Celsus

No Doctor X, that's not the point. If I wanted to debate Friedman, I'd do so in a direct discussion with him. I (and probably spin as well) have no wish to argue with a bibliography or pages of quotes of which you evidently have not done enough background research around the topic. If, say, you'd read Blenkinsopp or Van Seters or any others other than Friedman alone, you'll have long noticed the difficulties with E (to cite one particular example), or at least not have declared triumphantly the evidence for pre-exilic dating. Oddly enough, I'm not hesitant to declare that spin would thrash me in a debate over textual dating, much as I disagree with many of his positions. He has already clearly shown more knowledge than you on this topic over several threads, so I suggest you stop grandstanding. Anyway, if there is further content in your posts, I'll be happy to show you why you are wrong.

Spin: I blundered on Phoenician (I don't know what I was thinking, perhaps the Greek adoption and then confused my dates), and you are also right, I meant alphabet. The ANE threads on Phoenician were about 3 weeks ago, but I have since deleted them (they are archived here). It was mostly about where the names of the letters came from, but a lot of interesting side-issues came up.

Joel

spin

If the three parties agree, could we remove this exchange from the thread?


spin

spin

Thanks, I'll check it out to see if I can glean something from it.


spin

Celsus

I'll be happy to have them removed. The question is whether the moderators feel likewise.

Joel

spin

As the post following this shows no desire to end the exchange, I've reinstated the last message I deleted.

spin

Doctor X

I always rather thought rendering judgments upon a subject one has not only not bothered to study, but has refused to study to be "grand-standing."

--J.D.

spin

As we are talking about datings, which is something I feel competent to talk about here, having had to deal with the inherent dating assumptions of too many studies, I would recommend that you get a handle on the problems in those assumed datings so gleefully attached to the documentary hypothesis before continuing.

If you are happy with the datings, would you like to enter into a formal debate on the subject?


spin

Celsus

And Doctor X, may I offer, if spin is too much for you, myself as a sacrificial lamb to the slaughter in a formal debate as well? I may not be around in the end of March though, so after that.

Joel

Doctor X

I have stated, more than once, that Friedman gives his defense of his source dating in his books. I had stated earlier that what is controversial about the current DH is Friedman's dating because many scholars have assumed a late--exilic to post-exilic--date for sources due to the myths. Friedman addresses these in his work. Thus, Friedman has spent just a bit of his time developing a defense for his dates, which has included debating some of the figures thrown in here without any description as to how they rebut Friedman.

One of these books has an summary introduction of a whole nasty 31 pages. If one wishes to argue against Friedman then one should address his arguments rather than toss about terms such as "alphabet soup" as if it is an argument, discount his references without addressing them, or worse, provide no alternative that satisfies the internal and external evidence.

And that is all I have to say.

--J.D.

Celsus

Doctor X,

"Alphabet soup" is an in-joke I thought you'd appreciate. It applies in both ways and is hardly a jibe at Friedman's position--in fact, I posted it in reference to theories that don't fit the DH. Your reliance on a single position as theory and fact betrays your lack of reading on this subject.

That is all.

Joel