Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<david.kimbrough AT charter.net>]

It was not my intent to debate the soundness of the DH.  I was quite explicit 
in stating that the DH may well be unsound.  I think over the last 250 years, 
most of the main arguments for and against the DH have been in gory detail.  
Those who accept them, do.  Those who are unconvinced, don't.

My point was, right or wrong, it was not some theory that was just thrown 
together haphazardly without any thought, method, or evidence.  If it could 
be so cavalierly dismissed, it would have been by now. I raised the "Noah 
Story" just illustrate the point that the supporters of the DH did not just 
imagine these different threads but there is a textual basis.  


> 
> From: Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
> Date: 2004/06/04 Fri PM 12:22:47 GMT
> To: Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)
> CC: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel