Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:
Please explain, in what way is it a straw man argument? Did you really
understand what I was saying? How does my argument make everything a breach
of list protocols?

For example, I think that grammarians make Hebrew grammar harder than it was
in ancient times, and that because some of the points from the Masoretes are
wrong. That is a testable statement because we can compare pointed vs.
unpointed text and see what are the meanings that we can tease out of them.
There may be disagreements and discussion, but any answer will be based on
the analysis of the text.

Another example. I think Moses wrote Exodus about 1440 BC telling the true
story of the exodus. This is what is indicated when cross referencing other
verses in the Bible. But a Naturalist will come along and say that it is
impossible for the story to be true, because of all the claims of the
supernatural acting into history. Therefore, these stories of the exodus
must be myths written much later, much the same way as my ancestor Odin was
made into a god by the myth makers. Because of the Naturalist's faith in
that the supernatural does not act into history, he comes to the table with
the à priori intent of looking for clues showing how the myth was cooked up.
In the case of the Bible, the clues that he "finds" elicit the response of
"are you crazy?" from those who admit to the possibility that the
supernatural might have acted into history. Notice the difference in the
interpretations of the text, based on the different faiths.

The first example above starts with the text, then analyses it: the second
one starts with expectations then reacts to the text according how it fits
those expectations. The first starts with concrete evidence, then looks to
try to understand it: the second starts with faith, only afterwards looking
at the text. The first starts with the observable, then, if consistently
practiced, stays with the observable: the second starts with
the unobservable (faith), and interpretations based on the unobservable are
viewed by some as evidence, by others as foolishness.

If the Documentary Hypothesis is correct, where are the source documents
that demonstrate it? Where are those that lack the Priestly insertions, or
lack the Elohimist sections? Where is the concrete evidence? Likewise, where
are the copies that long predate the DSS, even the Babylonian Exile, if the
supernatural is a possibility? In both cases, the adherents of both sides
are acting according to faith in the absence of evidence.

Until concrete evidence that demonstrates either one or the other is
produced, matters of faith should not be pushed on a neutral forum. Or do
you think matters of faith are legitimate subjects for discussion here?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Karl, you've just proven that this is a straw man. If your argument is
> right, then everything is a breach of the list protocols. If they are not,
> then why won't you discuss these types of questions on B-Hebrew?
>
> Let's drop this old chestnut, shall we?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>