Documentary Hypothesis

[neilgodfrey]

I find it highly ironic that you are a librarian who cannot be persuaded to pick up a book.

SG is very quick to pick up on any perceived inaccuracies in statements by RG or NG here so no doubt we can expect to see a correction notice if he is not actually a professional librarian.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a librarian. It's a noble profession. My Acknowledgments page in Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible included the research librarian who handled my various exotic requests.

I should not have posted my questioning of SG's profession. There is nothing wrong with being a library assistant, either. I have worked with many absolutely wonderful and most helpful untrained assistants and highly recommended them to others for various awards, etc. Many of us in different circumstances would have been in different positions from where we are today -- but it is the character of the person that counts more than anything. (A few librarians and academics can be absolute shits, too.)

What galls me is hypocrisy when someone regularly seeks to personally belittle others as a substitute for serious conversation.

[Secret Alias]

"Hypocrisy" is one end of the spectrum. What's the other? "Sincerity." I wouldn't hold my breath until anyone at this forum accuses someone else of "sincerity." Hypocrisy is a term that is bandied about which is almost meaningless. We live in an age where no one has any real ideals or principles. It's all just go for the jugular for reasons that defy rationality. I have nothing against "hypocrisy." Life demands compromise and compromise almost necessarily raises the aforementioned accusation. What I object to more is/are creative people who use their creative thinking to look at things only one way for the sake of a cause, a goal, a thesis whatever. "Harnessed creativity" is merely being cunning. There is nothing worse, nothing whatsoever than people with agendas. Too many cunning people in the world, too many agendas and too few listeners.

[neilgodfrey]

What I object to more is/are creative people who use their creative thinking to look at things only one way for the sake of a cause, a goal, a thesis whatever. "Harnessed creativity" is merely being cunning. There is nothing worse, nothing whatsoever than people with agendas. Too many cunning people in the world, too many agendas and too few listeners.

So what is your agenda vis a vis the Samaritans and Jews? It is clearly more than an academic exercise. You jump on a Samaritan bandwagon and gee-up the horses at every opportunity and even when the time is inopportune. Just like fundamentalists do with their hobby horses. And have no embarrassment that you are claiming to be the only one marching in step and it is all the rest who are out of step.

[Secret Alias]

Not an agenda. A tribute.

[Russell Gmirkin]

I'd be happy to engage . . .

A related question: In Gospel discussions one sometimes encounters the view that because Genesis is scarcely referenced in the gospels it (Genesis) is thought to be of such a late date that it lacked the authoritative status of the other OT books. Comment?

I haven't studied the issue, but see online the following gospel references to Genesis 1-11 alone:

Reference / Topic / Genesis Reference
1. Matthew 19:4 Created male and female 1:27, 5:2
2. Matt. 19: 5-6 Cleave to his wife; become one flesh 2:24
3. Matt. 23:35 Righteous Abel 4:4
4. Matt. 24:37-39 Noah and the flood 6:1-22, 7:1-24, 8:1-22
5. Mark 10:6 Created male and female 1:27, 5:2
6. Mark 10:7-9 Cleave to his wife, become one flesh 2:4
7. Mark 13:19 Since the beginning of the creation which God created 1:1, 2:4
8. Luke 3:34-36 Genealogies: Adam to Shem 11:10-26
9. Luke 3:36-38 Genealogies: Noah to Adam to God 5:3-29
10. Luke 11:51 Blood of Abel 4:8-11
11. Luke 17:27 The flood came and destroyed them all 7:10-23
12. John 1:1-3 In the beginning 1:1

There are also Gospel references to Abraham (apparently concentrated in Luke). I find elsewhere on online that 'Faithful Jews are called “sons” or “daughters” of Abraham (Luke 13:16, Luke 19:9) and are given the promise that he will be there to meet them when they depart this life (Luke 16:22).'

Then one has Jesus lovingly cursing out Capernaum and other cities that rejected his message by saying that in the day of judgment God would judge them more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah that perished in fire and brimstone in Lot's day (Matt. 10:15; 11:23-24; Luke 10:12; 17:28-30).

Looks pretty authoritative to me.

[StephenGoranson]

That those gospels apparently regarded Genesis 1-11 as "pretty authoritative" looks that way to me, too, so here I agree with Russell Gmirkin.

[neilgodfrey]

Not an agenda. A tribute.

Interesting. From the amount of time you spend here advancing your tribute to the Israelite Samaritan dogmas (yes, I know they have scholars among them, just as do Mormons and SDAs) and deploring any suggestion that "Jews" had any part at all as (or with) the original parents of the foundational Pentateuch, I do wonder about your accusation that someone here was "spending every waking hour trying to destroy a religion"* --- a projection of an obsession with suppressing one's own Jewish heritage and preferencing a constant tribute to Israelite Samaritans?

(* that accusation was curiously in the context of what some might interpret as a desperate effort to prove one had "a life")

[StephenGoranson]

I have read some Gmirkin writing since 2006.
When I wrote explicitly that I read the 2006 book--a book that I reviewed--NG continued to deny that I read it.
I have not reviewed the Gmirkin Plato books.
The Torah, in my view, supported by Qumran mss, was composed (possibly give or take a few verses) before Plato.
Given what I have read, I am not an RG-writing completist.
So far, my reading priorities lead me to other publications apparently more promising for my interests, time, and budget.
Others read different choices. Fine.

[Russell Gmirkin]

I have read some Gmirkin writing since 2006.
When I wrote explicitly that I read the 2006 book--a book that I reviewed--NG continued to deny that I read it.
I have not reviewed the Gmirkin Plato books.
The Torah, in my view, supported by Qumran mss, was composed (possibly give or take a few verses) before Plato.
Given what I have read, I am not an RG-writing completist.
So far, my reading priorities lead me to other publications apparently more promising for my interests, time, and budget.
Others read different choices. Fine.

I asked you very specifically whether you have read Gmirkin 2014, 2016, 2017, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2022a or 2022b. Once again, full-on evasion. "Some Gmirkin writing" can mean anything, including postings on this forum.

[neilgodfrey]

I'd be happy to engage . . .

A related question: In Gospel discussions one sometimes encounters the view that because Genesis is scarcely referenced in the gospels it (Genesis) is thought to be of such a late date that it lacked the authoritative status of the other OT books. Comment?

I haven't studied the issue, but see online the following gospel references to Genesis 1-11 alone:

Thanks for the response. I have been rattling my brain since posting and rummaging through files trying to find the piece that I was recently reading and that gave rise to my question. At the time I posed the question some doubts did come to my mind (you have quoted some of them). I have just come across a recently published chapter by Craig Evans addressing the frequency of references to Genesis in the gospels!

So I have to conclude that my original question had no basis but misguided imagination. Weird.