[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 60, Issue 12

Yahale Yadede yadede at sbcglobal.net
Mon Dec 24 19:56:42 EST 2007


     I'm sorry if this question is repititious, I missed some earlier comments, but I'd like to ask what is the "Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive" discussed by Mr. Stinehart?
   
                                                        Yahale Yadede

b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
  Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Shoshanna Walker)
2. Re: Looking into the Wellhausen JEPD Theory (Yigal Levin)
3. Re: Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Bryant J. Williams III)
4. Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
5. Re: Graf-Wellhausen discredited (K Randolph)
6. Re: Amarna letters (Eric Forster)
7. Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(JimStinehart at aol.com)
8. Re: Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
9. Amarna Letters (JimStinehart at aol.com)
10. Wellhausen (Michael Abernathy)
11. Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives (Uri Hurwitz)
12. Re: Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Bryant J. Williams III)
13. Re: Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Yitzhak Sapir)
14. Re: Wellhausen (K Randolph)
15. Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(JimStinehart at aol.com)
16. Re: Amarna Letters (Yitzhak Sapir)
17. Re: Wellhausen (Moshe Shulman)
18. Re: Wellhausen (Moshe Shulman)
19. Amarna Letters (JimStinehart at aol.com)
20. Re: Amarna Letters (Joseph I. Lauer)
21. Re: Amarna Letters (Yitzhak Sapir)
22. Re: Wellhausen (Yitzhak Sapir)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:03:27 -0500
From: Shoshanna Walker 
Subject: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

I know you didn't ask me, but in my opinion your question is 
meaningless, since the Torah was written by G-d, through Moshe.

Shoshanna



Yitzhak Sapir:
I asked you a very simple question, and we are all awaiting an answer. For
your convenience, I will repeat my question verbatim:
Please point out at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives which, in
your view, reflects the 1st millennium BCE, and does not reflect the
mid-2nd millennium BCE.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:43:08 +0200
From: Yigal Levin 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Looking into the Wellhausen JEPD Theory
To: b-hebrew 
Message-ID: <000a01c845f8$3f029940$9d9015ac at xp>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original

Dear Edward,

Please don't missunderstand; no-one here has claimed that it is "not 
permitted" to question the Documenary Hypothesis. Quite the contrary - 
Yitzhak has mentioned the many changes and ammendments that have been 
proposed over time, as our understanding of the archaeological, 
geographical, historical, literary and linguistic background of the biblical 
world has evolved. In any kind of science, a theory/hypothesis (and that 
really IS all we are discussing here) is only valid as long as it is the 
most reasonable way to understand the evidence as it is known at the time. 
As new evidence comes in, the theory must be either updated or abandoned. In 
the field of biblical studeis, the past 150 years have produced more 
evidence than did the previous 1500 years, and yet the basic methodology 
behind the DH has proven to be sound. So that while present-day renderings 
of the DH are as similar to the "original" Graf-Wellhausen theory as 
present-day biology is to Darwin's original theory of evolution, it can 
certainly be said that (in both cases) the "original" still stands. Of 
course, an astonishingly new discovery this afternoon may force all of us to 
eat our hats, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

You are also correct, that in all sciences (not just "hard science") someone 
does occasioally come along and revolutionalize the field. Even if a 
person's "radical new" ideas eventually turn out to be wrong, "rocking the 
boat" and frosing everyone to re-think their positions is a good thing. 
However, the difference between humanistic studies, especially biblical 
studies, and the "hard sciences" is that no-one would dare claim that the 
accepted theories that guide physics are wrong, without first aquiring a 
proper education and the approprate degrees in those theories. In the case 
of biblical studies, many people feel free to criticize without first really 
studying what they propose to knock down. Of course, this is met with 
antagonism from the "professionals". Now it is still possible that someone 
from "left field" might actually be right - but for every persecuted 
Galileo, there are a hundred more would-be wanna-be's who just do not get 
it.

The main part of your message claimed that the Graf-Wellhausen theory should 
be discounted because its propnants were anti-semites, predecesors of the 
Nazis. While it is true that every scholar is a product of his or her 
society and generation, and some of them may have actually been despicable 
human beings, the scientific meathod that I was taught says that one should 
evaluate a theory by what it says, not by who said it.


Yigal Levin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: 



> Dear Ytzhak and Yigal,
>
> I do not agree with the currently dominant academic interpretation of
> the historical roots of the Biblical narratives. Such disagreement is
> permitted in hard sciences where the modern upheavals have
> demonstrated the value, if not necessity of sometimes apparently
> "crazy" ideas.
>
> How then could I discuss with you my doubts ? Your strict adherence to
> the currently dominant academic positions and norms has finally
> convinced me to expose here my supra-academic worries in the case, the
> real source of my anxiety. Sorry if it might sound for your ears as a
> heavy metal music. But let me start.
>
> If it is permitted to question the accepted for centuries authenticity
> of the Patriarchal Narratives and, more generally, of the Hebrew
> Bible, as well as the good faith of its "creators", it is surely
> permitted to question the academic authenticity and the academic good
> faith of the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory.
>
> The problem is that, starting with at least Arthur Schopenhauer, the
> German school of thought, the academic school of thought including,
> has been slowly approaching the vision and the will which, at the
> hands of the Nazis, became the academic theory and will of the
> extermination of the Jews, starting with their mental and intellectual
> extermination from the religious, cultural, and intellectual scenes.
>
> In his book "The World As Will and Representation" (Volume I, Dover
> Publications, New York 1969. Translated from the German by E. F. J.
> Payne), Schopenhauer writes, as always very eloquently (page 232):
> "Historical subjects have a decidedly detrimental effect only when
> they restrict the painter to a field chosen arbitrarily, and not for
> artistic but for other purposes. This is particularly the case when
> this field is poor in picturesque and significant objects, when, for
> example, it is the history of a small, isolated, capricious,
> hierarchical (i.e., ruled by false notions), obscure people, like the
> Jews, despised by the great contemporary nations of the East and of
> the West. Since the great migration of peoples lies between us and all
> the ancient nations, just as between the present surface of the earth
> and the surface whose organisms appear only as fossil remains there
> lies the former change of the bed of the ocean, it is to be regarded
> generally as a great misfortune that the people whose former culture
> was to serve mainly as the basis of our own were not, say, the Indians
> or the Greeks, or even the Romans, but just these Jews."
>
> This, in my opinion, explains in particular the primary super-cultural
> and meta-scientific motives and purposes of the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD
> Theory. These relatively modern (from two hundred to fifty years old)
> ideological undercurrents of their and their followers and peers
> theories are much better documented and easier verified than those of
> the supposed late "creators" of the Biblical narratives. As to the
> Archeological data left to itself, it is certainly very far from
> speaking so obligatory and single-mindedly in the favour of the
> Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory or any other similar theory.
>
> This said, I do not simplify, and surely not negate the importance of
> the problem of the Bible historical, literaty, and linguistic origins.
> I am actually working on an article related to these origins (but not
> to the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory, sorry).
>
> It would be certainly a mistake to construe these my remarks,
> difficult even for me - a "hard scientist" as I am - to spell out, as
> an accusation of those who today believe in, and work on the
> Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory to be Jews-haters or Jews-bashers. Too
> historically guillible ?
>
>
> Edward G. Belaga
> ******************************************************



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:48:24 -0800
From: "Bryant J. Williams III" 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal
Narratives
To: "Yitzhak Sapir" , "b-hebrew"

Message-ID: <00bd01c84609$c4ad4980$ac345142 at oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Yitzhak,

Then are you saying that the noted Kenneth Kitchen is incorrect in his
statements that situations presented in the Pentateuch are reflective of 2nd
Millennium BC? (I am unable at this time to give you the quotes since I have his
books packed to move to a new location here in Redding, CA.)

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" 
To: "b-hebrew" 
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives


> On Dec 23, 2007 8:13 PM, Jim Stinehart wrote:
> >
> > Yitzhak Sapir:
> > I asked you a very simple question, and we are all awaiting an answer. For
> > your convenience, I will repeat my question verbatim:
> > Please point out at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives which,
in
> > your view, reflects the 1st millennium BCE, and does not reflect the
> > mid-2nd millennium BCE.
>
> I answered you. The burden of proof is not upon me, it is upon you. It is
you
> who is going against what is commonly accepted in the academic world. It is
> therefore you who must construct a persuasive case, based on a critical
analysis
> of the data. It is clear to me that if I provide examples, you will
> try to prove my
> examples wrong. But your arguments will likely suffer from what all your
> arguments have suffered until now - a lack of understanding and
> misinterpretation
> of linguistics and history. Since the burden of proof is not upon me
> anyway, it is
> something I opt not to do.
>
> But here, I don't need to point out just one. I'll point out several. ALL
the
> Patriarchal Narratives are not reflective of the 2nd millennium BCE, and
> specifically, no part of them -- not even a single verse -- reflects the
period
> described by the Amarna correspondence.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.7/1194 - Release Date: 12/23/07 5:27
PM
>
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:50:30 +0000
From: kenneth greifer 
Subject: [b-hebrew] Amarna letters
To: 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Jim Stinehart,

If you are going to try to show that the stories in the patriarchal narratives match the stories in the Amarna letters, could you give the actual numbers of the letters that you are claiming as proof? Also, if those letters can be read on the internet, maybe you could put a link to them. You keep saying things about the Amarna letters, but you don't give the details of your proof, so other people can look at what you are saying.

Kenneth Greifer
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:26:37 -0800
From: "K Randolph" 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Graf-Wellhausen discredited
To: "Yigal Levin" 
Cc: b-hebrew 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Dear Yigal:

On Dec 22, 2007 10:06 PM, Yigal Levin wrote:

>
> K Randolph wrote:
>
> > Going back to what Yigal Levin wrote, that in the archeological record
> the
> > absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence.?
>

Actually it was Uri Hurvitz, as he gently reminded me off list.


