< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

A little more on the Documentary Hypothesis

 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 12:02
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 10:16 AM

*Like this (pardon typos):

...there were two main problems which needed to be discussed, two outstanding question to which an answer was slowly evolved.  These we may call the problems of creation and of revelation;  the questions: “How did God make the world?” and “How can and does God communicate with man?”
Neither problem presented any real difficulty to the rather more primitive Hebrew of pre-exilic days.  His conception of God was anthropomorphic, and he thought of Yahweh as possessing a physical body, not unlike that of man, though with much greater powers.  The creation of the world, then, was accomplished just as a human artificer would construct a work of art.  The story told in Genesis 2 assumes the existence of the world, and offers no speculation as to how matter came into being.  It tells of Yahweh modeling the moistened clay to make first man, then the animals, and speaks of His planting the garden in which His man is placed.  The heavens are the work of His fingers, and His hands have fashioned the earth.
A more sophisticated age could not be content with such a position, and as the conception of Yahweh grew more spiritual and less material, it became necessary to look for some other explanation of the Universe.  The outlook of the first centuries after the Exile is represented in Genesis 1.  The contrast with the older narrative is very striking.  All the anthropomorphism has vanished, and in its place we have a stately, scientific, almost evolutionary process.

—Oesterly and Robinson in Hebrew Religion—Its Origin and Developments

And this book was published in 1930. As I said, the ideas you’re advocating have been dismissed for longer than you’ve been alive.

 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 12:20
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

You said, “But the priests who redacted and edited the Torah during or shortly after the exile didn’t subscribe to it:as is evident by their contribution.” You seem unaware that the beginning of P dates to before the exile.

(Andrew):  No…I’m aware of that.  The beginnings of P date to the establishment of the priesthood.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

...as I pointed out, anti-anthropomorphism doesn’t reach the biblical text at all

(Andrew):  As I pointed out, anti-anthropomorphism is not the issue.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

You’re presupposing an evolutionary model that you can neither defend nor even explain.

(Andrew):  I’ve been defending and explaining it throughout this thread.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

You simply accept it when others say “religions evolved,”...

(Andrew):  Not at all.  I’ve studied the anthropology of religion.  You apparently have not.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

...and you don’t seem aware that these ideas have been out of date since before you were born.

(Andrew):  grin  What complete twaddle.  You have no idea when I was born.


(Andrew—-previously):  Yeah?  That, by itself, is supposed to….what?  Disprove something?  You’ll have to do better.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Yeah, it does disprove something.

(Andrew):  What?  Please?

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Since your idea about anthropomorphism as “elss sophisticated” is based entirely on a fallacious model of religious evolution…

(Andrew):  Says you.  With no substantiation.  Ho, hum.

(Andrew-previously):  Who?  Which scholars?  Cite some sources and post some relevant passages from them.  Please.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

I cited the relevant sources in my first response to you.

(Andrew):  If you think I’m going to order and read a bunch of books on your say-so, I’m afraid I haven’t the time.  If I did that for every internet nob who thinks that throwing out a bunch of book titles settles something, that’s all I’d be doing.
Please post some relevant passages for discussion.  Or get off the stage.
(Andrew-previously):  Suggesting that something should be rejected because you say it’s “horribly Hegleian” doesn’t advance the conversation very much…and really borders on intellectual snobbery.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Don’t waste my time with posturing.

(Andrew):  I was about to say the same to you.  I supply relevant passages to back up what I say…you don’t, expecting everyone to take your word on things.  Foolishness.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Again, don’t waste my time.

(Andrew):  If you feel that your time is being wasted, there is a very simple, one-click solution to your problem.

 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 12:33
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  No…I’m aware of that.  The beginnings of P date to the establishment of the priesthood.

And when P was fully redacted it was still not characterized by anti-anthropomorphism.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  As I pointed out, anti-anthropomorphism is not the issue.

It is the opposition to anthropomorphism, which you asserted was a part of the priestly theology.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  I’ve been defending and explaining it throughout this thread.

You’ve done no such thing. You’ve simply asserted it and reasserted it.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  Not at all.  I’ve studied the anthropology of religion.  You apparently have not.

Quoting a text from 1930 betrays the rudimentary nature of that study. I assure you I have studied it far more than you.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  grin  What complete twaddle.  You have no idea when I was born.

Unless you’re 75, my point stands. Are you 75?

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  What?  Please?

“Please” by itself is not a question, it’s a statement.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  Says you.  With no substantiation.  Ho, hum.

I’ve explained exactly why, and all you’ve done is barked “Nu-uh!” You’re responding exactly as the fundamental Christians from CARM. Deny, deny, deny, evade, evade, evade.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  If you think I’m going to order and read a bunch of books on your say-so, I’m afraid I haven’t the time.

Then don’t get into this discussion. When you have time to do the research, then come back and we can discuss this.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

If I did that for every internet nob who thinks that throwing out a bunch of book titles settles something, that’s all I’d be doing.

If you looked at my blog you’d see I’m no “internet nob.” Don’t patronize me.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

Please post some relevant passages for discussion.  Or get off the stage.

I’ve already seen what you do with citations (you ignore them). I’m not going to waste my time when you refuse to discuss this intelligently or honestly.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  I was about to say the same to you.  I supply relevant passages to back up what I say…you don’t, expecting everyone to take your word on things.  Foolishness.

More impotent posturing. I’ve cited the research. I’m under no obligation to go digging through it and post the conclusions here so you don’t have to.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:20 AM

(Andrew):  If you feel that your time is being wasted, there is a very simple, one-click solution to your problem.

I already have a solution.

If you want treat this like an adult conversation and commit the necessary time to the research then let me know. If all you intend to do is flippantly deny things and ejaculate dilettantism all over this message board, I’ll save myself the trouble.

 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 12:41
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:57 AM

Your perspective is popular among amateurs who haven’t been exposed to the most recent literature…

(Andrew):  Such as Wm Friedman, I suppose?  You’re a hoot!

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

...but I assure you it is outdated.

(Andrew):  Pardon me if I discount your assurances in the total absence of anything to back them up.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

The Documentary Hypothesis is just one of several theories, and right now it’s not even the most popular.

(Andrew):  Your string of unsubstantiated assertions continues to grow.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Because this is my specialization. You can find out more about who I am on my blog, danielomcclellan.wordpress.com.

(Andrew):  I really don’t give a shit who you are, or how many blogs you have.  I’m interested in you backing up what you say.  Simple communication.  The construction of the Torah is my specialization, btw.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

There are other reasons these texts tend to be separated down lines that preserve some linguistic differentiation, but linguistic data is not the main reason, nor does it hold consistently to the divisions.

(Andrew):  No one has said that liguistic data is the main reason to attribute a certain passage to a certain source—you seem to have trouble with comprehension.  I’ve said that linguistic data is one indicator.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

The documentary hypothesis holds that an author or group of authors sat down with a number of sources and cut and pasted them together in relatively identifiable chunks. The supplementary hypothesis holds that a base text began forming that had supplementary texts added to it over time by numerous different authors. The fragmentary hypothesis holds that an author or groups of authors took a number of fragmentary stories and cobbled them together to form an entirely new composition.

(Andrew):  Excellent!  Now…what’s the evidence for the supplementary and/or fragmentary hypotheses (something along the lines of the evidence that I’ve been supplying for the Documentary Hypothesis would be helpful)?  And don’t tell me to read a book…this is a discussion forum.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Two passages are hardly representative of the entire Pentateuch, and I already said it’s rare, not entirely non-existent.

(Andrew): They’re not rare and, again, no one has said that they’re representative of the “entire Pentateuch”.  But what they do is provide very good evidence for the intentional weaving together of passages…i.e., the Documentary Hypotheis.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

No, the names of God do not divide consistently. If you wish to assert they do please cite some literature where that is shown to be the case.

(Andrew):  Genesis 1 & Genesis 2, for starters.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Three chapters of scripture hardly conflict with my statement that it is only generally true.

(Andrew):  What those three chapters do is demonstrate that your claim (above) that “the names of God do not divide consistently” is incorrect.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

In addition, these chapters are divided by other stronger indicators.

(Andrew):  Undeniable.

 
 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 13:04
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 11:33 AM

...when P was fully redacted it was still not characterized by anti-anthropomorphism.

(Andrew):  Correct.  It was characterized by (among other things) a lack of anthropomorhism.

(Andrew-previously):  As I pointed out, anti-anthropomorphism is not the issue.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

It is the opposition to anthropomorphism…

(Andrew):  No it’s not.  Anti-anthropomorphism implies an active campaign against anthropomorphism.  I’m not suggesting that.  I’m suggesting that the Hebrew religion gradually evolved away from an anthropomorphic view of God. 

(Andrew—previoulsy):  I’ve been defending and explaining it (the Documentary Hypothesis) throughout this thread.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

You’ve done no such thing. You’ve simply asserted it and reasserted it.

(Andrew):  On the contrary.  I’ve offered examples and quotes from leading Bible scholars.  You, on the other hand, have done neither, preferring to impress us all with completely unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to authority.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Quoting a text from 1930 betrays the rudimentary nature of that study. I assure you I have studied it far more than you.

(Andrew):  Throwing out a bunch of book titles with no excerpts to back up what you say betrays a fundamental doubt on your part about your position.  Again, your assurances mean doodly in the absence of substantiation.  You certainly don’t sound like you’ve ever studied the antropology of religion.

(Andrew—previously):  grin  What complete twaddle.  You have no idea when I was born.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Unless you’re 75, my point stands. Are you 75?

(Andrew):  Oesterly and Robinson was a) not an anthropology text and b) revised in the early 60’s with no material changes re: anthropomorphism.  I’ll be 70 next year.  (Yikes!  I just flashed on “next year” being right around the corner!)

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

I’ve explained exactly why…

(Andrew):  You haven’t “explained” doodly.  All you’ve done is make assertions and then get all pissy when you’re asked to substantiate them.  You’re responding like a fundy.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Then don’t get into this discussion.

(Andrew):  Fuck you, pal.  This is my thread.  When you have time (and knowledge) to back up things you say, get back to me.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

If you looked at my blog you’d see I’m no “internet nob.”

(Andrew):  You’re joking here, right?  I mean…Daystar’s got a blog.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

Don’t patronize me.

(Andrew):  Fuck you again.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

I’ve already seen what you do with citations (you ignore them).

(Andrew):  Citing a book title is not the same as posting a relevant passage from it for discussion.  I don’t ignore those.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 10:50 AM

I’ve cited the research.

(Andrew):  So have I.  And I’ve posted relevant passages for demonstration and discussion.  You haven’t.

If you want discuss things in an adult manner, rather than rely on unsubstantiated assertions and snobbish arrogance…let me know.

[ Edited: 21 December 2009 13:20 by Andrew]
 
 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 13:17
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 11:02 AM

...this book was published in 1930. As I said, the ideas you’re advocating have been dismissed for longer than you’ve been alive.

(Andrew):  It was revised in the early 60’s—with no change to the passages on anthropomorphism—so it’s publishing date is irrelevant.  But what does it’s age, by itself, have to do with anything?  Just because something’s old, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. 
Right?  Do you discount evolution on the basis that it was first popularized in the mid-nineteenth century?  Of course you don’t.
Unless you’re prepared to quote something, from some scholar (preferrably more than one), to the effect that the Hebrew religion didn’t evolved away from an anthropomorhic view of God prior to the exile, you’re really just floundering around here.

 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 13:19
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  Such as Wm Friedman, I suppose?  You’re a hoot!

I’ve cited nothing from Friedman. This is weak evasion of the fact that you’re not nearly as widely read on this topic as you want me to believe.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  Pardon me if I discount your assurances in the total absence of anything to back them up.

I’ve cited numerous texts that point this out. You have refused to consult them. The only “total absence” in this discussion is the absence of research on your part.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  Your string of unsubstantiated assertions continues to grow.

Again, I’ve cited the appropriate literature. It’s not my job to do your research for you. If you don’t want to do the research then you forfeit the debate. Claiming after that that I am the one who refuses to substantiate my assertions is simply asinine.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  I really don’t give a shit who you are, or how many blogs you have.

Clearly. You just want to assert your uneducated opinion as if it meant something to people in the field. I thought I would find intelligent discussion coming here, but you guys are worse than the fundamentalist Christians. At least they can express themselves without profanity.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

I’m interested in you backing up what you say.  Simple communication.  The construction of the Torah is my specialization, btw.

Not it’s not. You don’t even know what the Supplementary Hypothesis is and you’ve cited one text from 1930. You’re just being silly now.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  No one has said that liguistic data is the main reason to attribute a certain passage to a certain source—you seem to have trouble with comprehension.  I’ve said that linguistic data is one indicator.

You’ve evidently ignored everything I’ve said about this.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  Excellent!  Now…what’s the evidence for the supplementary and/or fragmentary hypotheses (something along the lines of the evidence that I’ve been supplying for the Documentary Hypothesis would be helpful)?  And don’t tell me to read a book…this is a discussion forum.

I’ll talk about one of them, although I can’t do the theory much justice in this limited space. The supplementary hypothesis (SH) accounts for the problematic nature of J and E in the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). There is too much overlap in the two sources (so much so that a JE source has been promulgated), and they may not even be pentateuchal (they are so far removed from P and D), which would undermine the fundamental assumptions about the DH having been sewn together by a small number of scribes putting together the Pentateuch. The SH fits more comfortably in a model which finds redaction to be a primary vehicle for variation, which accounts for the overlap and the fragmentary nature of the divisions.

Here are a few lines from the Levin article I cited earlier:

The Documentary Hypothesis, which assumes that there
are sources that run right through the Pentateuch, is incompatible with a solution
of this kind. Not a few of today’s scholars consider that this hypothesis is now superseded.
Instead, Deuteronomistic or late wisdom writers are made responsible for
fusing the different blocks of tradition. This view can claim support inasmuch as
explicit cross-references in the Pentateuch have clearly been introduced subsequently,
and at a late date; one example is the explicit references to the tradition of
the patriarchs in the books of Exodus to Deuteronomy.

Another solution sees the Priestly source as providing the historiographical
scaffolding into which the non-Priestly narratives have been inserted at a later
point, not having formed a separate source of its own before that. This revival of
the supplementary hypothesis once more attributes to the source P the position of
the basic document that nineteenth-century research rightly denied to it.
Until a short time ago, however, the Documentary Hypothesis was also called
into question because of the Priestly source, since the literary coherence in the
patriarchal narratives is so weak as to suggest that there was no independent written
source here, but that the P material represents a reworking of the older text.
The Priestly source alone is not suited to serve as the basis for the narrative of the
whole Pentateuch, even if there are still good reasons for the assumption of an originally
independent literary thread.

The composition of the Pentateuch hangs not on a single thread but on a cord
plaited together from two strands, the Priestly source and the Yahwist’s history.
This cord makes it possible for the work as a whole to avoid falling apart when one
of the two threads is torn or missing, which is the case several times.

From the Van Seters article I cited:

After 100 years of relatively widespread agreement on the documentary hypothesis, the consensus has broken down. While there is still agreement that separate sources and mutiple authors underlie the Pentateuch, a number of recent works, including my own, call for a new approach. The major problem areas are twofold. First, while scholars have continued to agree for the most part about the two distinct sources D and P, the material in J and E is another matter. Are there more than two sources here? Should J be further divided? Is E really a separate source or only variant traditions? Since it is only attested in a few places in Genesis, many scholars no longer regard E as a Pentateuchal source like the others.

Second, it is unclear whether the sources are independent of each other. Do we need redactors to account for the combination of sources with each other? Could these sources have existed in the same place or community and an earlier document not be known or used by a later writer? Along with a number of other scholars, I have advocated the view that the source were very much dependent upon one another. Yet there is still considerable debate as to how this dependence is to be understood.

From the Hagedorn article I cited:

Recently several new theories of the literary formation of the Books of Genesis-
Deuteronomy (Joshua) have emerged that maintain the existence of a priestly source but view the other
material as much more fragmented in character than proponents of the classic hypothesis were willing to
do. A closer look at the text itself suggests that a combination of documentary, fragment and supplementary
hypothesis is probably the best way to explain the long and complicated literary history of the Pentateuch.

. . .

Current scholarship on the Pentateuch sees the origin
of the literary complex no longer in four sources
woven together by a redactor. Rather its origins lay in
several smaller individual narratives as well as in the
legal material. During pre-exilic times these individual
narratives were woven together to two independent
larger narrative strands that seem to address the
origin of Israel: (a) the primeval and patriarchal
history and (b) the Exodus-Moses-narrative. Since an
Exodus from Egypt without an Eisodos into the land
is difficult to imagine we have to assume that the Book
of Joshua formed part of this narrative complex that
ran from Exodus 2 – Joshua 12. Here the old notion
of a ‘Hexateuch’ comes into play, though in modified
form. This ‘Hexateuch’ will later be expanded to an
‘Enneateuch’ (Exodus –2 Kings 25) by incorporating
the sources generally called Deuteronomistic History.
Since the Book of Deuteronomy is incorporated
into this Hexateuchal narrative via the redactional
bridges Numbers 25:1a; Deuteronomy 5:1aα; 34:1a;
34:5–6 and Joshua 2:1; 3:1 it is difficult to argue for
a separate Deuteronomistic History beginning with
Deut 1–3. However, the main focus of Deuteronomy,
i.e. the centralization of the cult becomes the ordering
principle for the period of Israelite and Judean
kingship. ‘The Priestly Writing was conceived as an
independent writing alongside the Hexateuch . . .
and was evidently intended as a kind of instruction
for reading the first part of the Enneateuch. It
pre-supposes the non-Priestly text in Genesis-Exodus
(Numbers) and projects the new beginning in the era
of the Second Temple, which historically follows the
history of failure depicted in Genesis-Kings, on to the
time of the beginnings and foundation of Israel before
the settlement and the downfall of the kingdom.’25
This incorporation of P also leads to the separation
of the larger narrative context into Torah and former
prophets. This is done firstly by an isolation of the
Book of Deuteronomy due to the combination of
P with the non-priestly primeval and patriarchal
history in Genesis and the story of the Exodus and
in a second step by incorporating Deuteronomy
into the priestly framework of the Pentateuch; here
Deuteronomy 31–34 play a key role. This is further
the reason why the Pentateuch is dominated by
priestly ideas while the Books of Joshua – 2 Kings
have a distinct deuteronomistic flavour. ‘The literary
entities of the Tetrateuch (Genesis-Numbers) and
the Deuteronomistic history (Deuteronomy-Kings)
which are often accepted in research thus prove to
be late stages on the way from the Enneateuch to the
two parts of the canon, the Torah and the Former
Prophets.’

Lastly we have to point to the fact that we find
numerous instances of late and post-deuteronomistic
(e.g. Gen 15; Exod 17:8ff, etc.) and post-priestly
additions to the Pentateuch so that the Bible remained
in the making for an extended period of time.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew): They’re not rare and, again, no one has said that they’re representative of the “entire Pentateuch”.  But what they do is provide very good evidence for the intentional weaving together of passages…i.e., the Documentary Hypotheis.

I’ve already pointed out the reductive nature of this assumption. The weaving of sources together alone is not the DC. All the models incorporate that idea.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  Genesis 1 & Genesis 2, for starters.

But two chapters is hardly “consistently.” This is one example of this happening. Now show it happens consistently. You can’t.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  What those three chapters do is demonstrate that your claim (above) that “the names of God do not divide consistently” is incorrect.

See above.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  Undeniable.

Then stop asserting that the names mean anything. They don’t.

 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 13:31
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  Correct.  It was characterized by (among other things) a lack of anthropomorhism.

There is anthropomorphism throughout the Pentateuch and all its sources, and asserting a “lack of anthropomorphism” is an argument from silence.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  No it’s not.  Anti-anthropomorphism implies an active campaign against anthropomorphism.  I’m not suggesting that.  I’m suggesting that the Hebrew religion gradually evolved away from an anthropomorphic view of God.

And such an evolution only happens when anti-anthropomorphism guides it. On the other hand, you missed the date of that “evolution” by over a thousand years. You keep neglecting that fact.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  On the contrary.  I’ve offered examples and quotes from leading Bible scholars.

You’ve cited one phenomenally outdated text.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

You, on the other hand, have done neither, preferring to impress us all with completely unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to authority.

What a joke. You assert above that you “offered examples and quotes from leading Bible scholars” and then you accuse me of appealing to authority. You’re argument is becoming increasingly comical.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  Throwing out a bunch of book titles with no excerpts to back up what you say betrays a fundamental doubt on your part about your position.  Again, your assurances mean doodly in the absence of substantiation.  You certainly don’t sound like you’ve ever studied the antropology of religion.

I’ve copied and pasted a couple excerpts just for you, but you won’t know what to do with them. Again, I’m quite well trained in religious anthropology.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  Oesterly and Robinson was a) not an anthropology text and b) revised in the early 60’s with no material changes re: anthropomorphism.  I’ll be 70 next year.  (Yikes!  I just flashed on “next year” being right around the corner!)

The only text you’ve cited was the one from the 1930’s, and I’ve found no revisions, only reprintings (1933, 1937, 1957, 1966, etc.). If you can provide an ISBN number I’ll be happy to look the book up.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  You haven’t “explained” doodly.  All you’ve done is make assertions and then get all pissy when you’re asked to substantiate them.  You’re responding like a fundy.

None of this addresses my concerns.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  Fuck you, pal.  This is my thread.  When you have time (and knowledge) to back up things you say, get back to me.

Oh, you’re one of those tough guys who knows how to use profanity. Intimidating.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  You’re joking here, right?  I mean…Daystar’s got a blog.

That I have a blog nothing to do with this. You can find my education and background there. You really need to start responding to what I’m saying rather than what you’ve imagined I’ve said.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  Fuck you again.

Well crafted.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  Citing a book title is not the same as posting a relevant passage from it for discussion.  I don’t ignore those.

I bet you do.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:04 PM

(Andrew):  So have I.  And I’ve posted relevant passages for demonstration and discussion.  You haven’t.

Now I have. I’m willing to bet you don’t know what to do with it.

 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 13:57
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM
Andrew - 21 December 2009 11:41 AM

(Andrew):  Such as Wm Friedman, I suppose?  You’re a hoot!

I’ve cited nothing from Friedman.

(Andrew):  Don’t play dumb.  You’ve said that my “perspective is popular among amateurs who haven’t been exposed to the most recent literature:”
Again…are you saying that Wm Friedman is an amateur who hasn’t been exposed to the most recent literature?

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

Again, I’ve cited the appropriate literature. It’s not my job to do your research for you.

(Andrew):  It’s your job to substantiate what you say.  Citing books doesn’t do that.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

[I thought I would find intelligent discussion coming here, but you guys are worse than the fundamentalist Christians.

(Andrew):  Oh, Christ!  Not another one of those!

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

You don’t even know what the Supplementary Hypothesis is and you’ve cited one text from 1930.

(Andrew):  I’ve got more.  One quote from one book is more than we’ve gotten from you.  Btw…I took your advice and Google Scholared “supplementary hypothesis”...still nothing.  So, beyond your brief synopsis, we have no information about it.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

I’ll talk about one of them, although I can’t do the theory much justice in this limited space. The supplementary hypothesis (SH) accounts for the problematic nature of J and E in the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). There is too much overlap in the two sources (so much so that a JE source has been promulgated), and they may not even be pentateuchal (they are so far removed from P and D), which would undermine the fundamental assumptions about the DH having been sewn together by a small number of scribes putting together the Pentateuch. The SH fits more comfortably in a model which finds redaction to be a primary vehicle for variation, which accounts for the overlap and the fragmentary nature of the divisions.

(Andrew):  Oh…that’s all?  Friedman gives this a lot of space—and subscribes himself—without calling it the Supplementary Hypothesis.  He subdivides passages into R, RJE, “other independant texts”, Dtn, Dtr1 and Dtr2.).  It’s still all part of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

Here are a few lines from the Levin article I cited earlier:

(Andrew):  There, now…was that so hard?  I’ll read them and report back later.  Maybe we can have some fun?

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

Then stop asserting that the names mean anything. They don’t.

(Andrew):  Yes they do.  Now you’re just being silly.

 
 
Andrew
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew
Total Posts:  9231
Joined  15-06-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2009 14:11
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:31 PM

There is anthropomorphism throughout the Pentateuch and all its sources…

(Andew): No, there isn’t.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

And such an evolution only happens when anti-anthropomorphism guides it.

(Andrew):  Nonsense.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

You’ve cited one phenomenally outdated text.

(Andrew):  The age of text is irrelevant.  And I’ve been quoting and citing Wm Friedman all along.  He’s current.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

You assert above that you “offered examples and quotes from leading Bible scholars” and then you accuse me of appealing to authority. You’re argument is becoming increasingly comical.

(Andrew):  I’ve offered quotes for discussion…that’s not an appeal to authority.  You, on the other hand, have only thrown out book titles and expected us to be impressed with them.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

[I’ve copied and pasted a couple excerpts just for you…

(Andrew):  Finally.  Much appreciated.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

... but you won’t know what to do with them.

(Andrew):  grin  Watch me.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

Again, I’m quite well trained in religious anthropology.


(Andrew):  I’ve read a book or two myself.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

The only text you’ve cited was the one from the 1930’s, and I’ve found no revisions, only reprintings (1933, 1937, 1957, 1966, etc.).

(Andrew):  OK…reprintings, then, with no changes to the passages re: anthropomorphism.  And I’ve cited Who Wrote the Bible (1989) and The Bible with Sources Revealed (2003).

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

I’m willing to bet you don’t know what to do with it.

(Andrew):  How much?

[edit—if occasional profanity offends you, you perhaps got off the bus at the wrong stop?

[ Edited: 21 December 2009 14:16 by Andrew]
 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
21 December 2009 14:50
 

Daniel, this is from your bio information:

“I received my bachelors degree from Brigham Young University. . . .”

I don’t doubt that you’re currently hard at work toward fancier degrees, Daniel, but for now, your expertise, on paper at least, is lacking just a bit. I looked at your bio paragraph because of your apparent appeal to self-authority in the current discussion you’re having with Andrew. I was appreciating what both of you were coming up with until you started with this extremely unappealing appeal. Though I’ve never met Andrew in person, I’ve been watching his words for several years now, and his credibility seems high to me. He politely asked you questions that you thumbed your nose at, so please don’t act surprised and offended to see a couple of seasoned words coming your way as a result.

I have one question for you, if you don’t mind. Are you in possession of native intelligence, knowledge and skill necessary to distinguish magical trickery from authentic magic?

 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 14:52
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:57 PM

(Andrew):  Don’t play dumb.  You’ve said that my “perspective is popular among amateurs who haven’t been exposed to the most recent literature:”
Again…are you saying that Wm Friedman is an amateur who hasn’t been exposed to the most recent literature?

I don’t know who “Wm Friedman” is. I know who Richard Friedman is, and he’s the author of The Bible with Sources Revealed. He doesn’t advocate your reductive position, though. You get your idea about convergences of evidence from him, but you and he both fail to engage a number of concerns with DC. A good review of his book (by an author I’ve already cited), which covers some of the things I’ve mentioned and many other concerns is found here:

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5126_5394.pdf

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:57 PM

(Andrew):  It’s your job to substantiate what you say.  Citing books doesn’t do that.

None of this addresses my concerns.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:57 PM

(Andrew):  Oh, Christ!  Not another one of those!

Zing!

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:57 PM

(Andrew):  I’ve got more.  One quote from one book is more than we’ve gotten from you.  Btw…I took your advice and Google Scholared “supplementary hypothesis”...still nothing.

Then you don’t know how to use Google. Try adding the word pentateuch to the end of the search string. Without that it’s not specific enough. Supplementary hypothesis is a phrase found in a number of scientific fields. Not only do I have to do your research for you, but I have to teach you how to use Google?

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:57 PM

So, beyond your brief synopsis, we have no information about it.

And that’s entirely your own fault.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:57 PM

(Andrew):  Oh…that’s all?  Friedman gives this a lot of space—and subscribes himself—without calling it the Supplementary Hypothesis.  He subdivides passages into R, RJE, “other independant texts”, Dtn, Dtr1 and Dtr2.).  It’s still all part of the Documentary Hypothesis.

This doesn’t respond to most of my concerns.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:57 PM

(Andrew):  There, now…was that so hard?  I’ll read them and report back later.  Maybe we can have some fun?

Maybe. More likely you’ll just bark “Nu-uh!” I’ve dealt with your type of attitude way too many times to think that evidence changes anything. You’re like the college freshman whose read A Brief History of Time and so thinks he knows everything about astrophysics. You’ve not even begun to scratch the surface of Pentateuchal composition. 

Andrew - 21 December 2009 12:57 PM

(Andrew):  Yes they do.  Now you’re just being silly.

This doesn’t address my concerns.

 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 14:54
 
nonverbal - 21 December 2009 01:50 PM

Daniel, this is from your bio information:

“I received my bachelors degree from Brigham Young University. . . .”

I don’t doubt that you’re currently hard at work toward fancier degrees, Daniel, but for now, your expertise, on paper at least, is lacking just a bit.

It appears you stopped reading a little too soon. I’ll forgive the rest of your comments in light of that, but please read the whole thing.

 
Daniel O. McClellan
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel O. McClellan
Total Posts:  174
Joined  27-08-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2009 15:00
 
Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM

(Andew): No, there isn’t.

Please show me where anthropomorphism is specifically precluded.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM

(Andrew):  Nonsense.

No, it’s not. Anthropomorphism does not go away on its own. This is why aniconism was such a big deal in the pre-exile and why angel worship was such a problem in the Second Temple Period. People wanted something tangible and anthropomorphic to connect them to God. It doesn’t go away until there is a concerted effort against it, and that didn’t happen in Judaism until the Middle Ages.

Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 12:19 PM

You’ve cited one phenomenally outdated text.

(Andrew):  The age of text is irrelevant.  And I’ve been quoting and citing Wm Friedman all along.  He’s current.

Not really. He doesn’t engage a number of concerns, and you misread him as much as you misread me.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM

(Andrew):  I’ve offered quotes for discussion…that’s not an appeal to authority.  You, on the other hand, have only thrown out book titles and expected us to be impressed with them.

No, I’ve expected you to read them. That’s how things work in my field. One person cites a book and the other person reads it.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM

(Andrew):  grin  Watch me.

Will do.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM


(Andrew):  I’ve read a book or two myself.

So far you’ve only aped Richard Friedman (by the wrong name) and cited an 80 year old publication.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM

(Andrew):  OK…reprintings, then, with no changes to the passages re: anthropomorphism.

Which means the scholarship wasn’t brought up to date. A reprinting and a revision are two entirely different things. They don’t even update the typesetting when they reprint something.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM

And I’ve cited Who Wrote the Bible (1989) and The Bible with Sources Revealed (2003).

And I’ve cited more literature so far than you.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM

(Andrew):  How much?

An apology for being so obtuse and presumptuous.

Andrew - 21 December 2009 01:11 PM

[edit—if occasional profanity offends you, you perhaps got off the bus at the wrong stop?

I didn’t say it offended me. I said it’s a shame someone who wants to be taken seriously has to regress to caveman talk to express his frustration.

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
21 December 2009 15:06
 
Daniel O. McClellan - 21 December 2009 01:54 PM
nonverbal - 21 December 2009 01:50 PM

Daniel, this is from your bio information:

“I received my bachelors degree from Brigham Young University. . . .”

I don’t doubt that you’re currently hard at work toward fancier degrees, Daniel, but for now, your expertise, on paper at least, is lacking just a bit.

It appears you stopped reading a little too soon. I’ll forgive the rest of your comments in light of that, but please read the whole thing.

Your forgiveness is appreciated for its politeness, though not for any actual need.

Please list your degrees here before returning to my question about magic. It may seem to be an irrelevant question to you, but to me it’s important. Thank you in advance.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›