Timeline for The lexicology of Pharaoh's heart
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2016 at 1:03 | comment | added | Schuh | @ScottS , I've removed that last sentence, but I can't do anything about your concern with the DH as that's far off topic here. Thanks! | |
| Mar 19, 2016 at 0:57 | history | edited | Schuh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed last sentence
|
| Mar 18, 2016 at 23:36 | comment | added | ScottS | Also, "This is the only pattern shown to emerge from the text itself" is not true, as the text itself does not split itself into "source sections" as the DH presupposes and then imposes onto the text. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 21:48 | comment | added | ScottS | "Assuming this pattern emerges independently of the source-coding – i.e. assuming this vocabulary was not itself a criterion by which the text was coded." That is one of the primary faults of the DH, it fails to see that multiple words can be used by a single source (the prime example being the split on the divine name of "Jahwist and Elohist sources.") | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 18:56 | comment | added | Schuh | Thanks very much, @Susan. I've added Childs to my answer. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 18:50 | history | edited | Schuh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added criticism of alternative proposals and the additional source suggested by the OP.
|
| Mar 16, 2016 at 0:46 | comment | added | Susan | See the discussion by Brevard Childs (who, despite his reputation for canon (or canon-like, or whatever) criticism remained committed to source-critical analysis of the Pentateuch throughout his career). ("The statistics of hardness terminology has been treated so often....that a repetition hardly seems necessary", but he provides a substantial contribution anyway.) He concurs with the basic pattern of kbd as J and ḥzq as P but identifies two exceptions (7:14 and 10:1) which are discussed. The source analysis is his own and is explained on 130ff. | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 18:45 | comment | added | Schuh | Thanks, @SteveTaylor. You can verify the All of my analysis using the coded text to which I linked. I make no claims for that text or the documentary hypothesis generally (though I note vocabulary is just one of several criteria by which scholars distinguish and date the sources). As stated, my analysis using the at-hand text yielded a suggestive result, one I think worth exploring in other DH-coded texts. If you have another, I'm eager to take a look. | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 14:23 | comment | added | Steve can help♦ | The All part of the assumption troubles me if we're talking about later redactions - why would a redactor only use contemporary words? If we were re-writing a section of Shakespeare we would surely make the majority of our attempts to conform to his original form and style. Even suggesting that different castes of people from similar time periods consistently use different words from one another for the same things is fairly problematic. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:15 | comment | added | Schuh | @curiousdannii, it’s exactly because I don’t know how the at-hand text I used is coded that I’ve couched my answer in an assumption. As I said just above, it'd be good to verify this using a text with known coding criteria. Can someone confirm or suggest another online source? | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 23:50 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | How do you know that these verbs weren't the reason for this coding? | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 18:34 | comment | added | Schuh | I couldn't find a reference for this coded text either, so I'm guessing it's an older, public domain text. It'd be interesting to look at a recent text (e.g. Friedman) and compare. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 18:21 | comment | added | Susan | Thanks! Does that page not provide any info about where their coding scheme comes from? Surely it's tied to some major piece of academic work, but I don't see the citation. Maybe I've missed it. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 18:03 | history | answered | Schuh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |