Der Humanismus
In der Zeit der Renaissance und des Humanismus bahnte sich ein neues Geschichtsverständnis an. Darauf zu achten und dieses allmähliche Wachsen eines historischen Bewußtseins genau ins Auge zu fassen – das wird eine der wesentlichen Aufgaben unserer Darstellung der alttestamentlichen Forschungsgeschichte sein müssen.
Bewegt von diesem Erwachen und Wachsen des historischen Bewußtseins – und auch diese Entwicklung wird zu bedenken sein: –, wurde der Drang nach Erkenntnis, nach unbedingter Wahrheit freigesetzt. Laurentius Valla (1406-1457) war der Inspirator eines neuen kritischen Verfahrens, das zur Quellenforschung anleitete, neue Maßstäbe setzte und die vielschichtige Bewegung des Humanismus hervorrief. Auf die einzelnen Phasen und Erscheinungsformen des Humanismus kann im Folgenden nicht eingegangen werden. Es mag genügen, wenn in einer Skizze der Trend der machtvollen Bewegung erfaßt wird.
Hans-Joachim Kraus
Humanism
A new understanding of history developed itself in the time of the Renaissance and of Humanism. To pay attention to that and accurately contemplate this gradual growth of a historical consciousness – that will have to be one of the fundamental tasks of our account of the old testament history of research. If moved by this awakening and growth of historical consciousness (and even its development will be considered), then the impulse toward perception and toward complete truth was liberated.
Laurentius Valla (1406-1457) was the inspirator of a new critcial process which instructed concerning source research, set new methods, and gave rise to the complex movement of Humanism. The individual phases and manifestations of Humanism can not be received in what follows. It may be enough if the trend of the powerful movent is caught on in one sketch.
Unless it was not evident by now, George W and most of his Republican cohorts are all Fascists. Another one of the many things this tyranical administration has done and is doing that you can add to the list of abominations is telling the Burea of Prisons to deny prisoners access to religious material (unless, of course, the government arbitrarily and unconstitutionally deems those religious materials okay
for prisoners to read). Just wait till you see what books the government says are okay
and then guess how much time we have until the Fascists tell you and me what we can and cannot read. Read the report by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times here.
Ever wonder how Jews fled from the siege of their own city before it was completely destroyed (other than faking their own death by being carried out in a casket*)? Just go underground!
*Yohanan ben Zakkai as retold in Talmudic aggada
Ever wanted to write something simple in Egyptian? How about Babylonian or Sumerian? Now all you have to do is go on-line and type it in. It does not appear, however, that this can be relied on except in terms of simple words and short phrases. It may even butcher those. And it will definitely not be of any use in terms of digital translation of ancient documents… If something like Altavista’s Babelfish or the myriads of other on-line translators can’t even adequately translate a moderate German sentence into English (or vice versa), I think there is not much hope of an ancient language working any better. But it is amusing!
Go here to read all about it.
The historicity of the Tabernacle
is a question to be decided by evidence; and questions of the kind should be left to men who have practical experience in dealing with evidence―a category which does not include the Critics.
Sir Robert Anderson, in response to Orr’s Historicity of the Mosaic Tabernacle
I had to laugh when I read this… While critically examining the Documentary Hypothesis, I had suddenly stumbled onto the mirror image of a situation occurring in New Testament studies in the second Quest of the Historical Jesus. Burton Mack, for example, had presented the text of Mark as a historical fiction, which Mark based not on any actual evidence, but on an elaborate reconstruction of hypothetical traditions. And lo and behold, when the historical evidence was looked at, it became apparent that Mark and Mack were the same! Out of either sheer genius or complete blindness to his own presuppositions, Mack had gone about and created that vision of the Markan author weaving traditions without recourse to actual history by leaving historical evidence behind and weaving together elaborate reconstructions of hypothetical traditions.
In the same manner, the Higher Critics of old who fragmented the Hebrew text into several different traditions and presented us with an incoherent and a-historical picture of ancient Israel were themselves the very incoherent and a-historical authors they created. Without recourse to any actual historic evidence, they fragmented texts and explained inconsistencies in their fragmentation by appealing to a historically unknown Redactor.
So through incredible imaginary feats of intellect without basis in any real evidence, the Higher Critics crafted Pentateuchal Authors who had crafted incredible imaginary feats of intellect without basis in any real evidence.
The scientific person who does not laugh at the absurdity of it all would at least be dumbfounded at the lack of any grounding in Modern methods of rationally critical analysis by these so-called Moderns and their criticism.
Indeed, what were the Higher Critics actually criticizing if not the method of rational, scientific criticism itself? How can one defend a historical position about a text without any appeal to actual historical evidence of the text and then in many cases even in complete contradiction to the evidence which does exist? One can hardly blame the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in response. After all, what more native human reaction is there than to reproduce the error of your opponent in the opposite direction like a small child who wants his way and doesn’t care if it’s nonsense? Let us, like any good judge and jury, throw out those cases that mere imagination provides and build on the secure foundations of those things which exist in truth before us and by that token compel us in the direction implied by their evidential nature.
