Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

I wrote:-
>> You really ought to drop this line of argument. Its simply wrong.
>> No one disputes Wellhausen's ideology.?

And Karl responsded:-

>I do. I read a PhD dissertation that does. I had professors when I was in
>college who did. In fact, I consider this to be the most important
>objection. It is a valid objection.

Methinks thou art being deliberately obtuse. You are agreeing with what
I wrote but trying to make it sound like you disagree.

>That's the difference: I was exposed to the ideology first, shown how the
>ideology shapes the methodology and as a result, reject the methodology
>first and foremost on the basis of the ideology still implicit in the
>methodology. The same ideology is behind the splitting of Isaiah into two
>or three portions, as well as the late dating of Daniel, and so forth.

Thank you for finally saying this. When I first read this, which was
yesterday, it freaked me out. I have never met anyone who looks at the
world this way. Its a free country and you are entitled to your views
but don't ever expect anyone to take you seriously. I think our views
of the world are so far apart that we are mutually unintelligible to
each other. So I'm going to leave this thread.

Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'