> > ? Add to that, much of
> > what we think we know from archeology, may be misunderstood. Even
> recorded
> > history is so fragmentary that often assigned dates are merely matters
> of
> > convenience within a realm of possible error.
> >
> > Because so little is really known, there is no way either to disprove
> nor
> > prove the Documentary Hypothesis, nor to prove or disprove Biblical
> > inerrancy. Both are taken on faith. Because it is a matter of faith, I
> do
> > not intend to comment on it further.
> >
> > You may have the final word, but please do not misrepresent what I
> wrote.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
>
> Actually, Karl, I don't think that I am the author of the above statement.
> I
> have been avoiding this argument, because we have all discussed it before,
> I
> think that all of us have made our veiws known, and none of us is likely
> to
> convince the others. So what's the point?
>

The last sentence above is my point, so let's not continue, nor make
antagonizing statements. Both sides.

>
> (Just for the record, I agree with most of what Yitzhak has written on the
> subject, although I may differ on some of the details.)
>
> Yigal Levin


Karl W. Randolph.

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 8:14:55 -0800
From: "Eric Forster" 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Amarna letters
To: greifer at hotmail.com, b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <0F4111240C18080E3739001002 at home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Kenneth,

You can find the Amarna letters, including EA23 and EA26 (the Tushratta letters), here:

http://terraflex.co.il/ad/egypt/amarnaletters.htm

Eric Forster


----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "kenneth greifer" 
To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Received: 12/24/2007 5:50:30 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Amarna letters



*Jim Stinehart,
* 
*If you are going to try to show that the stories in the patriarchal 
*narratives match the stories in the Amarna letters, could you give the 
*actual numbers of the letters that you are claiming as proof? Also, if 
*those letters can be read on the internet, maybe you could put a link to 
*them. You keep saying things about the Amarna letters, but you don't 
*give the details of your proof, so other people can look at what you are 
*saying.
* 
*Kenneth Greifer
*__________________________________________________________
*_______
*Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
*http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec
*_______________________________________________
*b-hebrew mailing list
*b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
*http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


*---
*avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
*Virus Database (VPS): 071224-0, 12/24/2007
*Tested on: 12/24/2007 8:11:01 AM
*avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
*http://www.avast.com



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 071224-0, 12/24/2007
Tested on: 12/24/2007 8:14:56 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com





------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:39:33 EST
From: JimStinehart at aol.com
Subject: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


Yitzhak Sapir:

1. Mr. Wellhausen himself knew nothing about the secular history of the 
mid-14th century BCE. Mr. Wellhausen thought that the Hittites were fictitious. 
Mr. Wellhausen knew little or nothing about the Hurrians, the Amarna Letters, 
the Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive in the mid-14th century BCE, or the 
iniquity of the Amorites in the mid-14th century BCE, when the Amorites 
iniquitously sold out northern Lebanon and the west coast of Syria to the dreaded 
Hittites. Mr. Wellhausen did not know that in the mid-14th century BCE, there 
actually was a princeling ruler named Abimilki (similar to ?Abimelech?), who 
lived at Sur (with Sur arguably being referenced at Genesis 20: 1), who had 
interminable struggles for access to valuable water wells, similar to such 
struggles referenced in chapters 21 and 26 of Genesis.

Thus if the questions are whether the Patriarchal Age was the mid-14th 
century BCE, and if the Patriarchal narratives were composed in the mid-14th century 
BCE by the first historical Hebrew, how then could we look to Mr. Wellhausen, 
who knew absolutely nothing about the secular history of the mid-14th century 
BCE?

2. You yourself have not set forth a story in the Patriarchal narratives 
that, in your view, is redolent of the 1st millennium BCE and does not reflect 
the mid-2nd millennium BCE.

3. We are trying to figure out the basis for your insistence that only a ?
fundamentalist? could deny the Wellhausen JEPD theory that the Patriarchal 
narratives are fiction ginned up by four Hebrew authors in the mid-1st millennium 
BCE.

4. Please set forth a quote by a reputable academic scholar that purports to 
identify a story in the Patriarchal narratives that is redolent of the 1st 
millennium BCE and that does not reflect the mid-2nd millennium BCE.

5. It just does not seem plausible that four ghostwriters in the mid-1st 
millennium BCE could create a long line of memorable stories, and that every 
single one of such stories just ?happens?, by pure coincidence, to reflect the 
important events in a tiny time period in the mid-14th century BCE. Certainly 
some of the stories in the Patriarchal narratives must be manifestly out of 
place in a mid-14th century BCE time period, if the Wellhausen theory of the case 
is correct.

6. I have mentioned many stories in the Patriarchal narratives that seem 
manifestly out of place in a 1st millennium BCE timeframe. In the first half of 
chapter 50 of Genesis, for example, Pharaoh sends all of his top officials all 
the way to Canaan for the super-magnificent funeral of Jacob/?Israel?. That 
over-the-top pro-Egypt viewpoint never surfaces anywhere else in the Bible, 
outside of the Patriarchal narratives. Egypt killed Hebrew King Josiah in the 
7th century BCE, and Egypt did not do enough to prevent Israel and Judah from 
being destroyed by Assyria and Babylonia in the 8th ? 6th centuries BCE. So 

=== message truncated ===



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list