Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Gabe:

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>wrote:

> Karl,
>
> It seems from your curious (to me) assertions that Deuteronomy is
> "informal" and "off the cuff", that you are taking the option I
> characterized as sloppiness on the part of Moses (as opposed to scribal
> mangling at a later time).


I do not make the equation that informal = sloppiness. However, informal
allows that people when they speak do not follow strict literary styles.


> This is surprising to me because I am used to
> people either taking the text as "perfect" (inspired in such a way that
> every word and its order matters), or as the product of all-too-human
> scribes.


These are two theological positions that are off limits for this group, i.e.
it is wrong to insist on either one.

But even from the "perfect" group, informal speech does not detract from
divine inspiration.


> But your way, whose uniqueness I have only slowly come to
> appreciate, allows for some amount of inspiration (such as that which
> allowed Isaiah to talk about Cyrus) mixed with human editorial processes
> (Moses using older documents, and putting things together in his own
> words). I take it that God Himself never speaks "off the cuff" or
> informally.


Why put God in a box? Why wouldn't he communicate in whatever style that
best fits the context and communication?


> (I am still in the dark as to many details of your view; for
> example, whether the documents Moses used for Genesis were themselves
> inspired and perfectly accurate, or he was inspired to select the true
> documents and perhaps correct their errors, or what.)


The Bible itself doesn't answer these questions, therefore any answers we
propose are by their very nature speculations. I learned the hard way that
speculation can be dangerous.


> Therefore the text
> of Deuteronomy is not divinely dictated (except perhaps where explicitly
> quoting God's words).


That is a theological question.


> And you must reject the view that the whole Torah
> was given on Sinai, for example (the view that, just as God there
> predicted everything that Rabbi Aqiba would say, He also described what
> would be happening in the next 40 years, including the farewell address
> that Moses would give, and Moses' death).
>

Don't the writings of the Pentateuch itself reject this view?

>
> Now the main point I want to make is that our view of the conditions
> surrounding the composition of a text, and the intentions of its author,
> affect our view of the meaning of the text.


But can we forget the content and context of the communications? Does not
the content of this farewell address show that the intentions of the author
were to communicate a condensed repetition highlighting main points from the
previous 40 years, as well as final instructions for how the nation should
go forward?


>
> So now in Deut.28, it matters whether the seemingly independent subtexts
> ever existed as such, and whether Moses intended for the blessings and
> curses to be strictly parallel. It matters whether verse 25 is out of
> order (belonging between 19 & 20), or whether something extra is
> signified by it being so.


Again, are you not reading out of context?

Again I emphasize that this is more informal speech. And where do you find
that strict rules of composition are followed in informal speech? Are you
trying to read too much into this?


> And of course it matters greatly whether Moses
> intended the curses as true prophecies, or simply as a kind of legal
> boilerplate found in many ordinary treaties, as you and George Athas
> seem to think.


Is it mere boiler plate, or did God intend to follow the promises of the
agreement? In other words, the promises came first, and the images from
diplomatic speech merely appended onto the promises?


> (Perhaps God had caused all those court scribes to use
> those formulas for all those centuries just in anticipation of the fact
> that He would need to have them in the mouth of Moses at the farewell
> speech?)


This sort of speculative answer sounds far out. Rather, it seems more likely
that Moses took some of the imagery from the boiler-plate, but the promises
were there independent of the imagery.


> It matters whether Moses intended us to think of Sin and
> Shamash (that is, the moon and sun) when hearing the curses that (as per
> you and George) were known by many people to be associated with them, or
> whether he "demythologized" the familar terminology.
>

If an Egyptian had written the VTE, would he have mentioned Sin and Shamash?
Or any other nation that recognized other gods? But yet this set of
blessings and curses being similar? And since the imagery so expressive, use
the imagery if possible?

>
> (By the way, the diversity of curses in Assyrian documents leads me to
> believe that these "formulas" were not so formulaic after all, and that
> each document allowed for a range of scribal creativity. What was fixed
> was the order of deities more than the specific words describing the
> deitiy's curse. Therefore I do think there's a direct connection between
> VTE and Deuteronomy. But that's another argument.)
>

I agree and disagree. While there was a general vague outline that several
authors picked and chose which parts they would take, I disagree in that the
names and orders of the deities named in specific treaties had anything to
do any other scribe's treaty. Hence any connection between VTE and
Deuteronomy are indirect and vague at best.

>
> Even on the assumption that the speech was "off the cuff", I must still
> assume that (lacking superhuman mental abilities) Moses had gone over
> some of it in his mind or in notes beforehand. I assume that he had
> thought through the parallelism of blessings and curses, perhaps making
> notes that listed the blessings roughly as they appear in verses 2-14.


Not necessarily, why not his mental notes merely saying "mention blessings
and curses here" without going over them beforehand in detail? This all is
speculation.

>
> If you grant me that, I then propose that we have the following versions
> of the text:
> 1) notes or mental rehearsal
> 2) oral delivery
> 3) transcription (by Moses himself? that would be rather superhuman) of
> the oral speech
> 4) incorporation into Pentateuch
> 5) copying by scribes (probably at least 100 times, wouldn't you say?)
>
> Is it your view that there was a certain sloppiness obtaining between
> steps 1 and 2, but no further modifications occurred during any of the
> last 3 (or 103) steps?


Any answer I give here is speculation. Then there are the theological
considerations.


> Common sense and the evidence of scribal errors
> in the existing text (omitted half-lines, duplications, resh/daleth,
> etc.etc.) make it hard to believe that our text would correspond exactly
> to either 2 or 3, absent continuing miracles guiding scribal hands. But
> even putting that aside, it is significant to me that there might
> already be a gap between 1 and 2.


Depends on how detailed #1 was.

>
>
>
> Gabe Eisenstein
> _________________
>

Again and again I noticed that your questions require speculation to answer,
because the text itself is silent. But speculation is the one thing we
cannot do and retain integrity. Either the text spells out what is meant, or
it doesn't. Anything beyond that is speculation.

Karl W. Randolph.