Subject: Re: Book of J
From: Cecilia Baader (ceciliabaader@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 22:14:59 EDT
--- Jim Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu> wrote:
> The documentary hypothesis, technically, has NO
> physical evidence supporting it. The only texts we have are pretty much
> of the whole books or fragments of the whole books. What is observed in
> the text could just as well be the result of editorial impositions on a
> text substantially written by a single author, esp. if that single
> author drew from a number of source texts written in different languages
> and by different people. It's a fascinating thesis and has great
> explanatory power, but it's hardly "proven."
Yes, but I believe I mentioned this, and never claimed that it was proven.
In fact, my point was that it cannot be disproven, based upon what flawed
scholarship exists.
Bloom's book is supported almost solely by the text. And I'll let Matt K.
or John Omlor argue the merits of that one.
Regards,
Cecilia.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 16:27:01 EDT