Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Brian Roberts" <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>]

Fair enough.

My own personal read on the DH (even though noone asked me) is that it was a
great idea back when originally proposed. The idea of multiple authorship is
pretty much understood today even by those who don't (like me) support the
specifics of the DH as it exists today. But the way its proponents and
architects chose to build it was rather arbitrary and - as it grew and was
passed on - fell victim to as much circular reasoning as anyone has ever
accused those who promote Mosaic Authorship. If it's not fair to use the
biblical text to prove the biblical text, then it's not in bounds to use the
DH to prove the DH.

DH today is a rather calcified edifice, to my view largely because its
architects attempted to take what was a generally sound theory, and try to
make it bear more than it could, by being too specific.

Make sense?

R. Brian Roberts
Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology



>But a "face-value" reading is not necessarily the "literary context."
>Also, in
>my discussion of two levels, I did not end up in a position where one gets
>to
>reading the text as it stands in a composite, but rather, better
>understanding
>its position in the composite because one understands the developments that
>it underwent.

>Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew