Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt AT teol.ku.dk>]

>       It is a commonplace of biblical studies that cranks crank out books
> every year. Newspapers help sell them and the gullible buy them. This
> entire industry is a plague on our field. In Denmark, we are just
> beginning to suffer the publication of a five volume work which dates
> Moses' birth to Feb 8, 1534 bce. A "great" newspaper -- Berlinske Tidende
> -- gives it a full page very positive spread and semitic philologists
> remind us of the roots of this discipline by talking about such a silly
> book as "establishing new standards" for the field and of the publication
> as a whole as "epoch making".  I fear that it will take me the rest of the
> summer to try to forget this cold dose of reality. 
> 
>       As such fanfare is an every day occurrence in our field, I have
> great sympathy for impatient colleagues who use language unbecoming an
> academic. Nevertheless, let civility prevail and let us continue to search
> for more tolerant ways of scolding effectively.
> 
>       By the way: Abe's 175 years is old hat and to be read within a
> chronological scheme of significance for the reception of the text. Read
> your Wellhausen (Prolegomena, p. 308). Or if some of your libraries don't
> reach back so far, see my Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives
> (1974), pp. 13-15.
> 
>       Thomas
> 
>       Thomas L. Thompson
>       Professor, University of Copenhagen
> 
> 
>               ----------
>               Fra:    Jim West[SMTP:jwest AT highland.net]
>               Svar til:       Jim West
>               Sendt:  17. juni 1999 00:26
>               Til:    Biblical Hebrew
>               Cc:     b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
>               Emne:   Re: abraham and jacob
> 
>               At 02:23 PM 6/16/99 -0700, you wrote:
> 
>               >I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss it, though-- yes, of
> course, 175 is
>               >5x35 as well as 5x5x7.  It is also 25x7.  That's one of the
> things
>               >that makes this kind of study frustrating-- which set of
> numbers
>               >should you use?  Were there rules, for example, that only
> prime
>               >factors should be used, as here?  And are such devices
> purely
>               >mnemonic, or do they fit into some larger pattern?  And
> where would we
>               >look for the key to those patterns?  Again, are there
> rules?  
> 
>               All of these questions are legitimate.  Still, the purpose
> and goal of
>               biblical studies is to answer questions raised by the text
> itself- or so at
>               least that is how I practice the art/science.  I also
> presuppose that a
>               theory or method that raises more questions than it answers
> is not useful as
>               a method.  That is, in essence, the problem I have with the
> whole number
>               thing as you have so eloquently described it.  It solves
> nothing and raises
>               issues that cannot be solved.  For that reason it seems to
> me that it
>               excludes itself as a viable method.
> 
>               Am I missing something?
> 
>               thanks,
> 
>               Jim
> 
>               +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>               Jim West, ThD
>               email- jwest AT highland.net
>               web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
> 
> 
>               ---
>               You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
> TLT AT teol.ku.dk
>               To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
>               To subscribe, send an email to
> join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> 
>