Where are the case endings in Hebrew?

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Chapter divisions - a religion based on evolution?

Post by Kirk Lowery »

kwrandolph wrote:
George Athas wrote:
kwrandolph wrote: I have previously referred to the documented history of the Documentary Hypothesis as being founded on a belief of evolution and not without a certain amount of anti-Semitism. It’s anti-Semitic to assume that Solomon couldn’t have thought the ideas he expressed in Qohelet, therefore Qohelet was written in the Hellenistic age. It’s anti-Semitic to claim that no Jew or Hebrew would have referred to ‘God’ without reference to any particular deity’s name before the Persian era. It’s anti-Semitic to assume that the Hebrews learned writing from the Phoenicians, hence the script is called “Phoenician” instead of “Hebrew”. Yet all of these claims are made without a smidgen of historical evidence to back them up.
Karl,

Please avoid the use of the term "anti-semitic". In our (Western) culture, it is associated with violent persecution of Jews. Thus, you can be understood to group scholars and others who disagree with you along with Nazis and other persecutors. The logical fallacy is "guilt by association". It is a separate question as to whether it is correct to assert these historical judgments.

This is a warning. Do not use this rhetoric again.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Chapter divisions - a religion based on evolution?

Post by kwrandolph »

Kirk Lowery wrote:Karl,

Please avoid the use of the term "anti-semitic". … The logical fallacy is "guilt by association". It is a separate question as to whether it is correct to assert these historical judgments.

This is a warning. Do not use this rhetoric again.
Kirk:

There was a documented attitude among those who founded the school of thought now called the Documentary Hypothesis, that the Hebrews, and their later descendants the Jews. were inferior not only to the 19th and 20th century Europeans who founded and developed the theory, but also to their ancient contemporaries. There is a term for that attitude (which I’m not using in this reply) that I thought was safe to use in its historical context. Apparently you disagree.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with it, just that in the absence of evidence, how can they justify their claims apart from that prejudice?

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Where are the case endings in Hebrew?

Post by Kirk Lowery »

Karl,

Our disagreement is about your statement
It’s anti-Semitic to assume that Solomon couldn’t have thought the ideas he expressed in Qohelet, therefore Qohelet was written in the Hellenistic age. It’s anti-Semitic to claim that no Jew or Hebrew would have referred to ‘God’ without reference to any particular deity’s name before the Persian era. It’s anti-Semitic to assume that the Hebrews learned writing from the Phoenicians, hence the script is called “Phoenician” instead of “Hebrew”. Yet all of these claims are made without a smidgen of historical evidence to back them up.
It is possible to assert these things without being a Jew-hater. Just because some who were anti-Semites did make such assertions does not mean that others who agree with them are also anti-Semites. Our forum's rules state (in part):
  • members will use rhetoric that is polite and civil; inflammatory expressions, obscenities and hate speech will be severely dealt with
  • members will not attack the character or motives of other members, but will assume good faith on the part of others
The quote above violates these rules.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Where are the case endings in Hebrew?

Post by kwrandolph »

Kirk Lowery wrote:Karl,

Our disagreement is about your statement
It’s anti-Semitic to assume that Solomon couldn’t have thought the ideas he expressed in Qohelet, therefore Qohelet was written in the Hellenistic age. It’s anti-Semitic to claim that no Jew or Hebrew would have referred to ‘God’ without reference to any particular deity’s name before the Persian era. It’s anti-Semitic to assume that the Hebrews learned writing from the Phoenicians, hence the script is called “Phoenician” instead of “Hebrew”. Yet all of these claims are made without a smidgen of historical evidence to back them up.
It is possible to assert these things without being a Jew-hater.
I don’t remember “Jew-hater” as being part of the definition of “anti-Semitism”, so I looked up http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti-Semitic and found ’One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.” “hating Jews” is listed as a synonym, not as part of the definition. According to that definition, it is possible to be anti-Semitic without hating Jews. It is to that prejudice that I directed my remarks.

How can those ideas be created in the absence of any evidence for them, and in contradiction to the available evidence, without being the result of prejudice?

Yet it’s documented that those who founded the Documentary Hypothesis in the early 19th century were prejudiced against ancient Hebrews—some of it was as the result of a belief in evolution, that the ancients “were not as evolved as modern man”, so that referred to all ancient civilizations, but some of it seems to have gone beyond just prejudice against ancient thinking to the point that the ancient Hebrews were inferior also to their contemporaries.
Kirk Lowery wrote:Just because some who were anti-Semites did make such assertions does not mean that others who agree with them are also anti-Semites.
My statement has nothing to do with persons, rather to ideas and their origins. People can accept those ideas because that’s what was taught them by their professors, which was taught them by their professors, and so forth, not realizing the origins of those ideas nor agreeing with the originators of those ideas as to why they made them. But does ignorance of the origins of those ideas change the nature of those ideas?
Kirk Lowery wrote:Our forum's rules state (in part):
  • members will use rhetoric that is polite and civil; inflammatory expressions, obscenities and hate speech will be severely dealt with
  • members will not attack the character or motives of other members, but will assume good faith on the part of others
The quote above violates these rules.
I had no intention of violating those rules when I wrote that which is above. Because I was working with a definition that I later found mirrored on line, I thought that what I wrote was neither inflammatory nor hate speech, and because I was dealing with ideas and not persons, I didn’t see how it attacked the character of anyone.

Yet, in the absence of evidence for them, and in contradiction to the available evidence, how are those ideas not representative of prejudice?

Karl W. Randolph.
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Re: Krandolf post 2/14/14 3:10 am

Post by Ray Harder »

Ray Harder wrote: A gross oversimplification of this question (but evidence supported statement) would be to say why would the Hebrews write their literature when virtually no one in society could read it? Widespread literacy is a modern phenomenon. Unless you argue that the ancient Israelites were different from all other ancient cultures. There is no evidence of exceptional literacy among the ancient Israelites.
kwrandolph wrote: I have to object at this point. Whether or not a society was literate had more to do with the value a society put on literacy, and the difficulty in learning the writing system, not the era in which they lived.

The evidence I’ve seen indicates that the Scandinavians were literate, almost totally, from about 2000 years ago. The runes were easy to learn and apply to spoken language.

