[b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics

Brian Roberts formoria at carolina.rr.com
Thu Jun 3 07:07:37 EDT 2004


George,

Sure, I would love to read it.


Brian


On Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 01:03  AM, George F. Somsel wrote:

> No, it's in English.  If I recall correctly, it was a series of lectures
> Wellhausen gave.
>
> gfsomsel
> ________
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:31:57 -0400 Brian Roberts
> <formoria at carolina.rr.com> writes:
>> George,
>>
>> Is it written in German?
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 10:31  PM, George F. Somsel wrote:
>>
>>> If you are interested, I can send you Wellhausen's _Prolegomena_
>> in the
>>> Project Guttenberg edition.
>>>
>>> gfsomsel
>>> _________
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:06:26 -0400 Brian Roberts
>>> <formoria at carolina.rr.com> writes:
>>>> Absolutely not all agree with the Documentary Hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> I've always been puzzled by the identification by JEDP backers
>> of
>>>> the
>>>> book of Deuteronomy as the "book of the law" found in the temple
>>>> disrepair. It hinges such a tremendously significant portion of
>> an
>>>> already extremely hypothetical theory on an offhand remark in
>> the
>>>> account of Josiah's reforms. And it does so without providing
>> any
>>>> real
>>>> reason to make that leap. It's as though someone (Wellshausen or
>>>> whomever) saw the verse and theorized that this "book of the
>> law"
>>>> could
>>>> be the very book I'm reading. Well, yes it could, but let's see
>> how
>>>> he
>>>> got from hypothesis to conclusion without anything in between.
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone offer any insight?
>>>>
>>>> Best Salaams,
>>>>
>>>> Brian Roberts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 08:46  PM, George F. Somsel
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Harold,
>>>>>
>>>>> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think Peter and Uri
>> were
>>>>> referring to JEDP and the Documentary Hypothesis.  According to
>>>> this
>>>>> Deuteronomy was "found" in the temple and was the impetus for
>> the
>>>>> Josianic reforms.  It was, shall I say, an "occassional piece",
>>>> i.e.
>>>>> written for the occassion.  The histories were then written
>> upon
>>>> the
>>>>> program of Deuteronomy with the centralized sanctuary, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> What some say may not have been so that Uri referenced is that
>> not
>>>> all
>>>>> agree to the Documentary Hypothesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> As regards your "the Bible tells me so" approach --
>>>>>
>>>>> "Things are not always as they seem.
>>>>> Skim milk oft masquerades as cream."
>>>>>
>>>>> gfsomsel
>>>>> ________
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:26:18 -0500 "Harold R. Holmyard III"
>>>>> <hholmyard at ont.com> writes:
>>>>>> Dear Uri,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would some say may not have been so? Are
>>>>>> they saying that Deuteronomy was not written at
>>>>>> one time and place? The Book of Deuteronomy says
>>>>>> that it was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deut. 31:9 ¶ So Moses wrote down this law and
>>>>>> gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who
>>>>>> carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and
>>>>>> to all the elders of Israel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are they saying that the other literature, much
>>>>>> of Joshua-Kings, was not written later? Scripture
>>>>>> is clear that the events occurred later than the
>>>>>> writing of the Deuteronomic law by Moses. So they
>>>>>> must have been written later. Are they saying
>>>>>> that these other books do not echo the language
>>>>>> and themes of Deuteronomy. This is a matter of
>>>>>> judgment to some degree, but certainly a good
>>>>>> argument can be made for the fact that they do.
>>>>>> For example, Moses warned about rebellion from
>>>>>> God and God's punishment, and that is exactly
>>>>>> what Judges shows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                                 Yours,
>>>>>>                                 Harold Holmyard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   This may have been so, but, some would say,
>>>>>>> more likely not have been so. In short, sheer
>>>>>>> speculation, like much that has been speculated
>>>>>>> on this subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Uri
>>>>>>> Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> the kind of model I have in mind is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Deuteronomy was written at one time and place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) The other literature e.g. much of Joshua-Kings which so
>>>> clearly
>>>>>>> echoes the languages and themes of Deuteronomy was written at
>> a
>>>>>> later
>>>>>>> time, and potentially a different place, in imitation, either
>>>>>> deliberate
>>>>>>> or accidental, of Deuteronomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, Michael's stylistic argument that Deuteronomy and
>>>>>>> Joshua-Kings were written at one time and place fails.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>>>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>>>>> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>>>>> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>>>>> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>>> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>>> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list