In case you were not aware, about 50% of the Soncino English translation of the Babylonian Talmud (hereafter referred to as the Bavli), is available freely on-line through a site called Come And Hear. You can download the website to a computer and have immediate access to the Bavli whenever you want. I have already made great use of it and enjoyed the translation so much that I started ordering several Tractates that are missing on-line. New in the mail are Tractates from the Order Kodashim. I had no idea they would be so big… For 27 bucks a pop, you get quite a Hebrew-English bang for your buck.
Free at last! My intensive German translation workshop is complete! And I suddenly have free time again! Unless the professors are disappointed with the amount of text I translated (only half a page), I should pass the proficiency exam with flying colors. How about that…I now have a European language under my scholastic belt.
Das Wesen der Kultur besteht darin, dass die in unserem Willen zum Leben nach Geltung ringende Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben sich in den einzelnen Menschen und in der Menschheit immer mehr durchsetzt.
Albert Schweitzer
The essense of culture consists in the fact that the reverance for the life which is fighting after validity in our will for life asserts itself more and more in individual people and in humanity.
There are many good reasons out there which, had I known previously, would have compelled me pretty quickly to abandon Windows for Linux. There is, for instance, no thrill as big as downloading several dozen different types of legally free software which individually do almost if not the exact same things as their non-free counterparts whose combined price tag would number in the multiple thousands. Every time I open Synaptic, I feel like I’m going on a shopping spree… What kind of really expensive software do I want for free legally today?
But the primary reason I use Linux is actually very simple. Because I’m Libertarian. I believe there is no greater good than liberty and no greater evil than the oppression, coercion, or slavery of our own natural rights and authority. I don’t accept Nissan controlling how, where, or when I drive my car and what I can or cannot do with it. Then why in God’s name would I let Microsoft control my operating system or tell me how I can and cannot use my software? Of course, there is a price involved: you have to learn a new way of doing computing. But nobody ever said liberty costs nothing. The question is what are you more willing to pay for: liberty or slavery?
Most people do not realize that when they laid down those several hundred dollars for Windows, they were not actually purchasing the operating system for their own control and ownership, but a license which allows Microsoft to maintain ownership and, therefore, to have control, authority, and right over the person using it. Using any Microsoft product is allowing yourself to be enslaved digitally for the opportunity to use that product. Some people might be fine with that slavery and chose it for themselves. If so, great! This Libertarian stands behind your decision, whatever that happens to be. And I will stand beside you against anyone who tries to deny your right to your decision. But I cannot abide selling myself into digital slavery.
Linux is everything that digital enslavement under Microsoft is not. For a long time I neither knew I was enslaved nor knew what it meant to be free of that slavery. But now that I have digital liberty, even thinking of going back to my old Microsoft shackles is repulsive. If this liberty were the only advantage to Linux, it would be enough reason for me to leave everything else for it. There just happens to be a great many other advantages as well.
Quite some time ago, I commented on Awilum that one of the things which makes historical investigation of Torah difficult is that much of the Pentateuchal history is a personal/family/private history instead of the public kind that most ancient documents are concerned with.
Therefore, we have virtually no chance of finding extra-biblical evidence of the Patriarchs or the events and circumstances that shaped their lives. One who requires this in order to believe the Pentateuchal narratives are historically accurate demands what historical investigation cannot reasonably provide.
Angela Erisman of Imaginary Grace challenged my assessment of the part Torah plays in Israelite history, saying that the narratives are primarily public/national, not private/personal. I did not at the time attempt to support or defend my position. Here, however, I hope to look at some specific linguistic evidence from the texts in question that, I believe, do considerable damage to the concept of Torah as representing national history as opposed to a personal/private family record.
In People
and Nation
of Israel by E.A. Speiser, originally published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, June 1960, the differentiated use of ’am and goy (translated people
and nation
respectively) in Hebrew literature is discussed. Several details are worth mentioning. First, YHWH is never connected linguistically to a nation (goy), but a people (’am). For instance, there is no such thing as the construction goy-YHWH (nation of YHWH), only ’am-YHWH (people of YHWH).(p.158) For this reason, Speiser says, all references to Yahweh as a ’national’ God at any given time are terminologically inaccurate
(ibid, note 5). If the head of a nation is the king and if the head of the king is a god, it stands to reason that unless the distinction is specifically made, such a god would be identified intimately in terms of the nation. But YHWH is not defined by a nation. He transcends national and political boundaries (or rules over all the kingdoms of men as is later described in Daniel), setting up and pulling down nations as he wills…including Israel. This is not only shocking generally speaking, but crippling to the idea that Israel is describing or establishing a national identity in Torah.
’Am is also often prefixed in Hebrew names. We have, for example, Amminadab and Ammiel, whereas there is no such thing as Goyminadab, Goymiel, or any other goy-prefixed name.(ibid, p.159). This serves to identity a person with a common ethnic family or lineage as opposed to a national or political body, which is not what one would expect if the characters or authors of the texts were more concerned with the later than the former. Indeed, even Israel herself is referred to in the first five books of Moses with ’am instead of goy. For instance, Exodus 1:9 calls the Israelites an ethnic family line (or ’am) that Pharaoh must let go, not a nation (or goy). In Numbers 23:9, Balaam prophetically announces the Israelites as a people (’am) that will not be reckoned among the nations (goyim). According to linguistic evidence such as this, biblical Israel is a kinship group, not a national one.
