
>> do you believe in the historicity of the Exodus?
Yes.
Hi Dr. Falk, thank you for these excellent video series on Exodus! How confident are you that an Exodus occured and the person Moses lived as described in the Bible? What is the general consensus about the event and Moses? What are the main reasons given for non existent of Moses and Exodus? Regarding the documentary hypothesis, is this view on the decline? Why do not most scholars see the Bible as a valuable historical account or discount the evidence you gave? You mentioned that sections of the Torah are dating to 13th century BC due to culture references can you give examples of those? Thank you for taking the time to respond!
> How confident are you that an Exodus occured and the person Moses lived as described in the Bible?
I’m fairly confident. There is enough historical evidence to support an exodus type event. Given that, this means that the account is hagiography, which makes the probability of someone like Moses fairly high.
> What is the general consensus about the event and Moses?
The general opinion is both are myths.
> What are the main reasons given for non existent of Moses and Exodus?
Mostly, it’s an absence of evidence argument.
> Regarding the documentary hypothesis, is this view on the decline?
Yes slightly, but it still has its admirers and defenders.
> Why do not most scholars see the Bible as a valuable historical account or discount the evidence you gave?
Presuppositions that they were taught in their training.
> You mentioned that sections of the Torah are dating to 13th century BC due to culture references can you give examples of those?
The toponyms of the exodus route are very time specific.
@@ancientegyptandthebible wow, i didn't ask the question but thanks for the very well laid out answer.
I was brought up on the Babylonian scribe idea, but the problem is clearly that we do not know how oral traditions adjust over time, so bits are lost, changed or added. Without written or archaeological evidence, it is tough to determine the age of most of it. I tend to think that oral traditions in a consistent form cannot last that long, but there does seem to be a ruling theory about many generations due to the dating of Homer and Troy. So, if the dating of Troy is wrong, it impacts on other oral traditions.
I would agree that oral tradition can preserve much, but it is also true that the details often get lost. We find that when a tradition is passed down orally over a long period of time, noun replacement often takes place. And that is because language changes fairly rapidly. The original terms (especially nouns) tend to get updated with what in is in circulation at the time. For example, the term for linen in Hebrew is 'butz' or 'bad'. But in the Torah, an Egyptian loan-word 'shesh' is used instead. We would expect a replacement here for a tradition preserved orally then redacted. I'm not familiar with the textual history Trojan epic, so I cannot say more about this than I have. It sounds like an interesting rabbit hole.
@@ancientegyptandthebible The conventional wisdom is that the Trojan War was about 1190 BC and Homer is about 400 years later around 790BC. Although it is clear that bits have been added, such as the horse, but the bulk seems to have remained pretty intact. Thus, the claim is that oral history can exist for at least 400 years. The problem is that this period is basically the 300 years of the Greek Dark Age, based on the finding of Mycenaean pottery found at Armana. Of course, if that Dark Age, unmentioned in Greek literature, only arises from faulty chronology, then there is no basis to the claim that oral tradition can last 400 years.
@@davidhollins2582 That's really interesting. I haven't looked at the Greek stuff per se, although I have been asked (many times) to expand my chronological research to include the Greek material. Mycenean pottery was found at Amarna. I honestly don't see any potential for redating the Amarna period by more than a decade--there are too many synchronism data points for the Amarna period. A 300 year oral tradition I don't think would be out of the question, although I could agree that this might approach a practical limit for oral tradition. It's hard to know how much contemporizing Homer did because we don't have earlier Greek texts (or similar cognate language) against which we can compare his work, although it sure would have been fascinating if there were.
Fantastic
I'm had a online debate on Dr. Rohl's FB page about whether or not Moses knew and could write Semitic languages at the time of exodus. One scholar stated that every royal person in Lower Egypt used/spoke the Semitic language and thus the Bible was originally written in it. I asked whether the royal tombs of the time used Semitic language.
And asked Dr. Rohl why so many place names he used in his book were toponyms of Egyptian and not Semitic.
It did go over well. So about the language used by the King and Moses's Egyptian mother?
Hi 501Mobius,
> I'm had a online debate on Dr. Rohl's FB page about whether or not Moses knew and could write Semitic languages at the time of exodus.
Just a small point. “Dr. Rohl” is not a doctor of any kind. He does not hold a PhD or terminal doctoral degree, and he has never been in a PhD program. People often falsely credit him with having a PhD. Unfortunately, he seldom denies having a PhD and too often basks in stolen academic valor.
> One scholar stated that every royal person in Lower Egypt used/spoke the Semitic language and thus the Bible was originally written in it. I asked whether the royal tombs of the time used Semitic language. And asked Dr. Rohl why so many place names he used in his book were toponyms of Egyptian and not Semitic. It did go over well. So about the language used by the King and Moses's Egyptian mother?
I’m not surprised that didn’t go over well. Probative questions are seldom welcome on Mr. Rohl’s forums.
As for the language of the King and Moses’s adoptive mother, I think we need to point out some things because that is going to help us with this issue. Mr. Rohl believes that the exodus takes place at the end of the Middle Kingdom during the 2 years of Dudimose of Dynasty 13. Here’s why his followers wouldn’t like your question. During Dynasty 13, the capital of Egypt was at Itji-Tawy, near modern Lisht. Itji-Tawy was in Upper Egypt, far, far away from Avaris.
There was a small Semitic settlement near Itji-Tawy. But the settlement was not part of the capital and was too small for the Northwest Semitic dialect to really influence the royal court. Essentially, the royal family at Itji-Tawy spoke Egyptian in their daily lives.
Now, we also have to consider the Royal Kap, which was the school that most royals (including the king) and the scribes attended. Writing and language were taught there and included education in Egyptian and Akkadian (for scribes and diplomats). During the Middle Kingdom, it would have been unlikely that a crown prince (future king) would have received training in Akkadian. Not that this is all that helpful since Akkadian is an Eastern Semitic language that has a syntax that is completely different than Hebrew.
But a princess would have never received said training. As a Middle Kingdom princess, she would have been sequestered and would have had virtually no access to common civilians. And thus, if the exodus occurred during the Middle Kingdom, the adopted mother of Moses would have not had contact with a Semitic language.
Now, if the exodus took place during Dynasty 19 then the situation is very different. The Ramessides had their ancestral home and power base in the territory around Avaris. This is a family who held large land holdings in the land of Goshen. At Goshen, a Northwest Semitic dialect was a commonly spoken language with a massive Asiatic Semite population. The adoptive mother of Moses lived in the Nile Delta, as opposed to Itji-Tawy. And she would have grown up among the Semites, and some of this is because she was not always the daughter of the king. Thus, she had not been completely sequestered from other civilians, and was quite used to having certain freedoms. Her status improved along with the status of the entire Ramesside clan. So, that is a real game changer.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Thank you. I have just concerned myself with finding the correct exodus route and not it's timeframe.. I seemed to upset both the classical route theory and the Nuweiba beach group as I found both deficient. I did dabble in coming up with a few toponym names like for Dophkah -+turquoise bay
Egyptian D-jr - inlet turquoise (D-jr' mfkāt). But then the question of why is Egyptian used in the toponym if they spoke Semitic?
Hi @@501Mobius
> I have just concerned myself with finding the correct exodus route and not it's timeframe.. I seemed to upset both the classical route theory and the Nuweiba beach group as I found both deficient. I did dabble in coming up with a few toponym names like for Dophkah -+turquoise bay Egyptian D-jr - inlet turquoise (D-jr' mfkāt). But then the question of why is Egyptian used in the toponym if they spoke Semitic?
Well, your theories about the exodus route aside, one cannot separate the route from its timeframe because toponyms are often tied to specific historic periods. Nevertheless, it wouldn’t surprise me if Egyptian toponyms were found across the Sinai since they had at times complete hegemonic control of the area.
Do you think the descriptions of the tabernacle in exodus speak to an early authorship?
.
The long and detailed descriptions of the tabernacle feel to me almost like a manual in how to rebuild the tabernacle each time the Israelites moved around; which of course would be unnecessary after they settled in the promised land.
It does. Certain aspects of the tabernacle do speak to early authorship. The ark of the covenant definitely has a context that is easily dated from between Amenhotep III and the end of Dynasty 20.
@@ancientegyptandthebible
Oh yes of course, I forgot you wrote a book on it.
.
Does the book include any discussion on why God wanted his Ark or Tabernacle to mimic contemporary Egyptian customs (since God is described as mandating the design in Exodus)?
@@IamGrimalkin Yes, it does.
@@ancientegyptandthebible
Oh, great. I might see if I can buy a copy sometime.
What do you think of Dr John Collins saying the exodus was invented ?
