Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Kevin:

On Jan 31, 2008 4:40 PM, Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au> wrote:

> Karl
>
> Thank you for at least noticing that some people in state churches - today
> (I hope) as well as in the past - were/are real Christians.


Why even bring them up? This is a red herring argument, as I never mentioned
them, they were not the subject of the historical development of DH, hence
are completely irrelevant to the discussion. That you mentioned them puzzles
me, I don't understand the logic here.


> I still find
> your judgement of the developers of DH as 'pagans' who had only mercenary
> reasons for joining the church somewhat offensive, but at least we are
> making progress. I still do not see what difference it would make if they
> were actual pagans who sacrificed children regularly every Wednesday


Now I have to come to the defense of the pagans. I am not one of them, but I
live in an area where there are many self-professed pagans, and this
description is completely offensive to them, and to me.

As for the "mercenary" aspect, that has been documented elsewhere. For
example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod here in the U.S. was founded by
Germans who refused to go along with that mercenary aspect, and were
persecuted for it. They fled that persecution by coming to the U.S.


> when it
> comes to the issue of whether their hypothesis about the Hebrew text of
> the
> Pentateuch was correct. Either it explains the reality we find, or it does
> not.


True, when you have sufficient evidence.


> Either way, their religious beliefs are not really relevant.


Yes and no, it depends.

For example, if one follows the definition of science method as it was
written in the science textbooks I learned from in college, it doesn't
matter what one believes, as long as he is following those principles, he is
doing science.

An example in linguistics is Gesenius: even though he was a proponent of DH,
his linguistic analysis of the Hebrew language, while I don't agree with all
of it, still is valuable to study today.

But if one theorizes in an area where there are no observations, only his
religion to guide him, then his religion becomes very relevant. Examples of
such religious beliefs include Darwinian evolution in its development to
today, creationism, and DH.

If DH methodology worked for modern literature (last few centuries) where we
have the history of the documents and authors to check on the veracity of
the method, then one might have reason to say that the method can be used on
Bible too. But when it can be applied only to Bible, as admitted by others
even on this list, and gives false readings on all other literature, then it
is legitimate to question its applicability to Bible too.

That DH method works only for Bible is further indication (besides
self-admitted religious bias) that it is religiously based and therefore can
be rejected on ideological grounds.


> More than
> one good theory has been based on an erroneous methodological basis. The
> error is usually corrected by later theorists. The real question is not
> whether the developers of the DH had religious beliefs that meet with your
> approval, but whether the theory, as taught today, explains the reality of
> the text and its history.


I read recently (about a month ago), I don't remember where, that the only
"evidence" for post-Exilic use of Biblical Hebrew as the language on the
street is the requirements of DH and that archeology shows only Aramaic so
used. This fits with my analysis of how the language changed in post-Exilic
writings recorded in the Bible.


>  For what it is worth, I have reservations about
> the details of the DH, but that has nothing to do with its developers', or
> present exponents', religious or philosophical beliefs.
>
> Kevin
>

Kevin, while it is true as you mentioned above, that some theories started
out based on erroneous presuppositions, later to be verified on more
rigorous grounds, that has not happened with DH. The only ways to verify DH
to the skeptic is 1) find positively identified source documents that match
the recognized portions identified by DH method, or 2) show that the method
gives accurate results when applied to modern literature where we have
records to verify the results. That neither condition has been met leaves DH
dependent on the ideological beliefs that sourced it.

Karl W. Randolph.