Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

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!