I respectfully disagree with Collins. He is following the majority position, a lot of scholars go with the majority. I happen to disagree with the majority. 🤷♂
I have a question. As I don’t know your stance on religion or even if you believe in the Bible as the word of god. But one thing that troubles me is the dating specifically the great pyramids. They predate the flood. I have read many articles how the dating could be wrong. What are your thoughts on all of this?
> I have a question. As I don’t know your stance on religion or even if you believe in the Bible as the word of god.
Let's get this doubt out of the way. I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
> But one thing that troubles me is the dating specifically the great pyramids. They predate the flood. I have read many articles how the dating could be wrong. What are your thoughts on all of this?
My thought on this is that the dating is not wrong, but the interpretation of the genealogies in the Bible is wrong. Americans often read these genealogies with Western presuppositions, and these genealogies were never meant to be read in the way we read similar materials in the West. Gen 5 and 11 were never meant to be read as chronological data or even as a causally linked sequence of events. I've discussed this many times on this channel. One really needs to look at this in terms of clan identities and clan succession in order to understand these passages correctly. Suffice it to say that Gen 5 and 11, when properly understood, allow for the flood to occur thousands of years prior to the building of the pyramids.
I understand that. Also thank you for taking the time to reply. If I may ask a few more questions. Do you believe Adam and Eve were the only ones created or do you take the theistic evolution approach that other humans existed with Adam and even? Also when Matthew and Luke provided the lines for Jesus would that still work with the clan interpretation?
@@ghosto88
> Do you believe Adam and Eve were the only ones created or do you take the theistic evolution approach that other humans existed with Adam and even?
I have no opinion on this. This question is outside the scope of the Biblical text.
> Also when Matthew and Luke provided the lines for Jesus would that still work with the clan interpretation?
Sure, it does. It didn't matter to the Gospel writers whether Christ's ancestors were individuals or clan progenitors. It only mattered to them that they existed.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Liked & Subscribed, Thank you for doing this subject. May God Bless you.
My brain started to hurt
I cant tell if the background is a green screen!
Amazing video!
I have several questions.
First, is there any connection between egyptian moon god Iah(u) and hebrew Yahweh?
And second, is the work written by Ben Noonan(which you refer to) available online?
Hello Марко Митровић,
Okay, there is no connection between Iah and Yahweh. While the consonants may look similar in English, they are completely unrelated in the ancient languages. There is no way to can get to Yahweh from the spelling of Iah. The reed-leaf plus arm (ayin) never equate to the Hebrew yod. As for the work by Ben Noonan, you can find a summary with the title of his book here: www.asor.org/anetoday/2020/06/loanwords-hebrew-bible. I hope that helps. :)
Pozdrav, lol.
One wonders if Moses wrote a major part of the Pentateuch in Egyptian. He only gaining familiarity to Hebrew in his last 40 years. Then it was translated
into Hebrew by others at some later date. There is circumstantial evidence of there being an Exodus in the description of events.
Moses was initially raised by his mother Jochabed as a wet nurse so there was time to get Hebrew as a mother tongue and also for a bright lad to learn the basic writing. No doubt his parents crammed as much culture as they could into their child before they had to give him up.
9:43 Doesn't a similar thing happen in the Homeric poems? I remember once hearing that there are references suggesting it goes back to the late bronze age, but everyone still agrees it was only written in the iron age 🤔
Source?
@@rayzas4885 I heard it in college, but you can search about the historicity of the Homeric epics, there are late bronze age details such as locations, names and cultural references.
@@belialord ight ill look into that thanks
@@belialord OK, I see what you're saying now. Wouldn't that still give credibility to mosaic authorship or atleast that Moses started the oral tradition because of its accuracy tho? From what I've read the core of the Trojan war is still historical due to the extensive knowledge Homer had on the region.
@@rayzas4885 I believe it gives credibility to the idea that there's at least some historical memory going back to the time were Moses would've supposedly lived, just like it gives credibility to the epics having some historical memory going back to the time were Achilles would've supposedly lived, but the egyptologist had a different point. He is arguing that since these details would've only been know to people living in the late bronze age, they couldn't have been preserved through oral tradition over centuries before only being written down in the iron age. I pondered that by the same reasoning, the Homeric epics also couldn't have been orally preserved for centuries before being written down in the iron age, even though the overwhelming consensus is that they were.
While I don't agree with the Documentary Hypothesis, there's a flaw in your Iranian loanwords argument that I want to give you a heads up on before anyone else uses it. Namely, virtually no biblical texts written during the Babylonian exile have any Iranian loanwords and that Iranian loanwords are only seen starting from around 450 BC and after, for a very clear historical reason. Wilson-Wright writes;
"In this new distribution, Old Persian loanword cluster in books dated to
the late Persian period on internal grounds, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles13 or otherwise known to be post-exilic, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Daniel, and the fifth section of the Psalms. Texts from the reigns of Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes, like Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, Isaiah 40-55,
and 56-66 do not contain any Old Persian loanwords. This distribution correlates well with historical and archaeological data. Under the first three
Achaemenid rulers, Yehud was a provincial backwater. After the first Egyptian revolt in 464-54 b.c.e., however, Artaxerxes I and his successors fortified Yehud as an outpost against Egypt, which led to increased contact between speakers of Hebrew and speakers of Old Persian. The book of Nehemiah, for example, recounts how Artaxerxes I sent Nehemiah to Yehud to fortify Jerusalem (Neh 2:1-8). Additional fortifications were constructed in the Judean Hills, the Shephelah, and the Negev.14 The shifting political circumstances also led to a change in administrative practices: the late 5th century witnesses a dramatic change in the form, paleography, and orthography of native stamp seals, which O. Lipschitz attributes to increased Persian oversight. He also suggests that these stamp seals labeled agricultural products, which were given to Persian troops and administrative personnel garrisoned in Yehud.15 Presumably, these individuals owned the Persian style seals that have been discovered in Israel, some of which bear Iranian names."
Aren Wilson-Wright, "From Persepolis to Jerusalem: A Reevaluation of
Old Persian-Hebrew Contact in the Achaemenid Period", VT (2015), pg. 157
How much of the pentateuch do you think was written by Moses?
IMHO, over 90% of the Pentateuch was written by Moses or his scribes.
@@ancientegyptandthebible okay. We also often find a change in persons in the pentateuch, where the book of deuteronomy suddenly changes from "to moses" to "me", actually very interesting. What passages would not have been written by moses or his scribes?
@@philipps6032 Changes in person don't necessarily mean changes in author. We see this being used in the Qadesh inscriptions. However, we can assume that certain linking texts may not be original to Moses or his scribes, also the pericope of Moses's death and certain glosses. But these are still part of the inspired text.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Well.. thanks! How much do you agree with Michael Heiser on the divine realm, where do you think his Pantheon of gods can be fixed out? ->Are gods in the bible actually demons?
You have a book to write
Isn't nephilim an old Iranian word
Nope, it's a semitic word.
Old 👀 Eye-Ranian! 👀 - Who dat?!
Oof! Soooo glad you fixed the lighting since then. 🤢🤮
You look like a healthier, happier, more trustworthy person with the better lighting! 😆😆😅
Well, we were doing these original videos on no budget at all.
I was very annoyed to hear your argument in favor of the ancient age of the Pentateuch. First, because it’s annoying in general to hear about “oral traditions“ coming from a place and a time where writing was already 2000 years old. Second: how is it that after all this time nobody noticed this?! This is why I never got any formal training in history. Too many obvious conclusions are completely blown off. My own independent research on this also indicates that a young age for the Pentateuch is impossible. For example: it’s obvious that the Amorite authors of the Epic of Gilgamesh - built on earlier Sumerian stories - knew all about the story of Adam and Eve. Just line up the creation of Enkidu with the creation of Adam and they are a perfect match. I think it’s OK to push this because Ezekiel 16:3 tells us the Israelites are an amalgam of the Amorites and the Hittites. Enkidu’s creation also appears to be something they came up with. While in the Epic Gilgamesh and Enkidu are lovers, in the earlier Sumerian stories Enkidu is clearly just a beloved servants of Gilgamesh. He’s also nothing other than a plain old Sumerian; without a hint of having superpowers.
What do you think of the theory that ancient books like the Pentateuch didn't have authors per say? They were more written in the authority of someone. So it was written in the authority of Moses or more accurately the tradition of Moses, but was actually written down by a large group of scholars over time.
Sorry to say this but this short video is full of very obvious errors...
Your characterization of the Documentary Hypothesis is very poor. Not once did you even mention that the hypothesis posits four source documents: J,E,D & P. Your "put to pen in the 6th century BC" comment is wrong. For example, Wellhausen hinted at a 9th century date for J - although he didn't focus on this dating. The point is that the DH posits source documents, which many adherents accept were written before the 6th century BCE. Discussions about dating the sources have continued and changed over time after Wellhausen.
You mischaracterize Ben Noonan's work. You say "...according to Ben Noonan, the two greatest donor languages to Biblical Hebrew are Egyptian and Old Iranian". Look at the title of his book! "Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible". Non-Semitic. Biblical Hebrew has many loanwords from Akkadian and Aramaic. They don't appear in Noonan's book because he explicitly doesn't deal with them.
At 9:05 you appear to equate Babylonian with Old Iranian. If you didn't, then your point about loanwords makes no sense because Babylonian (Akkadian) loanwords do appear in the Pentateuch. If you did equate them, I'm at a loss for words. They are totally different languages. This then brings me to the following question.
Can you demonstrate that Old Iranian was the common language used in 6th century BCE Babylon, during the Jewish Exile? In your answer please include why it wasn't Babylonian (Akkadian) and/or Aramaic.
Hi @finkofinkofinko,
> Sorry to say this but this short video is full of very obvious errors... Your characterization of the Documentary Hypothesis is very poor. Not once did you even mention that the hypothesis posits four source documents: J,E,D & P.
Indeed, I did not mention J, E, D, and P. I also didn’t mention that they are not actually real source documents because they are not real documents in any sense of the word. They are in fact hypothetical “documents” better described as traditions of redaction sources: J(ahwist), E(lohist), D(euteronomic), and P(riestly).
I also did not mention that Wellhausen resigned from his teaching post because he discovered that his theories destroyed the faith of the young ministers he taught. It is always a dangerous proposition to critique someone for what they have not said because you have no idea how much that person knows or why he has chosen not to say what you think should have been said.
I have found that nuance and CZcams don’t exactly play nice together, so I keep it simple at the risk of oversimplification. Thus, my short video was not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of the Documentary Hypothesis. I was really only outlining why I don’t really buy it FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSING THE EXODUS. Cramming everything into 20 minutes does have its drawbacks.
> Your "put to pen in the 6th century BC" comment is wrong. For example, Wellhausen hinted at a 9th century date for J - although he didn't focus on this dating.
Perhaps. However, the Documentary Hypothesis of today is very different from what Wellhausen initially proposed-this is something even Van Seters concedes to. However, none of them would accept a majority of sources having a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age authorship, and that is the point. I am a research associate at a VERY liberal theology school-I cannot really escape the DH as much as I might want to.
> The point is that the DH posits source documents, which many adherents accept were written before the 6th century BCE.
How long before the 6th century BCE? And as what mode of documents? As I best recall, the term “document” here is pretty loose and includes oral transmission.
> Discussions about dating the sources have continued and changed over time after Wellhausen.
Indeed, I think I mention that above. But what monstrosity has the DH changed into? No agreement has ever been arrived at even in regards to how many sources are involved. I have seen literature make reference D1, D2, D3, P2, P3, P4, etc. If the theory has legs, should not the basics at least have been firmly agreed upon? The Documentary Hypothesis has become a veritable alphabet soup. Not to mention that there is no agreement over what is one source versus another after you get past the naïve Yahweh/Elohim dichotomy. The DH is a glorious pig’s breakfast of confusion.
> You mischaracterize Ben Noonan's work. You say "...according to Ben Noonan, the two greatest donor languages to Biblical Hebrew are Egyptian and Old Iranian". Look at the title of his book! "Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible". Non-Semitic. Biblical Hebrew has many loanwords from Akkadian and Aramaic. They don't appear in Noonan's book because he explicitly doesn't deal with them.
You’re right that Noonan’s book does not deal with Semitic loan words. However, exactly how would you tell what is a loan word from Akkadian vs common Semitic, since both Akkadian and Hebrew are Semitic languages? It is really difficult (actually close to impossible) to tell what is derived from common Semitic versus what is a loan word from Akkadian. You are aware that Akkadian and Hebrew descend from a common Semitic root language?
> At 9:05 you appear to equate Babylonian with Old Iranian. If you didn't, then your point about loanwords makes no sense because Babylonian (Akkadian) loanwords do appear in the Pentateuch.
Just to be clear, I said “we would expect if it was written in Babylon to have Babylonian Old Iranian language.” It might have been more clear if had omitted the word “Babylonian.” Nevertheless, I am not implying that the Pentateuch does not have Babylonian Akkadian words.
We would expect that Hebrew would have Babylonian Akkadian loan words since Babylonian Akkadian dates back to 2000 BCE [Huehnergard 2011, xxv], long before the emergence of Hebrew as a unique language. But, given the antiquity of Babylonian Akkadian, it is impossible to say whether any Babylonian Akkadian word in Hebrew is a loanword in the truest sense, as Alan Millard once pointed out to me. Yet, such being the case, how exactly would that provide us with any meaningful information about the sources of the Hebrew documents? You would have the proverbial fox chasing its own tail. On the other hand, Old Iranian is an Indo-European language so it’s presence is easily differentiated from common Semitic and thus it provides us with a language that could serve as a good indicator of writing origin.
> If you did equate them, I'm at a loss for words. They are totally different languages.
I did not, so you should not be at a loss. I wouldn’t want you to be at a loss for words. That, however, doesn’t seem to be a problem for you. :)
> This then brings me to the following question. Can you demonstrate that Old Iranian was the common language used in 6th century BCE Babylon, during the Jewish Exile?
I don’t think Old Iranian was the common language, but it was a local language. And that is because it was the language of the Medes, who at least initially were close allies with the Neo-Babylonians. Just like Spanish is a local language in California, but English is the common language-it’s quite unusual to live in California without picking up at least a modicum of Spanish words. And certainly once Cyrus II conquered Babylon, Old Iranian would have been the official language. We have to remember that after the Fall of Babylon, the exiles did not return immediately. And many stayed in Babylon for a long time after. Even after some of the exiles returned to Jerusalem, the Persians maintained in control over Israel until their fall to the Greeks. So, the Old Iranian language was extant among Israelite culture from the 6th century onward. That is not a controversial statement.
> In your answer please include why it wasn't Babylonian (Akkadian) and/or Aramaic.
If Old Babylonian (Akkadian) had been assimilated by Hebrew speakers living in Babylon, how would it look different in written text? Well, the primary difference would probably be syntax since the diction was virtually identical. Akkadian sentences end with the verb, while Hebrew sentences tend to begin with the verb. But we don’t see any syntactical shifts owing to an Akkadian influence. I am not assuming the absence of Akkadian influence, merely pointing out that, during the Babylonian exile, Akkadian syntax does not seem to have influenced Hebrew syntax. Aramaic has a similar problem. We can differentiate Aramaic because of the way it is conjugated, and not so much from its particular lexicography, although I recognize that both languages have unique terms. However, as for a test case for the import of donor languages, Akkadian and Aramaic would always be contestable given their common Semitic root language-they just are not good options for testing the origins of textual sources.
Hi @@ancientegyptandthebible
Thanks for responding to my comment, I really appreciate it. I know it takes time to respond. It takes me a lot of time to put thoughts down on paper, so unless I've made a huge mistake in this "comment" and you point it out to me, I'd like to leave the discussion here.
Firstly, describing the Wellhausen's DH without mentioning that it depends on source documents (as written texts) and claiming that the it proposes that oral tradition was first written down in Babylon in the 6th century was just factually wrong. Even post-Wellhausen DH proponents do not claim this. I think you put too much emphasis on this "oral document" idea. Each of the sources could potentially have its own transmission history that likely included an oral component, but that is completely different to what you were referring to. It sounds like what you were arguing against is actually Engnell's traditional-historical method which was a counter to the DH and has since waned. I didn't need to assume any other knowledge you may or may not have had, the video itself contains all that was needed to make this criticism.
I agree with the criticism against the DH regarding there being an "alphabet soup". I also agree that there really isn't one final solution to the authorship of the Pentateuch. There is however, general agreement that the texts have been edited and redacted. It could also be claimed that there is general agreement about what is P and non-P. You may also find Joel Baden and the new Neo-DH theory interesting as he acknowledges the shortfalls of some DH schools and has returned to a focus on the textual issues themselves. He also avoids dating the sources.
Your expansion of this discussion to linguistic issues regarding the identification of Neo-Babylonian and Aramaic loanwords in the Pentateuch goes way deeper than I am prepared to go at this point. If I just grant for the sake of discussion, that it is impossible to distinguish Neo-Babylonian words from Hebrew words in the Pentateuch, this fact would still be completely compatible with a 6th century BCE editing. I would certainly not try to prove a 6th dating of the Pentateuch using loanwords from Babylonian and Aramaic.
On the other hand, a lack of Old Iranian loanwords in the Pentateuch is an extremely weak argument against a 6th century dating. I don't think there is good reason to expect Old Iranian loanwords from Babylon in the 6th century. There are two separate problems that I see. The first is that you have the DH wrong, as I mention above. In short, if you are redacting texts that are in front of you, there is likely very little chance you will incorporate Old Iranian into them during the 6th century in Babylon. The scribes who would have done this used Hebrew and probably Aramaic. Secondly, in my mind it is too soon to expect that enough Old Iranian was present during the 6th century to significantly influence Hebrew scribes, even if they were writing new material. Even after Cyrus II, you would need some time for the Old Iranian to wear into the scribal community, and by that time you're probably into the 5th century. This is the time where Ezra and Chronicles are dated to and these do contain Old Iranian loanwords. I'd be very interested to see what Noonan has to say about this.
You might want to check out this article, I haven't studied it properly myself, I'm just sharing it because you might genuinely be interested:
From Persepolis to Jerusalem: A Reevaluation of Old Persian-Hebrew Contact in the Achaemenid Period by Aren Wilson-Wright
So, if you want to argue that the Pentateuch was not _first written down_ in the 5th century BCE in Babylon or Judah, then yes I would agree. Please note that you are not arguing against the DH in this case and more importantly this completely avoids the textual problems that the DH attempts to address.
After all that, just to be clear I'm not defending the Documentary Hypothesis necessarily, even though it may sound like I am :) My personal opinion is that there is overwhelming internal evidence that the Pentateuch as a whole has a long history of editing and redacting and it is impossible that it was all written by a single author who's name starts with M.
Thanks for the exchange it was fun and my apologies if I sounded too harsh at the beginning.
Hi @@finkofinkofinko
> Thanks for responding to my comment, I really appreciate it. I know it takes time to respond.
My pleasure. Yup, certainly does take a lot of time.
> It takes me a lot of time to put thoughts down on paper, so unless I've made a huge mistake in this "comment" and you point it out to me, I'd like to leave the discussion here.
I wish it were that as easy as dropping the discussion here. Because of what you’ve said, it’s not going to be easy for me disengage a discussion that has such serious objections without stating a reasonable defence. I hope you understand. You, of course, have that option.
> Firstly, describing the Wellhausen's DH without mentioning that it depends on source documents (as written texts) and claiming that the it proposes that oral tradition was first written down in Babylon in the 6th century was just factually wrong. Even post-Wellhausen DH proponents do not claim this. I think you put too much emphasis on this "oral document" idea.
Wellhausen uses the oral tradition argument in “Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel” (1883) and he assumed that oral tradition lay behind the documents [Culley, ‘Oral Tradition’ 1 (1986) 32]. It is the work of Gunkel, Noth, and Nyberg that advanced the DH to the point where the principal mode of transmission was oral. This idea was also adopted by Engnell who maintained that the OT was essentially oral transmission until the exile [Engnell 1969, 6], although he does give latitude that certain cultic texts like the Psalms might have been written before the exile [Engnell 1949, 56]. Some like N. D. Freedman have suggested a new letter G(rundlage) as “a poetic composition, orally transmitted.” Therefore, as this is the mainstream of DH scholarship, I don’t believe what was said is factually wrong. There is more than enough consensus from Wellhausen himself to modern scholarship to warrant the idea that these men believed that the OT were in essence oral documents but not primarily written sources prior to the exile. The fact is that none of these men were doing textual criticism from physical documents they had in their hands. These ideas were all generated from hypothetical documents that may or may not exist, and that is the stink on the dog.
> It sounds like what you were arguing against is actually Engnell's traditional-historical method which was a counter to the DH and has since waned. I didn't need to assume any other knowledge you may or may not have had, the video itself contains all that was needed to make this criticism.
I think that you are making a hard line of separation between Engnell and his predecessors. I don’t think you can really dump the idea of oral tradition at Engnell’s feet. So, I think your assumption was without proper warrant.
> I agree with the criticism against the DH regarding there being an "alphabet soup". I also agree that there really isn't one final solution to the authorship of the Pentateuch. There is however, general agreement that the texts have been edited and redacted.
Yes, there is general agreement that the Pentateuch was edited and redacted. I would vigorously deny that claim despite its appeal to the biblical scholar community.
> It could also be claimed that there is general agreement about what is P and non-P. You may also find Joel Baden and the new Neo-DH theory interesting as he acknowledges the shortfalls of some DH schools and has returned to a focus on the textual issues themselves. He also avoids dating the sources.
While that would be a step forward, I’m not sure that really addresses my concerns.
> If I just grant for the sake of discussion, that it is impossible to distinguish Neo-Babylonian words from Hebrew words in the Pentateuch, this fact would still be completely compatible with a 6th century BCE editing. I would certainly not try to prove a 6th dating of the Pentateuch using loanwords from Babylonian and Aramaic.
Sure, if we were going on the indistinguishablity of Neo-Babylonian words from Hebrew words in the Pentateuch, it could not disprove a 6th century BCE editing. However, we aren’t approaching the issue on that basis alone. We have very high prevalence of Egyptian vocabulary in the Pentateuch that would be difficult to explain for 6th century BCE authorship and editing.
> On the other hand, a lack of Old Iranian loanwords in the Pentateuch is an extremely weak argument against a 6th century dating. I don't think there is good reason to expect Old Iranian loanwords from Babylon in the 6th century.
And yet we find that vocabulary pervasive in the historical books that we know date to 6th century Babylon and later. For 5 books as large as what we have in the Pentateuch not to be linguistically updated would be suspicious for the corpus of writing this size, if they were written and/or edited in 6th century Babylon.
> There are two separate problems that I see. The first is that you have the DH wrong, as I mention above. In short, if you are redacting texts that are in front of you, there is likely very little chance you will incorporate Old Iranian into them during the 6th century in Babylon.
Is not the whole purpose of redaction to update the text? Whether that redaction is to make the language more current or is for ideological purposes, doesn’t matter. I think there is plenty of evidence to support that OT variants have contemporized and modernized language. So, should we not find modernized language that dated to the 6th century Babylon? And why would Old Iranian be excluded from this mondernization effort when it was used with other biblical texts of the period? I don’t find your argument here persuasive because you are saying that 6th cent. BCE redaction was done without a trace, so we cannot prove it didn’t happen, so we should accept that it happened.
> The scribes who would have done this used Hebrew and probably Aramaic.
Do you mean like the 6th century scribes that used Old Iranian when they updated Song of Solomon and Qohelet?
> You might want to check out this article, I haven't studied it properly myself, I'm just sharing it because you might genuinely be interested: From Persepolis to Jerusalem: A Reevaluation of Old Persian-Hebrew Contact in the Achaemenid Period by Aren Wilson-Wright
I think Noonan’s work supersedes Wilson-Wright’s. Nevertheless, Wilson-Wright acknowledges that contact between the Hebrews and Persians before the exile was minimal, but it did exist (Wilson-Wright, 2015). And Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE still places Persian contact with Hebrew scribes within the 6th century BCE.
> So, if you want to argue that the Pentateuch was not first written down in the 5th century BCE in Babylon or Judah, then yes I would agree.
Cool, we agree on something. ;) But I would go much further than that.
> Please note that you are not arguing against the DH in this case and more importantly this completely avoids the textual problems that the DH attempts to address.
The DH does have certain implications, and it is those implications I think are problematic. I don’t think the DH actually solves much of anything. I have doubts about the theory’s general utility. And I would grant that I am arguing more against what the DH had morphed into today than what it started out as; however, I don’t think what it started out as was any good either. A lot of theories start out as one thing and over time change growing into the fullness of their presuppositions, e.g., Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Thus, if I argue against the DH of today, Wellhausen laid out all the presupposition in his original DH.
> After all that, just to be clear I'm not defending the Documentary Hypothesis necessarily, even though it may sound like I am :) My personal opinion is that there is overwhelming internal evidence that the Pentateuch as a whole has a long history of editing and redacting and it is impossible that it was all written by a single author who's name starts with M.
And that is where we part company it seems. I, however, am not afraid to say the name Moses. And recognizing a historical Moses is not a source of shame to me. Perhaps, that is the saddest thing about the Documentary Hypothesis, which is that it has turned the name of Moses into a dirty word.
> Thanks for the exchange it was fun and my apologies if I sounded too harsh at the beginning.
You may have come on a bit strong. However, it was an enlightening discussion. Thank you for your contribution to the dialogue.
@@ancientegyptandthebible "I have found that nuance and youtube don't exactly play nice together" yep couldn't agree more
@@coulie27 When I receive a long post on CZcams, most of the time it is to advance a pet theory. It might be a fine theory; however, I don't really have time to engage those. Sorry, tldr;
You are using old data when it comes to the donor languages, too. A huge number of so-called Aramaicism have been discovered to be my such thing thanks to decoding Ugaritic and other West Semitic stashes of tablets.
Old data about donor languages? Do you realize that Noonan published his book in 2019? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
@@ancientegyptandthebible I don’t understand what was said. Can you explain?