Even though Jesus was just a carpenter, we see in his visit to his home synagog that he was expected to be able to read. That suggests universal education 2000 years ago in Judea. If it was expected then, when reading was done in a cognate language to what they spoke, why assume that 1500 years earlier that the majority of people were illiterate in their own language?
I am not sure how to dialogue with you productively Mr. Randolph. You reject the idea that ancient societies were basically illiterate because somehow it conflicts with your religious views. You are not willing to grant that it is fairly universally agreed upon by all educated people who examine the subject even though you admit that you have never read any of these books and you are not interested in doing so because you know without even reading them that they are wrong because scholars without a religious bias are in fact biased by their secular religion which is evolution. I based my statements on the numerous books and articles I have read on the subject and on my own interpretation of the evidence I have examined. I have read all of the written evidence from ancient Israel that was published prior to about 1985 in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Ammonite, Edomite, Moabite, Phoenician, etc.) I have read all known seals, ostraca, inscriptions, etc. The fact is that there exists almost NO written material from Israel before the Dead Sea scrolls. In fact, a reasonably advanced student can read ALL of the written materials (excluding the Dead Sea scrolls) known from before the NT period from Israel in a few days in their original languages. I know, I did it to prepare for my graduate exams! If the Israelites were so literate, then where is all the evidence?

You suggest that Jesus was literate at age 12 and therefore you suggest that we can generalize that most 1st century Jews could read and furthermore from that story you extend literacy to all Israelis back to long before the time of Moses. That is a lot of speculation and is contrary to the evidence at hand. Let's accept this story at face value for the sake of discussion. Isn't it true that the gospels are stories about the exceptional nature of Jesus? Just because He did it, why do you generalize that most or all Jews of that and the previous two millennia did it? Isn't the whole point of the gospels that Jesus was exceptional? Or did all Jews go around raising the dead, healing the sick, performing miracles, and casting out demons? Isn't the point of the story that Jesus ability to read and interact with scholars was NOT common? Why include this story if everyone was doing it? The bible argues my point that reading was the exception in the first century. Note even Paul bragging that he is writing with his own hand as if this was something exceptional. II Thess. 3:17, Philemon 1:19, Col. 4:18

Ray Harder wrote: The only thing that can be said fairly definitively is that oral traditions are are almost universal in societies ancient and modern. It can be deduced that Israel was no different.
kwrandolph wrote: While all societies have oral traditions, some societies are also literate.
How can you admit on the one hand that you have no expertise on the one hand and then make dogmatic statements like this on the other? Name ONE ancient society that was literate and please point to evidence to support your unique theory.

Ancient societies were not literate. There were almost no schools, and only some children and a few slaves of the very affluent (aka. the "1%") we're educated and literate. Books and writing materials were outrageously expensive and public libraries were basically non-existent. Private archives did exist, but consisted mostly of personal records prepared by scribes such as tax records, property deeds, etc. --much like private archives even today.

Ray Harder wrote: But the Psalms are “songs” and not “literature” you say? Is Homer’s writing literature or songs? What about the Hebrew (and foreign e.g. Balaam) prophets giving “oracles?” What about the passages that secular scholars fairly universally recognize as the oldest traditions in the Hebrew bible that seem to be songs or oracles or poems (indicating a poetic (and therefore oral?) tradition?) (E.g. the “Song of Moses” in Exodus 15, the “Song of Deborah” in Judges 5, the “Blessings” of Jacob and Moses in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 respectively, the “Oracles of Balaam” in Numbers 23 & 24, the “Poems of Moses” in Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 68, etc.)
kwrandolph wrote: “Secular scholars” are not that secular, rather they have a religion based on evolution, and it’s based on that religion that they speculate on the ages of those songs. They have no evidence other than their religion that their speculations are correct.
So even though you have never educated yourself to be able to study the evidence adduced by scholars, and you frankly admit that you have never read their arguments, you label them "speculations" and suggest they are influenced by evolution. I spent over 8 years in graduate school and don't recall Charles Darwin or evolution being mentioned even once! Either in class or in the scholarly works we read. Secular scholars differ from you in that they use evidence and scientific methods of reasoning to deduce their conclusions, they do not start out believing they know the answers as revealed by God Himself. Then they accept whatever answers the evidence leads them to.

The evidence for these passages being older comes from years of detailed study of these texts and then finding reasonable explanations of the evidence that we see. If you make the effort to learn to read Genesis, or Kings, or Ruth without looking at an English text, a grammar, or anything but a "reader's lexicon" then you read these passages, you can plainly see for yourself that they are different in some way. Just like when you read the gospels one after another, you will find that John is "different" from the other three. You will see it for yourself. Don't accept my word for it, learn to read Hebrew and then read it for yourself and see if I am not right.
Ray Harder wrote: Since those passages generally acknowledged among secular scholars and even some religious ones as the oldest tend to be “poetic,” is that evidence of orality/oral tradition? I would argue yes, but that is not a universal or even consensus view. It is still even widely debated whether there was/is “meter” in Hebrew poetry. (Which is often seen in written texts from oral cultures because stories with meter are easier to remember.)
kwrandolph wrote: Meter is a different subject, but I think there was meter in those songs.
Can you provide your scansion of even ONE paragraph of Hebrew poetry?

Ray Harder wrote: Jeremiah’s message was repeatedly characterized as being given orally. (E.g. Jer. 26:7 etc.) However a reoccurring character in Jeremiah is his personal scribe Baruch (E.g. “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah; and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which He had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.” עַל-מְגִלַּת-סֵפֶר Jer. 36:4) This may imply that Jeremiah couldn’t write himself, but depended on a professional scribe. (So why did he feel the need to write at all? And why was this remarkable? Could this imply a newness of the concept of written religious proclamations?) Jeremiah also records a tradition that the prophet Micah prophesied orally (Jer. 26:18). There are repeated statements of written texts like letters which had to be read to the hearers --even kings and princes (Jer. 36:21) (Implying perhaps that even the royal class couldn’t read or write.) This situation reflected in Jeremiah is exactly what we would expect in a primarily oral culture transitioning into a written one --at least at the governmental level. (As it does in most cultures, bureaucrats long before commoners.) Widespread written literacy as a social value is very much a modern phenomenon.
kwrandolph wrote: That doesn’t take into account the widespread practice in literate societies before the invention of word processors, that people were hired as scribes because of their beautiful handwriting to do the actual writing. This practice lasted even through the typewriter era.
This is just simply not true and absurd on the face of it. Why would a peasant living in abject poverty hire someone just because they had flowery handwriting to fill out their tax records or census forms? Even if you can't/won't read them, look at the Oxyrhynchus papyri, the Elephantine papyri, or the Lachish or Arad ostraca. You don't have to read Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew to see that the quality of handwriting of ancient scribes is anything but beautiful! Overall, I would proclaim that it sucks! And your assertion that people hiring scribes for their handwriting in literate societies is "widespread" is utter nonsense. I myself lived for many years before the advent of word processors and never ONCE hired a scribe --for anything!

If you won't/can't read books on the subject watch the movie "Central Station." This was made in 1998 and one of the main characters is a former public school teacher who makes her living as a public scribe in a bus station in modern Brazil. This is parallel to how scribes were used in non-literate societies and continues into modern times even in reasonably literate societies. These people are hired to help the poor comply with government regulations and forms and occasionally to compose a personal letter. Exactly what we fine in the ancient world.

Hiring people for their handwriting is a modern luxury among the affluent to address their wedding or bar mitzvah invitations. It was NOT the reason ancient people used scribes.
kwrandolph wrote: In Jeremiah 51:60 after Jeremiah was kidnapped to Egypt and Baruch was in captivity in Babylon, Jeremiah himself wrote documents that he sent to Babylon.
Ah, actual evidence, how refreshing! Yes, on the face of it this clearly suggests that Jeremiah was able to actually write the text himself, but I still wonder if this might be taken in context that perhaps when someone is said to have written something that it actually meant "composed" and not actually handwritten by their own hand. I wouldn't push this point and generally believe in taking texts at face value, but I wonder if a case can't be made that the biblical authors used scribes even when it is occasionally suggested that they themselves penned the words. The case for Baruch the scribe actually writing much of Jeremiah has been given. Even the apostle Paul mentions his scribe by name, Tertius (Rom. 6:22) Peter's is also mentioned "Silvanus" (1Peter 5:12). It was not uncommon for scribes to have had draft-writing powers with final approval reserved for the author. Perhaps this accounts for the differences in language and style among some of the epistles that has caused some to question the Pauline authorship of the entire corpus. Like Jeremiah, Paul makes a specific point of mentioning it as exceptional when he actually penned a portion with his own hand as if this was something exceptional. It seems that even among the authors of the bible, the use of a scribe as an amanuensis was probably the norm as it was throughout the ancient world in general.


Jer 1:7 But the LORD said unto me: say not: I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak.
Be not afraid of them; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.
Then the LORD put forth His hand, and touched my mouth; and the LORD said unto me: Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth;

If Jeremiah's message was written, why didn't the LORD touch his HAND?

Ray Harder wrote: Like the Bible, the epic poems of Homer have subject matter from the mid 2nd millennium BC and a written tradition that dates from much later. Homer is almost universally recognized as originating in an oral form. Reducing these texts to writing seems to have widely begun in the 5-6th centuries BC though the extant manuscript tradition is largely from medieval times. Though no scholar to my knowledge argues for any direct connection between the early Homeric and Biblical textual traditions, I think the parallels are striking.
kwrandolph wrote: How long a period was there between when the events Homer sung about, and Homer? I wouldn’t be surprised if it was no more than one or two generations. One clue is the number of generations between Odin and his ancestor who was a son-in-law to King Priem — they add up to about 800 years, give or take about a century. There are other clues from other sources that point to about the same time.

Yet the speculation concerning a supposed oral tradition for the Torah is much longer. Given the recorded widespread apostasy even among the priests, it’s unlikely that such a complex history as recorded in Torah would have survived more than one or two generations without being written down.
Even after Homer was written down, the oral tradition continued in parallel for over a millennium. There is nothing that would prevent the oral transmission of the Bible even after parts of it started to be written down.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "One clue is the number of generations between Odin and his ancestor who was a son-in-law to King Priem — they add up to about 800 years, give or take about a century." Odin is a character from Norse mythology and king Priam is from Homer, other than that, I have no clue what you are talking about or what it has to do with the length of oral traditions.
kwrandolph wrote: There’s no reason to assume that Jews in Moses’ time were illiterate as a people, seeing as the alphabetic writing was known long before the Exodus.

Therefore, it seems that it is stronger to say that Moses wrote Torah, than that there was a period of oral tradition that lasted centuries.

If there was widespread literacy in Israel, where is the evidence? It is simply not true that "the alphabetic writing was known long before the Exodus." There is no evidence that even the concept of an alphabet existed in any culture before about 2,200 BC (when alphabets seem to have been invented) let alone the widespread use of one. And it didn't start being used in societies for many centuries after that--if we grant that Ugaritic used a true alphabet, the Exodus would have been roughly contemporary with that. It wasn't until David's time that governments and their bureaucracies started using alphabets widely. This led to widespread government sponsored scribal education, more efficient governments, and thus the rise of smaller kingdoms to rival the great governments of Egypt and Assyria. The alphabet made it possible for smaller groups to form a government and during the first millennium BC we see many nations from Greece to Israel rise on the international scene. This didn't happen before that because there was no alphabet being used for the creation of national epics or bureaucracies. Governments and their rules always drive culture and art --which develop secondarily.

By the time of the NT, the role of the scribe in the actual composition of letters (in this case Paul's) "could vary greatly, either from simply taking down dictation to rewriting the initial draft and improving its style and format. The use of a scribe and his degree of involvement in the composition process, in fact, may help to explain the quality of Greek in the letters of Peter and the differences of style and diction between the different letters of Paul. Some New Testament scribes are identified by name (Tertius in Romans 16:22 and Silvanus in 1 Peter 5:12), where they seem to be fellow Christians who were competent in letter writing; scribes can be presumed in the other letters, although there is not always much evidence pointing to their identity—such as whether they were professionals hired for a single job—or to what degree they were involved in wording of the final draft. In every case, the scribe seems to have read the final draft to the sender, who would approve it and often “sign” it by setting down his own name or mark, and sometimes, in the case of a literate sender, by writing a brief summary of the letter in his own hand or making some other comment (see Galatians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 16:21; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; and Philemon 1:19)."
http://hccl.byu.edu/classes/Rel212eh/Un ... iquity.pdf

Literacy in the ancient world was exceptional and all the epigraphic evidence proves this and a careful reading of the old and new testaments supports this view.
Raymond G. Harder

Forgive the length of my posts, but like H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Ray Harder
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 am

Documentary Hypothesis and Anti-semitism

Post by Ray Harder »

kwrandolph wrote: How can those ideas be created in the absence of any evidence for them, and in contradiction to the available evidence, without being the result of prejudice?

