[b-hebrew] "the Silver Scrolls"
yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
Tue Jan 27 02:42:16 EST 2009
This discussion is really off the point.
Bryant really ought to apologize to Yigal and the list. Bryant took Yigal to
task for a particular statement:
"All it DOES prove is that the author of whatever source Num. 6:24-26 was
taken from knew of a blessing-formula and used it as part of his composition."
Bryant now says something along the lines of "Faith is never blind" etc. But
Bryant was blind to Yigal's statement. Yigal's statement does not assume
a JEPD makeup of the Pentateuch. Yigal's statement does not make an
analysis of the sources. In fact, one scenario can be considered in Yigal's
statement - author = Moses, whatever source = speech to Moses by God,
composition = Torah.
Instead, Bryant introduced religious themes into the thread, he did not deal
with either the original question or with Yigal's post, and in so doing, it
seems to me to border on proselytism. I take exception to some of the
statements that Bryant takes as givens. For example, "Unless the text
indicates that the priestly blessing came from somewhere else, then to
postulate/speculate without any evidence to the contrary is letting one's
presuppositions overrule the evidence." Bryant makes all kinds of
assumptions in this statement (for example, why should the claims of
the Biblical text be taken as evidence unless they are a priori taken to
be true?) He makes personal evaluations that are "clear" only to those
who adopt his own set of beliefs (such as that the many scholars who
say otherwise are speculating without any evidence to the contrary).
This is not introduced in a statement along the lines of "I believe..." It
is introduced as an undeniable basic fact that everyone must accept
when really it is a personal religious belief. But discussion of the
statement is not appropriate to the list, or at list to this thread, so
even though I am personally offended by the statement, I cannot
discuss its failings.
Bryant's introduction of religious themes that have nothing to do with the
original question or Yigal's answer while asserting personal religious
values as basic facts that everyone must accept borders on proselytism.
Ever since, the list has been rather attacking Yigal than discussing the
original statement. For what? Yigal did not assume a JEPD or any
particular source scenario in his statement. Bryant did.
Incidentally, doesn't the text of the amulets also have something like
a quotation of Deuteronomy?
More information about the b-hebrew