Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Where you got that idea is certainly puzzling.  What I said was that, if
mere repetition of the accounts by rote were all that is needed, then
there would be no need for such so-called scholars.  Such are more like
drill instructors.  What is required is a serious consideration of the
accounts where everything is examined.  This includes a willingness to
consider such matters as whether or not the texts as we have them had an
earlier history.  Some seem unwilling to undertake such an investigation
and simply regurgitate what they have memorized.  Fortunately, there are
many who seriously consider these matters -- then there are those who
simply reject everything.

gfsomsel
_________

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:11 -0400 Brian Roberts
<formoria AT carolina.rr.com> writes:
> 
> On Saturday, June 5, 2004, at 12:49  PM, George F. Somsel wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> > I do not intend to belittle those who accept the Bible at its
> > face value, but that is not enough.  If it were, many scholars 
> would be
> > unemployed.  A reasonable account must be given.  It is not 
> sufficient 
> > to
> > simply repeat its words by rote.
> >
> 
> So, are you saying that the job security of DH scholars is enough 
> reason 
> to feed that school of thought?
> 
> Brian Roberts
> 
> 
> > gfsomsel
> > ________
> >
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 11:21:08 -0500 "Harold R. Holmyard III"
> > <hholmyard AT ont.com> writes:
> >> Dear Karl,
> >>
> >>> The problem with DH is: unless one already
> >>> possesses the sources, any attempt to
> >>> reconstruct hypothesized sources from a
> >>> ”daughter“ document cannot help but be
> >>> artificial with a high probability of being
> >>> wrong. The division along postulated differences
> >>> in theology or style is no less artificial than
> >>> according to how God is addressed.
> >>>
> >>> For example, years ago when I read a splitting
> >>> apart of the story of the flood into J and E
> >>> sources, I was struck by how strange and
> >>> disjointed the stories were (to use your words).
> >>> But as a whole, it fits together perfectly,
> >>> albeit with a certain amount of redundancy not
> >>> uncommon in other narratives.
> >>>
> >>> In closing, until a copy of one of these sources
> >>> in Hebrew is found, it seems best to limit our
> >>> discussion to the documents that we have.
> >>
> >> HH: One argument presented to us in seminary was
> >> a listing of DH schemes for dividing the biblical
> >> text that have arisen over the years. I believe
> >> the number was over thirty in the grouping we
> >> considered, and none of them agreed. The
> >> Documentary Hypothesis is just something else
> >> that diverts one's attention from what the Bible
> >> is saying when it is read correctly in the form
> >> in which it was intended to be read.
> >>
> >>                                 Yours,
> >>                                 Harold Holmyard
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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!