<snip>

Yet, in the absence of evidence for them, and in contradiction to the available evidence, how are those ideas not representative of prejudice?
The simple fact is that, although this is clearly a complex issue, the evidence supports the documentary hypothesis in some form. You, Mr. Randolph are the one prejudiced against it by your religious views. Suggesting that those who argue for it are anti-Semites or evolutionists ignores the fact that this view of scripture arose in the 17th century long before Darwin published in 1859 and long before the institutional anti-semitism that led to the Nazi atrocities. (Read chapter 13 of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan! This was written around 1650 as I recall! It clearly reflects a post-enlightenment and premodern view that simply rejects all religious assumptions about the Bible and looks only at the evidence.)

I took classes from the president of the university of Judaism and from Ziony Zevitt at the university of Judaism itself and both of the we're practicing Jews who accepted the evidence for the documentary hypothesis. They can hardly be called anti-Semites!

If you want to reject scholarship as you widely seem to do based on your religion, I accept that and appreciate your frank admission of your position, but don't use ad-hominem arguments against others. State your evidence. The burden is on you if you reject all the evidence as organized and adduced by scholars.
Raymond G. Harder

Forgive the length of my posts, but like H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Krandolf post 2/14/14 3:10 am

Post by kwrandolph »

Ray Harder wrote:
Ray Harder wrote: A gross oversimplification of this question (but evidence supported statement) would be to say why would the Hebrews write their literature when virtually no one in society could read it? Widespread literacy is a modern phenomenon. Unless you argue that the ancient Israelites were different from all other ancient cultures. There is no evidence of exceptional literacy among the ancient Israelites.
kwrandolph wrote: I have to object at this point. Whether or not a society was literate had more to do with the value a society put on literacy, and the difficulty in learning the writing system, not the era in which they lived.

The evidence I’ve seen indicates that the Scandinavians were literate, almost totally, from about 2000 years ago. The runes were easy to learn and apply to spoken language.

Even though Jesus was just a carpenter, we see in his visit to his home synagog that he was expected to be able to read. That suggests universal education 2000 years ago in Judea. If it was expected then, when reading was done in a cognate language to what they spoke, why assume that 1500 years earlier that the majority of people were illiterate in their own language?
I am not sure how to dialogue with you productively Mr. Randolph. You reject the idea that ancient societies were basically illiterate because somehow it conflicts with your religious views.
Ray, this particular issue has nothing to do with my religious views.

Whether a society is literate or not has nothing to do with the time period, much to do with societal values and availability of tools, most notably an alphabet easy to apply to the language.

We see this with the Cherokee Nation, while they were still nomads living in teepees, they came to recognize the importance of writing. So after the invention of an alphabet by Sequoyah in 1821, within a few years there was almost 100% literacy among the Cherokee, both men and women. I also read of another example that happened in Africa, but I don’t remember the details.

On the other hand, we have the late history of the Romans in their decadence didn’t value literacy, while the Christians among them did. By about 300 AD Christians were mostly literate, while non-Christians were mostly illiterate.

So the question is, what value did the Hebrews of 1500 BC place on literacy? They weren’t held back by the tools of literacy, as were most of their contemporaries, as their writing was simple and easy to apply to their language. If they placed a high value on literacy at that time, as was common among their descendants, then Moses would have had a ready audience for written documents. There are a few clues that literacy was expected among ancient Hebrews, but nothing definite that I can remember right off hand.

Unfortunately, what you’re trying to do here is to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do convincingly.
Ray Harder wrote: You are not willing to grant that it is fairly universally agreed upon by all educated people who examine the subject even though you admit that you have never read any of these books and you are not interested in doing so because you know without even reading them that they are wrong because scholars without a religious bias are in fact biased by their secular religion which is evolution.
Oy veh!
Ray Harder wrote: I based my statements on the numerous books and articles I have read on the subject and on my own interpretation of the evidence I have examined. I have read all of the written evidence from ancient Israel that was published prior to about 1985 in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Ammonite, Edomite, Moabite, Phoenician, etc.) I have read all known seals, ostraca, inscriptions, etc. The fact is that there exists almost NO written material from Israel before the Dead Sea scrolls. In fact, a reasonably advanced student can read ALL of the written materials (excluding the Dead Sea scrolls) known from before the NT period from Israel in a few days in their original languages. I know, I did it to prepare for my graduate exams! If the Israelites were so literate, then where is all the evidence?
The evidence we have indicates that it should be difficult to find surviving evidence, as the preferred materials for writing were perishable, i.e. would rot away if not carefully taken care of. Therefore the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

We know that a major export from Egypt to the Levant was papyrus. Israel is part of the Levant. Now for what were the people using papyrus if not for writing?
Ray Harder wrote:You suggest that Jesus was literate at age 12 and therefore you suggest that we can generalize that most 1st century Jews could read and furthermore from that story you extend literacy to all Israelis back to long before the time of Moses.
That’s not what I wrote. What I wrote was about a cultural expectation from 2000 years ago as illustrated by a particular event recorded in Jesus’ life, then to ask a rhetorical question, what’s to prevent a similar cultural expectation to have been the case 1500 years earlier? What says that a similar cultural expectation didn’t exist 1500 years earlier?
Ray Harder wrote: That is a lot of speculation and is contrary to the evidence at hand. Let's accept this story at face value for the sake of discussion. Isn't it true that the gospels are stories about the exceptional nature of Jesus? Just because He did it, why do you generalize that most or all Jews of that and the previous two millennia did it? Isn't the whole point of the gospels that Jesus was exceptional? Or did all Jews go around raising the dead, healing the sick, performing miracles, and casting out demons? Isn't the point of the story that Jesus ability to read and interact with scholars was NOT common? Why include this story if everyone was doing it? The bible argues my point that reading was the exception in the first century. Note even Paul bragging that he is writing with his own hand as if this was something exceptional. II Thess. 3:17, Philemon 1:19, Col. 4:18
I have a completely different understanding of these examples.

We have the clear example of Jeremiah, a trained, literate priest, hiring a scribe to do most of his writing apparently because the scribe had better handwriting than what he had. The same could be applied to Paul. In fact, as I noted before, that was a common practice even among literate peoples up until probably less than a century ago. We have the case of King Hezekiah even literate in Aramaic, not his native tongue.
Ray Harder wrote:
Ray Harder wrote: The only thing that can be said fairly definitively is that oral traditions are are almost universal in societies ancient and modern. It can be deduced that Israel was no different.
kwrandolph wrote: While all societies have oral traditions, some societies are also literate.
How can you admit on the one hand that you have no expertise on the one hand and then make dogmatic statements like this on the other? Name ONE ancient society that was literate and please point to evidence to support your unique theory.

Ancient societies were not literate.
All ancient societies, or just most?

Given that the preferred writing materials were perishable and outside of Egypt where the climate preserved some, none have survived to the present, how can you be dogmatic that all ancient societies were illiterate?

Even in modern, Western, literate societies, there are still oral traditions among certain areas, but those that are noted and written down means that fewer and fewer of them are strictly oral.
Ray Harder wrote: There were almost no schools,
The lack of formal schools does not mean an illiterate society. It merely means that a literate society would make efforts at home schooling, as increasingly is the case here in the U.S. as the government schools decrease in quality.
Ray Harder wrote: and only some children and a few slaves of the very affluent (aka. the "1%") we're educated and literate.
Where’s your evidence?
Ray Harder wrote: Books and writing materials were outrageously expensive and public libraries were basically non-existent.
Books were outrageously expensive, but most of the expense was in hiring scribes to write them down. Writing materials, while not cheap, were within reach of even common people.

During the Second Temple period, we have synagogs which were the public libraries of their time. We don’t know what existed before the Babylonian Exile.
Ray Harder wrote: Private archives did exist, but consisted mostly of personal records prepared by scribes such as tax records, property deeds, etc. --much like private archives even today.

Ray Harder wrote: But the Psalms are “songs” and not “literature” you say? Is Homer’s writing literature or songs? What about the Hebrew (and foreign e.g. Balaam) prophets giving “oracles?” What about the passages that secular scholars fairly universally recognize as the oldest traditions in the Hebrew bible that seem to be songs or oracles or poems (indicating a poetic (and therefore oral?) tradition?) (E.g. the “Song of Moses” in Exodus 15, the “Song of Deborah” in Judges 5, the “Blessings” of Jacob and Moses in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 respectively, the “Oracles of Balaam” in Numbers 23 & 24, the “Poems of Moses” in Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 68, etc.)
kwrandolph wrote: “Secular scholars” are not that secular, rather they have a religion based on evolution, and it’s based on that religion that they speculate on the ages of those songs. They have no evidence other than their religion that their speculations are correct.
So even though you have never educated yourself to be able to study the evidence adduced by scholars, and you frankly admit that you have never read their arguments, you label them "speculations" and suggest they are influenced by evolution. I spent over 8 years in graduate school and don't recall Charles Darwin or evolution being mentioned even once! Either in class or in the scholarly works we read. Secular scholars differ from you in that they use evidence and scientific methods of reasoning to deduce their conclusions, they do not start out believing they know the answers as revealed by God Himself. Then they accept whatever answers the evidence leads them to.
The book that I read that really opened my eyes to the ideas behind much of the Documentary Hypothesis was the PhD dissertation titled Zur Datierung der Genesis “P” Stücke by Dr. Samuel Külling. It contains numerous extensive quotes from works as early as 1807 (before Charles Darwin was even born) to numerous writers by 1820 (when Charles Darwin was still a young lad) in French, Dutch and English as well as the book’s German. Analyzing those quotes showed the authors’ presupposition of evolution as the reason they came to their conclusions.

I expect you haven’t read that book. As far as I know, it has never been translated into English.
Ray Harder wrote:The evidence for these passages being older comes from years of detailed study of these texts and then finding reasonable explanations of the evidence that we see. If you make the effort to learn to read Genesis, or Kings, or Ruth without looking at an English text, a grammar, or anything but a "reader's lexicon" then you read these passages, you can plainly see for yourself that they are different in some way. Just like when you read the gospels one after another, you will find that John is "different" from the other three. You will see it for yourself. Don't accept my word for it, learn to read Hebrew and then read it for yourself and see if I am not right.
Most of what I know about Tanakh is from reading it in Hebrew without looking at an English text, nor grammar, and I have yet to crack open a “reader’s lexicon”. I would say that the most difficult portion of Tanakh to read is the first 35 chapters of Isaiah, most of the book of Job is a romp in the park compared to that.

I prefer reading it on an older computer where the font is archaic Hebrew, based on the Gezar calendar. Of course no Masoretic points.

I’ve noticed that there was a literary development over the centuries, from fairly simple for Genesis and the rest of Torah, to a greater complexity primarily that of oblique statements where one needs to “fill in the blanks” in order to understand what is meant, until after the Babylonian Exile, when the writing became very simple as is typified by people writing in a foreign language not their own. This pattern comes up if and only if one accepts the internal dates recorded in the books that have dates or inferred dates as being accurate.
Ray Harder wrote:
kwrandolph wrote: Meter is a different subject, but I think there was meter in those songs.
Can you provide your scansion of even ONE paragraph of Hebrew poetry?
What I do for meter is to pronounce each written letter as a consonant, followed by a vowel. That becomes really hard in words where we have gotten used to reading certain letters as matres lectionis. I also pronounce all plosive consonants as hard consonants, without softenings as indicated by the Masoretic points. But as for the vowels, I readily admit that what I use are wild guesses, very likely an ancient Hebrew wouldn’t understand it even if I’m correct as to that the alphabet was originally a type of syllabary.
Ray Harder wrote:
Ray Harder wrote: Jeremiah’s message was repeatedly characterized as being given orally. (E.g. Jer. 26:7 etc.) However a reoccurring character in Jeremiah is his personal scribe Baruch (E.g. “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah; and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which He had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.” עַל-מְגִלַּת-סֵפֶר Jer. 36:4) This may imply that Jeremiah couldn’t write himself, but depended on a professional scribe. (So why did he feel the need to write at all? And why was this remarkable? Could this imply a newness of the concept of written religious proclamations?) Jeremiah also records a tradition that the prophet Micah prophesied orally (Jer. 26:18). There are repeated statements of written texts like letters which had to be read to the hearers --even kings and princes (Jer. 36:21) (Implying perhaps that even the royal class couldn’t read or write.) This situation reflected in Jeremiah is exactly what we would expect in a primarily oral culture transitioning into a written one --at least at the governmental level. (As it does in most cultures, bureaucrats long before commoners.) Widespread written literacy as a social value is very much a modern phenomenon.
kwrandolph wrote: That doesn’t take into account the widespread practice in literate societies before the invention of word processors, that people were hired as scribes because of their beautiful handwriting to do the actual writing. This practice lasted even through the typewriter era.
This is just simply not true and absurd on the face of it.
I find this statement absurd.
Ray Harder wrote: Why would a peasant living in abject poverty hire someone just because they had flowery handwriting to fill out their tax records or census forms? Even if you can't/won't read them, look at the Oxyrhynchus papyri, the Elephantine papyri, or the Lachish or Arad ostraca. You don't have to read Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew to see that the quality of handwriting of ancient scribes is anything but beautiful! Overall, I would proclaim that it sucks! And your assertion that people hiring scribes for their handwriting in literate societies is "widespread" is utter nonsense. I myself lived for many years before the advent of word processors and never ONCE hired a scribe --for anything!

If you won't/can't read books on the subject watch the movie "Central Station." This was made in 1998 and one of the main characters is a former public school teacher who makes her living as a public scribe in a bus station in modern Brazil. This is parallel to how scribes were used in non-literate societies and continues into modern times even in reasonably literate societies. These people are hired to help the poor comply with government regulations and forms and occasionally to compose a personal letter. Exactly what we fine in the ancient world.

Hiring people for their handwriting is a modern luxury among the affluent to address their wedding or bar mitzvah invitations. It was NOT the reason ancient people used scribes.
Boy are you dogmatic, and based on what?

Jeremiah was 1) from a priestly family Jeremiah 1:1, therefore not a peasant living in abject poverty 2) literate Jeremiah 51:60, therefore his hiring a scribe had little to do with his ability to write, and 3) most likely was not Baruch’s only client.

Some scribes were definitely better than others. For example, the writing of the Nahal Heber scrap with part of Psalm 22 on it is far better than that on the Great Isaiah Scroll. One of the scrolls that went on a traveling exhibition had several of the Psalms, with beautiful handwriting that was easy to read.

The practice of hiring scribes in the last form was to hire a typist, a practice that was still practiced when I was young. Except for big companies, most typists were hired on a per job basis, for important documents such as PhD dissertations. The word processor is a real boon to people like me, who think one word, but often see a different word appear on the screen. Back in the old days of typing, I spent so much time with white-out that it really slowed me down. That in spite of being a touch typist.
Ray Harder wrote:
kwrandolph wrote: In Jeremiah 51:60 after Jeremiah was kidnapped to Egypt and Baruch was in captivity in Babylon, Jeremiah himself wrote documents that he sent to Babylon.
Ah, actual evidence, how refreshing! Yes, on the face of it this clearly suggests that Jeremiah was able to actually write the text himself, but I still wonder if this might be taken in context that perhaps when someone is said to have written something that it actually meant "composed" and not actually handwritten by their own hand. I wouldn't push this point and generally believe in taking texts at face value, but I wonder if a case can't be made that the biblical authors used scribes even when it is occasionally suggested that they themselves penned the words. The case for Baruch the scribe actually writing much of Jeremiah has been given. Even the apostle Paul mentions his scribe by name, Tertius (Rom. 6:22) Peter's is also mentioned "Silvanus" (1Peter 5:12). It was not uncommon for scribes to have had draft-writing powers with final approval reserved for the author. Perhaps this accounts for the differences in language and style among some of the epistles that has caused some to question the Pauline authorship of the entire corpus. Like Jeremiah, Paul makes a specific point of mentioning it as exceptional when he actually penned a portion with his own hand as if this was something exceptional. It seems that even among the authors of the bible, the use of a scribe as an amanuensis was probably the norm as it was throughout the ancient world in general.


Jer 1:7 But the LORD said unto me: say not: I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak.
Be not afraid of them; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.
Then the LORD put forth His hand, and touched my mouth; and the LORD said unto me: Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth;

If Jeremiah's message was written, why didn't the LORD touch his HAND?
If you had read the book of Jeremiah, you’d have noticed that God didn’t order him to write down what he had said until much later. He was to start out speaking the message.
Ray Harder wrote:
Ray Harder wrote: Like the Bible, the epic poems of Homer have subject matter from the mid 2nd millennium BC
That date is ultimately based on cross-referencing with Egyptian dates. But the Egyptian dates are a horrible mess thanks to Manetho.
Ray Harder wrote:
Ray Harder wrote: and a written tradition that dates from much later. Homer is almost universally recognized as originating in an oral form. Reducing these texts to writing seems to have widely begun in the 5-6th centuries BC though the extant manuscript tradition is largely from medieval times. Though no scholar to my knowledge argues for any direct connection between the early Homeric and Biblical textual traditions, I think the parallels are striking.
kwrandolph wrote: How long a period was there between when the events Homer sung about, and Homer? I wouldn’t be surprised if it was no more than one or two generations. One clue is the number of generations between Odin and his ancestor who was a son-in-law to King Priem — they add up to about 800 years, give or take about a century. There are other clues from other sources that point to about the same time.

Yet the speculation concerning a supposed oral tradition for the Torah is much longer. Given the recorded widespread apostasy even among the priests, it’s unlikely that such a complex history as recorded in Torah would have survived more than one or two generations without being written down.
Even after Homer was written down, the oral tradition continued in parallel for over a millennium. There is nothing that would prevent the oral transmission of the Bible even after parts of it started to be written down.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "One clue is the number of generations between Odin and his ancestor who was a son-in-law to King Priem — they add up to about 800 years, give or take about a century." Odin is a character from Norse mythology and king Priam is from Homer, other than that, I have no clue what you are talking about or what it has to do with the length of oral traditions.
Odin was the leader of the Asa people who invaded Germanic lands about 75±25 BC who insisted, like the Roman emperors and Egyptian pharaohs, to be worshipped as a god while he was still alive. He was also an ancestor worshipper who kept a written record of his ancestors back to Medai, son of Japhet, who took a ride with his father Noah in a big boat. This is a pagan record, not Bible. Assuming an average of three generations a century, counting back to roughly 800 BC, we find one ancestor, whose name I’ve forgotten, who was a son-in-law to King Priem of Troy. (I looked it up once because I supposedly am a direct descendent of Odin through his youngest son Yingve.)

The present assumption that the Trojan war was four centuries earlier is based on cross-referencing time lines with Egyptian history which was padded by Manetho to make it appear older than it really is.

There are a couple of other indicators putting the true date of the Trojan War at about 800 BC.

Putting a date of about 800 BC for the Trojan War means that there was no long oral tradition between the war and Homer, instead there’s the possibility that Homer heard about it from children or grand-children, if not from a few aged veterans themselves, about the war, though once the song was composed, it may have gone through a period that it was remembered as an oral tradition before being written down.
Ray Harder wrote:
kwrandolph wrote: There’s no reason to assume that Jews in Moses’ time were illiterate as a people, seeing as the alphabetic writing was known long before the Exodus.

Therefore, it seems that it is stronger to say that Moses wrote Torah, than that there was a period of oral tradition that lasted centuries.

If there was widespread literacy in Israel, where is the evidence?
Where is the evidence that there wasn’t widespread literacy in Israel at that time?
Ray Harder wrote: It is simply not true that "the alphabetic writing was known long before the Exodus."
Have you been keeping up even with the news reports of archaeological findings over the last couple of decades?
Ray Harder wrote: There is no evidence that even the concept of an alphabet existed in any culture before about 2,200 BC (when alphabets seem to have been invented) let alone the widespread use of one.
The Exodus happened about 1450 BC.
Ray Harder wrote: And it didn't start being used in societies for many centuries after that--if we grant that Ugaritic used a true alphabet, the Exodus would have been roughly contemporary with that.
The Ugaritic dates were fixes by cross-referencing to Raamsis II and his son who apparently were its contemporaries. But when did they live? 1200 – 1100 BC, 1000 – 900 BC, 600 – 500 BC (rough rounded dates), all of which I’ve heard from different sources? All of them too late for the Exodus. From the evidence I’ve seen so far, the youngest dates seem the most likely.
Ray Harder wrote: It wasn't until David's time that governments and their bureaucracies started using alphabets widely. This led to widespread government sponsored scribal education, more efficient governments, and thus the rise of smaller kingdoms to rival the great governments of Egypt and Assyria. The alphabet made it possible for smaller groups to form a government and during the first millennium BC we see many nations from Greece to Israel rise on the international scene. This didn't happen before that because there was no alphabet being used for the creation of national epics or bureaucracies. Governments and their rules always drive culture and art --which develop secondarily.
Where is your evidence for this supposed development of writing?
Ray Harder wrote:By the time of the NT, the role of the scribe in the actual composition of letters (in this case Paul's) "could vary greatly, either from simply taking down dictation to rewriting the initial draft and improving its style and format. The use of a scribe and his degree of involvement in the composition process, in fact, may help to explain the quality of Greek in the letters of Peter and the differences of style and diction between the different letters of Paul. Some New Testament scribes are identified by name (Tertius in Romans 16:22 and Silvanus in 1 Peter 5:12), where they seem to be fellow Christians who were competent in letter writing; scribes can be presumed in the other letters, although there is not always much evidence pointing to their identity—such as whether they were professionals hired for a single job—or to what degree they were involved in wording of the final draft. In every case, the scribe seems to have read the final draft to the sender, who would approve it and often “sign” it by setting down his own name or mark, and sometimes, in the case of a literate sender, by writing a brief summary of the letter in his own hand or making some other comment (see Galatians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 16:21; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; and Philemon 1:19)."
http://hccl.byu.edu/classes/Rel212eh/Un ... iquity.pdf

Literacy in the ancient world was exceptional and all the epigraphic evidence proves this and a careful reading of the old and new testaments supports this view.
How can the surviving epigraphic evidence prove anything, when it omits what was probably the most common writing, writing that was produced on perishable materials that haven’t survived?

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Documentary Hypothesis and Anti-semitism

Post by kwrandolph »

Ray Harder wrote:
kwrandolph wrote: How can those ideas be created in the absence of any evidence for them, and in contradiction to the available evidence, without being the result of prejudice?

<snip>

Yet, in the absence of evidence for them, and in contradiction to the available evidence, how are those ideas not representative of prejudice?
The simple fact is that, although this is clearly a complex issue, the evidence supports the documentary hypothesis in some form.
I have yet to see any “evidence” that is not contradicted by other evidence.
Ray Harder wrote: You, Mr. Randolph are the one prejudiced against it by your religious views.
Quite true, as I admit in my introduction in the introductions section of this list.

But my religious views were heavily influenced by analyzing the evidence pro and con, as I believe that a belief not questioned is one that cannot be trusted.
Ray Harder wrote: Suggesting that those who argue for it are anti-Semites or evolutionists ignores the fact that this view of scripture arose in the 17th century long before Darwin published in 1859 and long before the institutional anti-semitism that led to the Nazi atrocities.
The above makes two historical mistakes:

1) that the belief in evolution started with Darwin. Absolutely false. All Darwin was was an effective propagandist for an ancient religious belief that goes back to the ancient Greeks, if not before.

2) that prejudice against Jews started with the Nazis. I’ve read translated quotes from the Talmud showing that prejudice against Jews was common in the Roman empire and many, many historical records that show anti-Jewish prejudice is alive and well from all periods, including today. Further, that that anti-Jewish prejudice takes many forms, from the relatively benign disapproval of Jewish existence, to resulting in the extreme of violence. But don’t make the mistake of equating mere disagreement as anti-Jewish prejudice.
Ray Harder wrote: (Read chapter 13 of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan! This was written around 1650 as I recall! It clearly reflects a post-enlightenment and premodern view that simply rejects all religious assumptions about the Bible and looks only at the evidence.)
“only at the evidence”? Or were there presuppositions used to allow only a subset of the evidence to be presented?
Ray Harder wrote:I took classes from the president of the university of Judaism and from Ziony Zevitt at the university of Judaism itself and both of the we're practicing Jews who accepted the evidence for the documentary hypothesis. They can hardly be called anti-Semites!
Look at my answer to Kirk on this.

What sort of Judaism did they practice? A post-modern version?
Ray Harder wrote:If you want to reject scholarship as you widely seem to do based on your religion, I accept that and appreciate your frank admission of your position, but don't use ad-hominem arguments against others. State your evidence. The burden is on you if you reject all the evidence as organized and adduced by scholars.
I won’t let this slur go unanswered: my response has always referred to ideas, not people. People are referred to only in so far as they hold to those ideas. Therefore these are not ad hominem attacks.

As far as “evidence” adduced by “scholars”, much of it is highly artificial not reflected by what is actually observed in the real world. Much of it is reflective of pre-existing prejudices and beliefs of the authors, not of the text itself. One thing I’ve learned after signing up on this list is that almost none of the recognized “scholars” have read Tanakh through in Hebrew cover to cover, even once, something I consider a minimal requirement before one can claim to be a scholar. The reason that’s important is that a scholar thereby gets the whole picture, not just a part of the picture by reading only a portion in Hebrew. Finally, having read Tanakh through in Hebrew from cover to cover, the evidence I see contradicts the claims of which I know of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:53 am

Documentary hypothesis + orality

Post by Stephen Hughes »

I think that the Darwin-Wallace theory of Evolution is a viable scientific explanation of species survival and selective adaptation. I'm not a literalist or fundamentalist and I see the Bible as a great work of human literature. Karl, you can like that or lump it, but either way don't call me an anti-semite. There may have been some people somewhere at sometime who held the views that I hold and were anti-semitic, but that is not me, not here and not now.

The documentary hypothesis that you two are mentioning in your discussion is something that I glanced over when I was in college, but now looks like something that I should be looking into further.

One of the first questions that springs to mind is, How does the documentary hypothesis deal with the pre-documentary period when orality? Of course among the first human societies there was no writing. Until the age of discovery (colonisation) many indigenous and aboriginal peoples were illiterate, having only oral traditions to preserve their culture and religion.

There is also the question of passive and active literacy. The ability to read - verbalise sounds from paper (papyrus) is not so difficult to achieve for a larger proportion of the population. The ability to write is much more difficult to achieve -- look at education in the dead Biblical languages -- how many people can write in them with any degree of fluency? Only a small percentage.

Society is composed of very many people with different interests and differnt degrees of religosity. If an entire society were literate, then they would produce a wide range of texts. Somebody like me, who is not very religious does not spend much time reading religious texts and no time writing them. I write other things - non-religious things.

If the whole of the Hebrew society were actively literate there would be many different types of texts, but as it is, there are basically only religious texts (have I followed what has been said rightly?). The extant texts suggests that religious people and some government officials knew how to write. So, is it same to say that literacy was an issue related to social power -- as it was in ancient Egypt and to a large extent in our day and age.

Following on from that there is the question of passive literacy. What proportion of the population was able to read, but not write?
Stephen Hughes BA (Greek), BTh, MA (Egyptology)
וַאֲהַבְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַגֵּ֑ר כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (Deut. 10:19)
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Documentary hypothesis + orality

Post by kwrandolph »

Stephen Hughes wrote:I think that the Darwin-Wallace theory of Evolution is a viable scientific explanation of species survival and selective adaptation.
I was trained in modern science, the science of Newton, Linnaeus, Kepler, etc. According to modern science, evolution as taught by Darwin, Wallace, etc. never was and cannot ever be scientific.

Evolution, as taught by Darwin et al, historically as well as today is a religious belief.

However, we live in a post-modern age, one that apparently has a post-modern science as well, a post-modern science that sounds very much like pre-modern science. Apparently according to post-modernism religious beliefs can be called “science” making Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, etc. early members of a post-modern “science”.

I have much more that I can say, but this is a forum to discuss Biblical Hebrew, not science nor post-modernism, so I’ll stop here.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm not a literalist or fundamentalist and I see the Bible as a great work of human literature. Karl, you can like that or lump it, but either way don't call me an anti-semite. There may have been some people somewhere at sometime who held the views that I hold and were anti-semitic, but that is not me, not here and not now.
Where have I called you an “anti-semite”?

To me this sounds like a guilty conscience calling out when I said nothing of the sort.

All I mentioned were some ideas and their background, without accusing any person living today. Kirk was correct that certain terms, even when correctly used and no offense intended, people will take offense and react against them.
Stephen Hughes wrote:The documentary hypothesis that you two are mentioning in your discussion is something that I glanced over when I was in college, but now looks like something that I should be looking into further.

One of the first questions that springs to mind is, How does the documentary hypothesis deal with the pre-documentary period when orality?
It’s based on the standard evolutionary model.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Of course among the first human societies there was no writing.
What defines “first human societies” and on what basis was that definition coined?

If the Bible is accurate history, as I think it is, then there were no pre-literate societies, rather only post-literate societies where writing was lost. Pre-history is defined by בראשית ברא אלהים
Stephen Hughes wrote:There is also the question of passive and active literacy. The ability to read - verbalise sounds from paper (papyrus) is not so difficult to achieve for a larger proportion of the population. The ability to write is much more difficult to achieve -- look at education in the dead Biblical languages -- how many people can write in them with any degree of fluency? Only a small percentage.
In the case of Biblical Hebrew, there’s probably none today who can write it with any degree of fluency. The first step of writing with fluency is to have an accurate understanding of reading it, but with the deep disagreements even among the “experts” as to the purposes of something as basic as Biblical Hebrew conjugations of Qatal and Yiqtol, do we have that accurate description yet?
Stephen Hughes wrote:Society is composed of very many people with different interests and differnt degrees of religosity. If an entire society were literate, then they would produce a wide range of texts. Somebody like me, who is not very religious does not spend much time reading religious texts and no time writing them. I write other things - non-religious things.
Our understanding can be skewed by what literature has survived. Indications are that Beowulf was one of many tales told about heros in old Germanic society, but it’s the only one that survived to today. What other types of old Germanic tales were there? Because of destruction of war and time, we don’t know what was written besides what survives in Tanakh of pre-Babylonian Exile Hebrew literature.

Religion permeates every facet of life. For example, when I write computer programs, they’re based on the philosophical expectations and thought patterns derived from Biblical theology. There’s no such thing as “non-religious”.
Stephen Hughes wrote:If the whole of the Hebrew society were actively literate there would be many different types of texts, but as it is, there are basically only religious texts (have I followed what has been said rightly?). The extant texts suggests that religious people and some government officials knew how to write.
See above.
Stephen Hughes wrote:So, is it same to say that literacy was an issue related to social power -- as it was in ancient Egypt and to a large extent in our day and age.
In ancient Egypt, the tools of literacy were out of reach for all but an elite that could afford it, that elite being government and top religious executives.

But in societies where the tools of writing can be picked up by almost everyone in a week or less, then whether or not people were literate depended on how much they valued it.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Following on from that there is the question of passive literacy. What proportion of the population was able to read, but not write?
Again depends on the literary tools available to that society.

Karl W. Randolph.
Last edited by kwrandolph on Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply