StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 12:45 pm
Neither the Bible nor archaeology gives a full, reliable account of history. Nor Gmirkin changing versions filtered by his follower. Despite fundamentalist totalizing urgings.
Hey, mate, just accept that we can all agree that we have an incomplete picture of the past because our evidence is indeed limited. But that does not mean we can go beyond the evidence if we want to write serious reconstructions on the basis of the evidence available to us right now. As more evidence comes to light and leads to reinterpretations then we will write updated histories.
Oh, just one more thing: You do know that Matt Baker grew up in the Armstrong Worldwide Church of God cult, don't you?
The Hebrew word for " primeval flood ” ( t'hom ) probably has a linguistic affinity with Tiamat , the Babylonian dragon of chaos . A more direct connection , amounting to a “ borrowing , cannot be assumed .
So there is some relationship but perhaps not borrowing. Can you show me a similar consensus that has grown around Berossos as the source for the Pentateuch? Is there any real difference that saying the Pentateuch has an 'affinity' for/with Berossos's writings although "borrowing cannot be assumed." In that way both theories don't have much widespread support.
For those who like to read, see my following article.
"Can the Documentary Hypothesis be Rehabilitated? A New Model of the Collaborative Composition of the Pentateuch"
Journal of Higher Criticism 15/3 (2020), 4-48.
Abstract: Throughout most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, higher criticism's identification of JEDPH sources provided a then-compelling model for the literary development of the Pentateuch. Since the 1970s, the acknowledgment of serious difficulties in the Documentary Hypothesis have undermined the earlier consensus and led to a number of competing models, several of which deny the viability of separating out distinct JEDPH sources. In the present article, I call into question a central feature of Documentary and Supplementary Hypotheses, namely that the JEDPH sources represent different historical stages in the creation of the Pentateuch. Instead, I propose a new model in which these represent contemporary literary voices in the collaborative creation of the Pentateuch by a team of authors. This new model allows for a new interpretation of the JEDPH sources that overcomes the various objections raised against the Documentary Hypothesis in recent years.
(Much/most of this thread can be disregarded since my views on the Documentary Hypothesis are not accurately represented. I view the distinct JEDPH sources as more-or-less accurately identified, but contemporary, mutually intertwined, and often demonstrably collaborative.)
Someone may have said, it's hard to unbake a cake.
That may be "accurate," though Mr. Gmirkin may or may not consider that "polemic."* I like to read.
Sources may be changed somewhat in editing, redaction. Sources plus editing takes time (i.e., is a diachronic process).
How much time? Must we make the perfect the enemy of the good?
Gmirkin's particular "synchronic" proposal ("...that...views them a[s] contemporary") may have never been considered before (page 8).
(Though, some believe Moses wrote the five books--once upon a time.)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Despite Russell's self-assessment of accuracy and his pride in his new, even opposite, history claims,
so far as I can tell, most Hebrew Bible readers, including me, if I may say so,
are not persuaded.
added:
*RG deleted his oppositional [polemic?] use of the words "accurate" and "polemic" in his post above;
he edited, diachronically.
I'd like to ask Gmirkin (as a way of taking the temperature down in this debate) does he acknowledge that IF the lack of mention of the place name 'Jerusalem' in the document confirms only an interest in Gerizim/Shechem because the document was written for a north Israelite audience THAT we need at least two 'stages' to the arrival of a 'Pentateuch' in Jerusalem:
1. an original Gerizim covenant followed later by a specifically 'Jewish' one in Jerusalem
2. the addition of Deuteronomy to a Tetrateuch (and where the Shema seems at least to be a correction towards or perhaps 'strengthening' of a monotheistic interpretation of the two divine names in the Tetrateuch).
In other words, (a) an initial composition of a Gerizim-based Tetrateuch (b) the addition of Deuteronomy sometime later by different author(s) still at the Gerizim-based covenant and then (c) a specifically Jewish 'Pentateuch' for a covenant at Jerusalem. Is that acknowledged to be the necessary timeline if the lack of reference to 'Jerusalem' in the Pentateuch means the Pentateuch was originally a northern Israelite document?
One said he liked to read but when he tried to give a page citation he didn't know where to look for it and gave the pdf page number instead.
The other one said he wanted to lower the temperature while sheepishly smiling pretending he had always been nice to everyone when their backs were turned.
The first one said he could read the Hebrew bible but he couldn't read the definitions posted on the wall explaining how words like "diachronic" and "synchronic" and got completely fumbled in trying to tell a joke that only others who shared his mis-reading and failure to comprehend the meanings of the words could understand.
The second fly said: Hey, does anyone here wanna take me on and prove my pet theory is wrong? Anyone wanna prove to me that his theory is better than mine? Just come outside and we'll settle it with fly swats.
The first fly said: Hey, I'm not persuaded by anything here that does not agree with the books I haven't read. And I don't even have to explain what the arguments are because I'm not persuaded, period. I don't even have to read and argue with any of the points raised because I am not persuaded and because new ideas are clear evidence of pride and arrogance and stupidity.
And the second fly said: I'll wait till I'm sure he's gone before I start saying what I really think again -- coz i know he'll only give silly arguments because he won't agree with my pet theory that no-one else agrees with either.
R. Gmirkin wrote, above:
"(Much/most of this thread can be disregarded since my views on the Documentary Hypothesis are not accurately represented....)"
Whether he agrees with all neilgodfrey wrote or writes is not certain.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 12:40 pm
R. Gmirkin wrote, above:
"(Much/most of this thread can be disregarded since my views on the Documentary Hypothesis are not accurately represented....)"
Whether he agrees with all neilgodfrey wrote or writes is not certain.
What neilgodfrey wrote on the DH is all on page 1 of this thread so perhaps a little fly on the wall can pinpoint the exact post where neilgodfrey addressed R. Gmirkin's views at all!
a little fly on the wall here who says he likes to read won't have read any of those posts, nor has he ever read Wellhausen,
and nor will a little fly in the bar or on the wall recognize that the very criticisms R. Gmirkin makes of the DH include the very same criticisms found in articles neilgodfrey linked to on page one -- because he won't have read either R. Gmirkin's criticisms nor any article linked by neilgodfrey -- wilful ignorance and obsession with ad hominem are the surest inoculations against being persuaded. Eeek! A new idea! Quick! Kill it! Kill it!
The problem with the hypothesis is that it necessarily assumes that all the books were created at once. Like mountainman's fourth century Christian book factory under Constantine. The reality is clearly:
(a) Tetrateuch with no reference to Jerusalem (so built for a cultus based at Gerizim)
(b) Tetrateuch + Deuteronomy with no reference to Jerusalem (so built for a cultus based at Gerizim)
(c) Tetrateuch + Deuteronomy with no reference to Jerusalem used at a distinct 'break off' cultus at Jerusalem
Joshua was still written with Gerizim as the cultic center of Israel.
There just isn't enough time for three developments (Deuteronomy written to reinforce or reinterpret the Tetrateuch's two divine names 'Yahweh' and 'Elohim' as one God?), developments which clearly took place over at least a century, for all of this to fit with the earliest Pentateuch fragment at Qumran used as part of (c)
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 4:20 pm
The problem with the hypothesis is that it necessarily assumes that all the books were created at once. Like mountainman's fourth century Christian book factory under Constantine. The reality is clearly:
(a) Tetrateuch with no reference to Jerusalem (so built for a cultus based at Gerizim)
(b) Tetrateuch + Deuteronomy with no reference to Jerusalem (so built for a cultus based at Gerizim)
(c) Tetrateuch + Deuteronomy with no reference to Jerusalem used at a distinct 'break off' cultus at Jerusalem
Joshua was still written with Gerizim as the cultic center of Israel.
There just isn't enough time for three developments (Deuteronomy written to reinforce or reinterpret the Tetrateuch's two divine names 'Yahweh' and 'Elohim' as one God?), developments which clearly took place over at least a century, for all of this to fit with the earliest Pentateuch fragment at Qumran used as part of (c)
ummmm..... no.... the hypothesis doesn't assume that the books were created "at once". That is the hypothesis that is argued, not assumed.
You really should read other ideas so you know what you are talking about.
