Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:55:45 -0600

Gabe,
I can't stand reading anymore of this "science is just another ideology/faith" stuff. Not only does Karl not understand the basic nature of science (for example, his picture of competing "ideologies" cannot explain why the whole vast edifice of modern biology works as it does -- why one "ideology" has created modern technological civilization while the other simply pours out verbiage), this notion of ideologies logically reduces to complete relativism, where everyone is free to choose his own premises.

HH: I'm not defending what Karl said. But it is believers in God who enabled and developed a scientific viewpoint. It was people who assumed an order in the universe because of a Creator. Many university scientist are believers.
Instead of talking about faith and ideology, a philosopher would say that there are different language-games involved here, with different paradigms of inference. The real mistake is to think that scholars (mainstream university scholars) and fundamentalists share some common notions of truth and evidence. They do not, and it is the misfortune of this list to be a forum for such utter miscommunication.

HH: All people who believe in truth share some common ideas about evidence.
In the case of Deuteronomy, there is much more to the theory of its 7th-century origin than just the note about its being "found" in the Temple. There is the body of laws that contradict the early laws of Exodus, and do so in exactly the ways that would be needed if local shrines had been allowed before but were now being banned, in line with a new centralized system. And of course there are the great stylistic differences, as well as a different theological mindset. (See Moshe Weinberg's great book on this.) All of these things must remain hidden from fundamentalists, in the same way that the contents of biology are hidden from them.

HH: What body of laws are you talking about that contradict the laws in Exodus?

Getting back to the subject of Hebrew... I recall that in answering a question of mine about the third-person ending NW (with "nun energicum"), Yitzhak Sapir gave an explanation that involved "The original reconstruction of the verb way back when before Hebrew", and presupposed a linguistic evolution. I also note that, in addition to the work of Hurvitz on stages in the development of Hebrew mentioned here previously, there are books along the same lines by Robert Polzin, Gary Rendsburg and Ziony Zevit. This is the kind of thing I would love to see examined by the Hebrew scholars here, but it is anathema to the fundamentalists.

HH: People who believe the Bible study Ugaritic, Phoenician, and West Semitic and consider how they may have influenced the Hebrew language. The idea that biblical faith is somehow opposed to scholarship is false. Karl does not regularly consult or easily accept the findings of Bible dictionaries, grammars, translations, and commentaries. He has a unique perspective based on reading the biblical text without pointing and deriving most of his conclusions from his own insights into what the text might mean.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page