Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] theories and standards

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] theories and standards
  • Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 18:36:11 -0700

Moderators,

You got rid of Jim for making too many tenuous assumptions. (Also he tended to give bogus etymologies in order to identify certain Hebrew and Egyptian place-names.) His theory was that Ezra altered the text to turn northern references into southern ones. (Not something wildly implausible on its face, just lacking in evidence.)

What replaced Jim's theory as the dominant topic of the list was a theory saying that Genesis was written by many of the characters who appear in it, beginning with Adam (or, excuse me, with God). I don't think I need to start listing the hundreds of tenuous assumptions involved in this hypothesis, but they must include a very young earth, an incredibly fast spread and differentiation of human populations and cultures, and Hebrew as the mother of all languages. Even if I gave up all of modern science, the theory would still involve an incredibly implausible (to me) idea about how the documents were transmitted and edited. In particular, the assertions about how certain sections represent the point of view of Shem, Terah, et.al. strike me as absurd.

So I am wondering what the criteria are here. Is Karl's theory germane to the list because it is somehow tied to the word TWLDWT ? It seems to me to run much further afield (of BH) than Jim's analysis of place-names, and its supposed connection to Mesopotamian literary forms is at least as weak as Jim's use of Egyptian documents.

By the way, I'm not trying to limit the list to its "true purposes". Everybody has their own purposes, and I assume that interest in BH is almost always motivated by one's attitude toward the Bible as a unique and special book. Thus I don't think that you can separate questions about BH from questions about the history of the text. (Karl often asserts that you can, and that the list must adhere to language questions, but here we see him breaking his own rule.)
My gripe is just that I see you guys upholding various standards of scholarship, and then in some cases throwing them out the window. Which, IMHO, is what you have to do in order to seriously discuss theories ascribing authorship to legendary characters like Adam and Noah. Or am I missing something?


Gabe Eisenstein




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page