Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
  • To: Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics
  • Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:22:47 -0400

On Friday, June 4, 2004, at 02:05 AM, Michael Banyai wrote:

Excuse me David but for 5, the demonstration entirely lacks. If as you state:


5) A way to "test" the DH is quite simple. Take the story of Noah. Take the portions that use the name Elohim, pull them out, and line them up. Take the remaining portions, which will only have the name Yahweh in them, pull them out, and line them up. What you will get is two entirely complete but different versions of the same story. How many other stories in world literature can you do something like that?

this is still no demonstration that a break must run along the using of both the names YHWH and Elohim. This meant if at all that there is redundant material in the story and one could if at all tear the redundant material in two separate masses. However the choice where the one formulation or other pertains is free and has not to happen according to the usage of YHWH and Elohim names.

Only the demonstration that these names have, whenever indeed, made a real difference would allow to make the choice to tear along their usage.

Otherwise would also mixed stories using alternately both names make sense.

So there is nothing "demonstrated" by the DH, but just suggested to have been demonstrated. One calls something like this in german "Taschenspielertrick".

Perhaps an other organisation of the text in two heaps of texts - not along the usage of the divine names- is less "interesting". But leaving out other options of creating groups of the redundancies (if they indeed are redundancies caused by something like this and not because of the archaic style to which redundancies are typical) is oversymplifying the case.


Michael,

I accept the notion that the HB was written by multiple hands. I don't think anyone argues against that. There is evidence for it all throughout the texts. I have a problem with the way that DH deals with multiple authorship. The DH approach centers around predictability and formula. Deciphering who wrote the HB is not as simple as 1+1=2. It is not a math problem. The DH backers like to bring in the human element when they're already deep within their theory, but not at the outset of it, not when it would make their foundational suppositions weak. It is the human element which makes using formulae to determine authorship a flawed approach.

Why does noone take seriously (and fully explore) the internal bibliographic references contained within the HB as source materials? DH backers certainly won't. They're too busy creating artifices such as "The Book of Generations" to bother.

Best Salaams,

Brian Roberts





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page