tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post1614126198862338510..comments2023-03-29T09:40:29.908-04:00Comments on Frum Heretic: The Two Accounts of Quail & MannaFrum Heretichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17815538809825229710noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-29139328741701860662008-06-25T02:11:00.000-04:002008-06-25T02:11:00.000-04:00"Just to clarify a bit, the powerful aspect of the..."Just to clarify a bit, the powerful aspect of the DH isn't that the names of God are different. It is that there are doublets and triplets in the Torah, and when you examine these duplicate stories, each version almost without exception has consistent and distinctive linguistic and political leanings - one element of which is the name used to refer to God."<BR/><BR/>It is circular as the names YHVH and Elohim are used in the same places but are then divided by the theory and sections are divided by the theory to make it conform more with theory. Then the DH divisions are said to prove the cases. The divisions of J and E are made on the basis of saying each name was distinct despite the fact that Elohim was not G-d's proper name. YHVH is the national name for G-d. Elohim by contrast is used even for foreign gods such as when it says Elohim Acheirim which means "other gods." No speaker of Hebrew would have not used the term Elohim. It simply meant Deity in general such as when Pharaoh said about Joseph is there anyone in all the land asher ruach Elohim bo which means that there is in him the spirit of G-d. Obviously Pharaoh did not believe in G-d. When Moses says YHVH says let the Israelites go Pharaoh said who is YHVH that I should let them go. Thereupon Moses said he is Elohei HaIvriim which means the G-d of the Hebrews. Elohim also is used for rulers and judges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-13373166768423712262008-06-17T11:57:00.000-04:002008-06-17T11:57:00.000-04:00Just to clarify a bit, the powerful aspect of the ...Just to clarify a bit, the powerful aspect of the DH isn't that the names of God are different. It is that there are doublets and triplets in the Torah, and when you examine these duplicate stories, each version almost without exception has consistent and distinctive linguistic and political leanings - one element of which is the name used to refer to God.<BR/><BR/>[I'm no expert, but I hate it when people talk about the DH as being solely based on differences in the names of God. This would be a pretty weak argument and is commonly used as a straw man in discussions of higher criticism.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-7128939772211142162008-06-17T09:14:00.000-04:002008-06-17T09:14:00.000-04:00Frum,>For example, much of the DH division results...Frum,<BR/><BR/>>For example, much of the DH division results from claims regarding the types of documents that the Northern Kingdom would have made vs the Southern Kingdom. The Aaronide priesthood vs anti-Aaronide themes. Etc.But I find that DH proponents are often guilty of circular reasoning<BR/><BR/><BR/>Not so fast. To date the only books I've read about DH are REF. It is my opinion, that generally speaking, it is not he who has come up with the divisions, it was prior scholars such as Knoll, etc. What REF did, I think, was package it all nicely without going into the underlying divisions. I may be wrong, but I don't think it was divided on the basis of North and South, rather, after it was divided, people started noticing the convergence and the way the Authors were split, there just mappened to be a North/South split. In other Breishis may have been assigned on the bases of God's name (pre-moses) and other linguistic issues and THEN they noticed the North South split.Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-33109866838894547742008-06-17T09:02:00.000-04:002008-06-17T09:02:00.000-04:00Baal - you beat me to the punch! I logged back on ...Baal - you beat me to the punch! I logged back on just to say that my comment may have unwittingly - and erroneously - implied that everything is divided simply on the basis of YHVH vs Elohim. For example, much of the DH division results from claims regarding the types of documents that the Northern Kingdom would have made vs the Southern Kingdom. The Aaronide priesthood vs anti-Aaronide themes. Etc.<BR/><BR/>But I find that DH proponents are often guilty of circular reasoning. An example is how REF attempts to divide the tribes of Israel mentioned in Genesis into E and J documents. When I read it, it seemed to be a blatant contrivance without any underlying textual basis except his preconceived notions that certain tribes would be mentioned by an E vs J author. I then found Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's comments on Who Wrote the Bible - http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Who_Wrote_The_Bible.htm - where he takes Friedman to task on this (and other) points. Although I feel that Rabbi Gottlieb is guilty of promoting very flawed "proofs of Torah", his comments on WWTB did reflect some of my own opinions of the book. The bottom line is that I can't read REF anymore without feeling that he is just as biased on the one side of the argument as Gottlieb is on the other!<BR/><BR/>In the case of the quail/mann stories, however, the assertions of the DH'ers seem likely.Frum Heretichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815538809825229710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-82886757135459429192008-06-17T08:13:00.000-04:002008-06-17T08:13:00.000-04:00Frum, I'm far from being knowledgable on DH, but t...Frum, I'm far from being knowledgable on DH, but there is a common misunderstanding as to the issue of YHVH and Elohim. According to REF, the difference between the authors is a matter of time. It's a matter of Ushme Hashem lo nodatti lahem. But all authors agree that after Moshe's time, which includes the Mann, everyone, J,E,P & D used YHVH. J used YHVH even before Moshe. E, P do not use YHVH until Moshe's time. The split of J P E is usually done by means other than God's name, REF does not usually get into how the assignments were made. and I don't know exacty.Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-16142278862715122202008-06-17T07:55:00.000-04:002008-06-17T07:55:00.000-04:00Can we have a mareh mokom for that Bechor Shor?Can we have a mareh mokom for that Bechor Shor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-76192040592856235542008-06-17T07:30:00.000-04:002008-06-17T07:30:00.000-04:00Anonymous - I'm not widely read regarding the DH. ...Anonymous - I'm not widely read regarding the DH. It is also possible that I have come across this before but didn't remember. I even said that "I wasn't so naive to think that this was my own chiddush - scholars must have noticed this before." My point was how obvious it is that these are two variants on the same story.Frum Heretichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815538809825229710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-39015778124656428222008-06-17T07:25:00.000-04:002008-06-17T07:25:00.000-04:00Baal - On what basis does Friedman divide the mann...Baal - On what basis does Friedman divide the mann accounts into multiple documents? Note that YHVH is used exclusively in both.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure that the Bechor Shor is someone on-line and I'll try to find this inside.Frum Heretichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17815538809825229710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-57220775499239313332008-06-16T22:52:00.000-04:002008-06-16T22:52:00.000-04:00"I had never before seen this mentioned in my read..."I had never before seen this mentioned in my readings on various theories of the Torah's multiple authorship and it hit me like a lead pipe: of course these are two variants of the same story!"<BR/><BR/>How much reading on it can you have done?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-310633442210374868.post-43889533012500243452008-06-16T21:55:00.000-04:002008-06-16T21:55:00.000-04:00According to REF, the Man story is actualy a tripl...According to REF, the Man story is actualy a triplet. I.e. The Exodus story is part P and Part J. The Numbers is E. Do you have a reference to that Rishon on-line. He may not have meant it as two traditions of the same story, rather two "tellings" of the story from two different perspectives.Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.com