Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yahale Yadede <yadede AT sbcglobal.net>]

    I thought that Labayu or Labaya was himself a Habiru or allied with 
them....
   
      I was also tempted to speculate that Labayu/a was Levi, although one 
can never know, as the names are rather similar.
   
      I have also read a theory which puts David at an earlier time generally 
ascribed to him and identifies him with a "Dadua" who appears in the Amarna 
writings. There are other names like Yishaya which resemble Yishai and names 
which resemble some other persons from David's circle.
   
                                                             Yahale     

b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
  Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Wellhausen (Moshe Shulman)
2. Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 60, Issue 12 (Yahale Yadede)
3. Amarna Letters (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
4. Amarna Letters (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
5. Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
6. Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
7. Amarna letter about Abraham's 318 soldiers (kenneth greifer)
8. YHWH (John Wilking)
9. Re: YHWH (Yigal Levin)
10. Re: Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Yitzhak Sapir)
11. Re: Wellhausen (Yitzhak Sapir)
12. Re: Wellhausen (Moshe Shulman)
13. Re: YHWH (TedBro AT aol.com)
14. Re: YHWH (John Wilking)
15. Amarna Letters (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
16. Re: Wellhausen (Yitzhak Sapir)
17. Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
18. Re: YHWH (Shoshanna Walker)
19. Re: YHWH (Yitzhak Sapir)
20. Re: YHWH (TedBro AT aol.com)
21. Re: YHWH (Yigal Levin)
22. Re: Replaying (Isaac Fried)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:17:38 -0500
From: Moshe Shulman 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 06:45 PM 12/24/2007, you wrote:
>On Dec 24, 2007 8:26 PM, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> > Yigal until it is reproducible it is just a fantasy and not even a
> > scientific theory. Anyone coming from a Scientific/Mathematical
> > background as I do, will tell you that. To be reproducible the same
> > theory needs to be applied to other works of literature where we KNOW
> > that there are multiple authors and single authors with multiple
> > styles and work. It does not. (Try doing it with Tolkein and you see
> > the failure of it. LOTR is by a single author and Silmirilian was
> > edited and has additions from his son. It cannot be done.) While DH
> > does give some interesting insights into the text, if it were true
> > that it is a revised, combined text, there is no way of knowing how
> > many hands were involved in it.
>I come from a scientific/mathematical background. Let me begin by
>pointing out that Yigal Levin, an archaeologist, is also from a
>"scientific" background. Science is not just the hard sciences.

Agreed

>Reproducibility is not a main trait of a scientific theory. This is

Really? IF you propose a theory and cannot test it, then that is a 
very weak theory. In fact Popper would say that any theory that is 
not provable/disprovable is not a scientific theory at all.

>especially the case in historical reconstructions. We cannot

This is irrelevant to a discussion on multiple authorship of a text. 
That is not a question of history. One can discuss when a text might 
have been written, but that is a iffeent issue and not one dealt with 
in the DH.

>reproduce the beginning of the universe, but that doesn't mean
>that the Big Bang is not a theory. It is a theory, and it makes
>predictions, and those predictions can be tested, and we can

Actually this is a good because it is what should be the case here. 
While we cannot prove it, what we do (and it is common in 
Mathematics) is ASSUME it true and make a test that could disprove it 
(or add evidence to it's truth.)


>attempt to falsify them. Picking a modern text and trying to
>analyze it -- then concluding that we cannot determine editing
>work is poor methodology. Just because one type of editing

Only if the methodology used to decide if a text has multiple authors 
it invalid. What makes an ancient text of multiple authorship 
inherently different from a modern text of multiple authorship? If 
one has a method to dissect one, then it should work for the other. 
IF NOT, then one needs to examine the methodology being used to 
divide a text by authors. Every work I have read on the subject is 
circular in reasoning and non-reproducible.

>does not allow us to reconstruct two editors, does not mean
>that it is the only type of editing processes that could have
>been taken. In fact, Van Seters apparently claimed at a

The only type of editing that would allow for the DH is if there were 
multiple sources and the editor did a cut and paste job. I don't 
think any serious person would contend that this was the way people 
edited at any time in the past. Let me give a counter theory which 
indicates your problem. Let's say a Mr X at some time (choose whoever 
you want and when) takes some stories he heard orally, and some 
written texts he has seen, and with his own additions moulds them 
into one book. Unless you had a copy of the originals which he used, 
you could never know what came from where, and what was original to 
Mr X. But this is what DH proposes. BTW The Silmarillian was in fact 
made this way by Tolkein's son and without outside material you will 
never know who wrote what. The problem I have is that DH has an 
invalid assumption to it's methodology. It assumes the text it 
divisible, without providing a non-circular method of getting to that point.


>Incidentally, I have a study (in preparation, currently on hold)
>of a Biblical book where I show that a group of verses of the
>book was most likely conflated from several sources, each
>representing the same original section. Besides some very
>convincing insights that this provides into some oddities in
>those verses, the theory is also supported by the fact that
>one of the translations of the book contains only three of
>the five sources. The ending of the first source was previously
>conjectured to be the original ending of the entire book on
>different grounds (it is where the plot seems to end). I have
>not read Van Seters books, but it seems to me (based on what
>I understand so far) that this study would provide strong
>evidence against his theory.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman outreach AT judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer: http://www.judaismsanswer.com/



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:56:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Yahale Yadede 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 60, Issue 12
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <8716.26837.qm AT web82114.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

I'm sorry if this question is repititious, I missed some earlier comments, 
but I'd like to ask what is the "Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive" 
discussed by Mr. Stinehart?

Yahale Yadede

b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Shoshanna Walker)
2. Re: Looking into the Wellhausen JEPD Theory (Yigal Levin)
3. Re: Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Bryant J. Williams III)
4. Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
5. Re: Graf-Wellhausen discredited (K Randolph)
6. Re: Amarna letters (Eric Forster)
7. Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(JimStinehart AT aol.com)
8. Re: Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
9. Amarna Letters (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
10. Wellhausen (Michael Abernathy)
11. Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives (Uri Hurwitz)
12. Re: Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Bryant J. Williams III)
13. Re: Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(Yitzhak Sapir)
14. Re: Wellhausen (K Randolph)
15. Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
(JimStinehart AT aol.com)
16. Re: Amarna Letters (Yitzhak Sapir)
17. Re: Wellhausen (Moshe Shulman)
18. Re: Wellhausen (Moshe Shulman)
19. Amarna Letters (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
20. Re: Amarna Letters (Joseph I. Lauer)
21. Re: Amarna Letters (Yitzhak Sapir)
22. Re: Wellhausen (Yitzhak Sapir)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:03:27 -0500
From: Shoshanna Walker 
Subject: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

I know you didn't ask me, but in my opinion your question is 
meaningless, since the Torah was written by G-d, through Moshe.

Shoshanna



Yitzhak Sapir:
I asked you a very simple question, and we are all awaiting an answer. For
your convenience, I will repeat my question verbatim:
Please point out at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives which, in
your view, reflects the 1st millennium BCE, and does not reflect the
mid-2nd millennium BCE.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:43:08 +0200
From: Yigal Levin 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Looking into the Wellhausen JEPD Theory
To: b-hebrew 
Message-ID: <000a01c845f8$3f029940$9d9015ac@xp>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original

Dear Edward,

Please don't missunderstand; no-one here has claimed that it is "not 
permitted" to question the Documenary Hypothesis. Quite the contrary - 
Yitzhak has mentioned the many changes and ammendments that have been 
proposed over time, as our understanding of the archaeological, 
geographical, historical, literary and linguistic background of the biblical 
world has evolved. In any kind of science, a theory/hypothesis (and that 
really IS all we are discussing here) is only valid as long as it is the 
most reasonable way to understand the evidence as it is known at the time. 
As new evidence comes in, the theory must be either updated or abandoned. In 
the field of biblical studeis, the past 150 years have produced more 
evidence than did the previous 1500 years, and yet the basic methodology 
behind the DH has proven to be sound. So that while present-day renderings 
of the DH are as similar to the "original" Graf-Wellhausen theory as 
present-day biology is to Darwin's original theory of evolution, it can 
certainly be said that (in both cases) the "original" still stands. Of 
course, an astonishingly new discovery this afternoon may force all of us to 
eat our hats, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

You are also correct, that in all sciences (not just "hard science") someone 
does occasioally come along and revolutionalize the field. Even if a 
person's "radical new" ideas eventually turn out to be wrong, "rocking the 
boat" and frosing everyone to re-think their positions is a good thing. 
However, the difference between humanistic studies, especially biblical 
studies, and the "hard sciences" is that no-one would dare claim that the 
accepted theories that guide physics are wrong, without first aquiring a 
proper education and the approprate degrees in those theories. In the case 
of biblical studies, many people feel free to criticize without first really 
studying what they propose to knock down. Of course, this is met with 
antagonism from the "professionals". Now it is still possible that someone 
from "left field" might actually be right - but for every persecuted 
Galileo, there are a hundred more would-be wanna-be's who just do not get 
it.

The main part of your message claimed that the Graf-Wellhausen theory should 
be discounted because its propnants were anti-semites, predecesors of the 
Nazis. While it is true that every scholar is a product of his or her 
society and generation, and some of them may have actually been despicable 
human beings, the scientific meathod that I was taught says that one should 
evaluate a theory by what it says, not by who said it.


Yigal Levin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: 



> Dear Ytzhak and Yigal,
>
> I do not agree with the currently dominant academic interpretation of
> the historical roots of the Biblical narratives. Such disagreement is
> permitted in hard sciences where the modern upheavals have
> demonstrated the value, if not necessity of sometimes apparently
> "crazy" ideas.
>
> How then could I discuss with you my doubts ? Your strict adherence to
> the currently dominant academic positions and norms has finally
> convinced me to expose here my supra-academic worries in the case, the
> real source of my anxiety. Sorry if it might sound for your ears as a
> heavy metal music. But let me start.
>
> If it is permitted to question the accepted for centuries authenticity
> of the Patriarchal Narratives and, more generally, of the Hebrew
> Bible, as well as the good faith of its "creators", it is surely
> permitted to question the academic authenticity and the academic good
> faith of the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory.
>
> The problem is that, starting with at least Arthur Schopenhauer, the
> German school of thought, the academic school of thought including,
> has been slowly approaching the vision and the will which, at the
> hands of the Nazis, became the academic theory and will of the
> extermination of the Jews, starting with their mental and intellectual
> extermination from the religious, cultural, and intellectual scenes.
>
> In his book "The World As Will and Representation" (Volume I, Dover
> Publications, New York 1969. Translated from the German by E. F. J.
> Payne), Schopenhauer writes, as always very eloquently (page 232):
> "Historical subjects have a decidedly detrimental effect only when
> they restrict the painter to a field chosen arbitrarily, and not for
> artistic but for other purposes. This is particularly the case when
> this field is poor in picturesque and significant objects, when, for
> example, it is the history of a small, isolated, capricious,
> hierarchical (i.e., ruled by false notions), obscure people, like the
> Jews, despised by the great contemporary nations of the East and of
> the West. Since the great migration of peoples lies between us and all
> the ancient nations, just as between the present surface of the earth
> and the surface whose organisms appear only as fossil remains there
> lies the former change of the bed of the ocean, it is to be regarded
> generally as a great misfortune that the people whose former culture
> was to serve mainly as the basis of our own were not, say, the Indians
> or the Greeks, or even the Romans, but just these Jews."
>
> This, in my opinion, explains in particular the primary super-cultural
> and meta-scientific motives and purposes of the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD
> Theory. These relatively modern (from two hundred to fifty years old)
> ideological undercurrents of their and their followers and peers
> theories are much better documented and easier verified than those of
> the supposed late "creators" of the Biblical narratives. As to the
> Archeological data left to itself, it is certainly very far from
> speaking so obligatory and single-mindedly in the favour of the
> Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory or any other similar theory.
>
> This said, I do not simplify, and surely not negate the importance of
> the problem of the Bible historical, literaty, and linguistic origins.
> I am actually working on an article related to these origins (but not
> to the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory, sorry).
>
> It would be certainly a mistake to construe these my remarks,
> difficult even for me - a "hard scientist" as I am - to spell out, as
> an accusation of those who today believe in, and work on the
> Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory to be Jews-haters or Jews-bashers. Too
> historically guillible ?
>
>
> Edward G. Belaga
> ******************************************************



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:48:24 -0800
From: "Bryant J. Williams III" 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal
Narratives
To: "Yitzhak Sapir" , "b-hebrew"

Message-ID: <00bd01c84609$c4ad4980$ac345142@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Yitzhak,

Then are you saying that the noted Kenneth Kitchen is incorrect in his
statements that situations presented in the Pentateuch are reflective of 2nd
Millennium BC? (I am unable at this time to give you the quotes since I have 
his
books packed to move to a new location here in Redding, CA.)

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" 
To: "b-hebrew" 
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives


> On Dec 23, 2007 8:13 PM, Jim Stinehart wrote:
> >
> > Yitzhak Sapir:
> > I asked you a very simple question, and we are all awaiting an answer. For
> > your convenience, I will repeat my question verbatim:
> > Please point out at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives which,
in
> > your view, reflects the 1st millennium BCE, and does not reflect the
> > mid-2nd millennium BCE.
>
> I answered you. The burden of proof is not upon me, it is upon you. It is
you
> who is going against what is commonly accepted in the academic world. It is
> therefore you who must construct a persuasive case, based on a critical
analysis
> of the data. It is clear to me that if I provide examples, you will
> try to prove my
> examples wrong. But your arguments will likely suffer from what all your
> arguments have suffered until now - a lack of understanding and
> misinterpretation
> of linguistics and history. Since the burden of proof is not upon me
> anyway, it is
> something I opt not to do.
>
> But here, I don't need to point out just one. I'll point out several. ALL
the
> Patriarchal Narratives are not reflective of the 2nd millennium BCE, and
> specifically, no part of them -- not even a single verse -- reflects the
period
> described by the Amarna correspondence.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.7/1194 - Release Date: 12/23/07 
> 5:27
PM
>
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:50:30 +0000
From: kenneth greifer 
Subject: [b-hebrew] Amarna letters
To: 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Jim Stinehart,

If you are going to try to show that the stories in the patriarchal 
narratives match the stories in the Amarna letters, could you give the actual 
numbers of the letters that you are claiming as proof? Also, if those letters 
can be read on the internet, maybe you could put a link to them. You keep 
saying things about the Amarna letters, but you don't give the details of 
your proof, so other people can look at what you are saying.

Kenneth Greifer
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:26:37 -0800
From: "K Randolph" 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Graf-Wellhausen discredited
To: "Yigal Levin" 
Cc: b-hebrew 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Dear Yigal:

On Dec 22, 2007 10:06 PM, Yigal Levin wrote:

>
> K Randolph wrote:
>
> > Going back to what Yigal Levin wrote, that in the archeological record

=== message truncated ===