Translation Equivalents and Honest Debate

[maklelan]

John T's thread on ???????? was shut down, but I wanted to discuss an aspect of his argumentation that, when exposed, actually provides an enlightening perspective on the translation of the Book of Mormon. First, though, I'll point to something John has said on CARM in his twin thread over there:

Instead, I will point to the fact that the Mormon grad student, Dan McClellan (maklelan) supported my observation that the Greek word is a 5th century (c.428) [a fifth century what?] and is recorded by Eusebius in his supplement to the questions to Stephanus. Thank you Dan for that!

Now here's what I actually said:

Theotokos appears in Eusebius' Supplementa ad quaestiones ad Stephanum, as well (line 164 here), which is early 4th century.

The 4th century is not the 5th century. Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine.

Now, John's contention is that the phrase "Mother of God" was taken from the ???????? doctrine. He recognizes that it was corrected to "Mother of the Son of God," but asserts this is somehow the same and that the term must be considered an anachronism where it is found in the beginning of the Book of Mormon, which is dated to the first decades of the sixth century BCE. John erroneously claims that this is the same time period in which Isaiah and Ezekiel were prophesying, but goes on to say the phrase was coined in the fifth century CE, and that Latter-day Saints must show the phrase is found in 6th century BCE texts or else Joseph Smith stole the word from early Christianity. Several people, including myself, responded to show that ???????? is not even close to the same word as "Mother of the Son of God," and that the same concept was common to several cultures in and around Syria-Palestine. John replied that this wasn't good enough, since the concepts don't constitute the usage of the word itself. For John, the exact phrase "Mother of God," or "Mother of the Son of God" must be identified in order for the anachronism to fall.

Here's where I take issue with this claim. ???????? doesn't mean "Mother of God." It means "God-Bearer." "Mother of God" is what is called a dynamic translation equivalent. That is, it is not a perfectly literal and strict translation of the Greek word. It uses related concepts and rearranges the order to make it idiomatic in English. It communicates the same concept without strictly reproducing the phrase exactly as it is found in the source language. The Wikipedia page that John cites in his post even points this out: "Less literal translations include Mother of God."

What this means is that John is pointing to Joseph Smith's phrase "Mother of God" as a dynamic (or conceptual) equivalent of ????????, but demands a formal equivalent from the sixth century BCE. He has rejected dynamic equivalents as an indication the concept was then current. It's even more problematic than that, though, since John is actually pointing to Joseph Smith's phrase "Mother of the Son of God," and demanding a formal equivalent to that. To my knowledge, there is actually no early Greek phrase used by Christians that translates "Mother of the Son of God." John presupposes that "Mother of the Son of God" must simply be an expansion of "Mother of God," and therefore originates from it. John's argument is hopelessly flawed in many ways, but is his assumption about the origin of the phrase in the Book of Mormon correct?

The Book of Mormon is an anaphoric translation. That is, the translator made use of dynamic equivalents and incorporated familiar words, phrases, and ideas; in this case, the vernacular of the King James Version of the Bible and of 19th century Christianity. The printer's manuscript shows someone corrected "Mother of God" to read "Mother of the Son of God." An anaphoric connection to the familiar early Christian phrase was made on the part of the dictator or the scribe in the original manuscript. Once it was identified, however, it was changed for the printer's manuscript. It was not the proper term. Did it originate from "Mother of God"? That we can't say for sure, but it can no longer act as a peg on which to hang John's argument.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

The Book of Mormon is an anaphoric translation. That is, the translator made use of dynamic equivalents and incorporated familiar words, phrases, and ideas; in this case, the vernacular of the King James Version of the Bible and of 19th century Christianity. The printer's manuscript shows someone corrected "Mother of God" to read "Mother of the Son of God." An anaphoric connection to the familiar early Christian phrase was made on the part of the dictator or the scribe in the original manuscript. Once it was identified, however, it was changed for the printer's manuscript. It was not the proper term. Did it originate from "Mother of God"? That we can't say for sure, but it can no longer act as a peg on which to hang John's argument.

Very good post. Just one question--are you sure it changed on the printer's manuscript? I thought it was printed as "Mother of God" in the 1830 printing, but changed in the Kirtland 1837 edition. Were the changes made in the 1837 edition done to the original printer's manuscript?

[maklelan]

Very good post. Just one question--are you sure it changed on the printer's manuscript? I thought it was printed as "Mother of God" in the 1830 printing, but changed in the Kirtland 1837 edition. Were the changes made in the 1837 edition done to the original printer's manuscript?

The change was made to the printer's manuscript but the first printing still included the erroneous version.

[Flyonthewall]

It seems to me that the BoM's use of the phrase "the mother of the Son of God" is a description of the virgin, not a title. However, since the title uses the same words that would be used in a description, it's hard to tell.

Here is a portion of the Wikipedia page on Theotokos:

Etymology and translation

Theotokos is a compound of two Greek words, ???? God and ????? parturition, childbirth. Literally, this translates as God-bearer or the one who gives birth to God. However, since many English-speaking Orthodox find this literal translation awkward, in liturgical use, Theotokos is often left untranslated, or paraphrased as Mother of God. The latter title is the literal translation of a distinct title in Greek, ????? ??? ???? (translit. M?t?r tou Theou). Mother of God also accurately translates the Greek words ???????? (translit. Theom?tor; also spelled ????????, translit. Theom?t?r) and ????????? (translit. M?trotheos), which are found in patristic and liturgical texts.{e.g. "???????? ? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ... ??? ??????? ??????????????? ? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ?????????????? ??? ???? ????????? ?????????? ... ????????? ???? ???????? ????????." Methodius of Patra, "Speech on Symeon and the Holy Theotokos".}

In many traditions, Theotokos was translated from the Greek into the local liturgical language. The most prominent of these were Latin (Deipara, Dei genetrix and, as paraphrased, Mater Dei), Church Slavonic (?????????? translit. Bogoroditsa), Coptic ( ????????? translit. Ti.Theotok

[ebeddoulos]

Very good post. Just one question--are you sure it changed on the printer's manuscript? I thought it was printed as "Mother of God" in the 1830 printing, but changed in the Kirtland 1837 edition. Were the changes made in the 1837 edition done to the original printer's manuscript?

If I understand it correctly, Joseph Smith made this particular correction during the editing process for the 1837 edition. This is the explanation given by Royal Skousen in his monumental work:

"Kirtland, Ohio). Joseph's corrections (almost all of which are grammatical in nature) are in heavy black ink and are found throughout the printer's manuscript."

Royal Skousen,"The Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon", Provo: F.A.R.M.S./BYU, [2001], pg.4)

Under the heading of "Types of Masnuscript Changes" you find this:

>js the correction was made by Joseph Smith in his editing for the 1837 edition

(Royal Skousen,"Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon", Provo: F.A.R.M.S./BYU, [2004], part 1, pg. 21)

That notation - >js - is found in 1 Nephi 11:18

1 Nephi 11:18

behold the virgin which thou seest is the mother

of

[ 0A|NULL >js

the son of

1|

the son of

BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST]

God

(Royal Skousen,"Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon", Provo: F.A.R.M.S./BYU, [2004], part 1, pg.230)

[J Green]

Elizabeth says to Mary:

And whence is this to me, that

the mother of my Lord

should come to me? (Luk

[John T]

John T's thread on ???????? was shut down, but I wanted to discuss an aspect of his argumentation that, when exposed, actually provides an enlightening perspective on the translation of the Book of Mormon. First, though, I'll point to something John has said on CARM in his twin thread over there:

Excellent summary, my worthy opponent! (really!)

The point about Eusebeus was that he documented it, in addition to the records of the Ecumenical Council.

Please let me clarify some things.

About the 1830 edition, it clearly says that phrase, "Mother of God", and therein I placed great emphasis. If there has been a printer's error, that needs to be documented, for there is a great deal riding on that.

Even if the original is correct as redacted, then there are also great problems with the phrase, "Mother of the Son of God" from a Jewish perspective. That is because the Jewish (and Christian) view of God is that there is no beginning nor ending for God; he always is. Usage of the word, "mother" is to deny the eternality of Jesus Christ, who is also fully God. To say that part of the phrase, "the Son of God" would be blasphemy, for it requires an act of carnality for a just, righteous and holy God. By doing that one act of physical impregnation, God would violate all three of those attributes (perhaps more).

From the Jewish perspective, Isaiah 7:14 has similar problems, but the term "virgin" adds more. I have no idea as to how they understood it, but the implications of that to their minds would/could be considered blasphemous, for the reasons above.

Regarding the BoM

LDS people say that it is as it claims, written in Reformed Egyptian, and perfectly translated by J Smith.

Others claim that is entirely a work of the mind of J Smith.

Depending upon one's perspective, there should be a logical explanation why the term, "Mother of God", or "Mother of the Son of God" is written there. I also maintain that the explanation needs to be congruent to the understanding that one has about the origins of the BoM, as a matter of consistency.

Since there is no record anywhere of the language of Reformed Egyptian, but there is record of Hebrew writing before 1200, (taking the later date for the Exodus) by Moses, it seems more reasonable for me to accept the fact that "a virgin shall conceive... name him Immanuel..." is the closest thing that anyone can say at the time of the purported writing of 1 Nephi (600 BC) that one can say without risking the charge of blasphemy.

In all the paragraphs above, excepting the last, I presume that the LDS people and I could agree, but it is a place where, perhaps this discussion could continue.

Again, good job, Dan.

Seriously, are you trying to turn a new leaf? This sort of stuff is very much unlike what you have done before. (zero sarcasm)

[maklelan]

Excellent summary, my worthy opponent! (really!)

The point about Eusebeus was that he documented it, in addition to the records of the Ecumenical Council.

But Eusebius lived in the early fourth century (300s CE). His text was written a century before 428 CE. The council you cited was not the first attestation of the word. It was used a century earlier.

Please let me clarify some things.

About the 1830 edition, it clearly says that phrase, "Mother of God", and therein I placed great emphasis. If there has been a printer's error, that needs to be documented, for there is a great deal riding on that.

Even if the original is correct as redacted, then there are also great problems with the phrase, "Mother of the Son of God" from a Jewish perspective. That is because the Jewish (and Christian) view of God is that there is no beginning nor ending for God; he always is.

This is the modern concept, though, not necessarily a normative 6th century BCE concept.

Usage of the word, "mother" is to deny the eternality of Jesus Christ, who is also fully God. To say that part of the phrase, "the Son of God" would be blasphemy, for it requires an act of carnality for a just, righteous and holy God. By doing that one act of physical impregnation, God would violate all three of those attributes (perhaps more).

This is unequivocally not a doctrine of any religion prior to Nicea.

From the Jewish perspective, Isaiah 7:14 has similar problems, but the term "virgin" adds more. I have no idea as to how they understood it, but the implications of that to their minds would/could be considered blasphemous, for the reasons above.

I disagree. YHWH's sexuality is actually found in numerous places in the Hebrew Bible. It was considered taboo very early on in Israel's history (mainly by the priestly class), but remnants remain.

Regarding the BoM

LDS people say that it is as it claims, written in Reformed Egyptian, and perfectly translated by J Smith.

I disagree. They say it was an inspired translation, but I don't know any Latter-day Saints who say it was perfectly translated. That conclusion is precluded simply by the numerous editorial changes to the editions.

Others claim that is entirely a work of the mind of J Smith.

Depending upon one's perspective, there should be a logical explanation why the term, "Mother of God", or "Mother of the Son of God" is written there. I also maintain that the explanation needs to be congruent to the understanding that one has about the origins of the BoM, as a matter of consistency.

You've mapped out a much bigger task than I think you're aware. A theory of translation technique for the Book of Mormon is nothing to be taken lightly.

Since there is no record anywhere of the language of Reformed Egyptian,

We don't know what names contemporary people used for the vast majority of ancient languages. We have numerous examples of Egyptian script that has been altered toward Hebrew and Aramaic script or syntax and grammar, and we have no idea what they were called by the ancients. That there is no ancient record outside of the Book of Mormon attesting to "Reformed Egyptian" is entirely irrelevant.

but there is record of Hebrew writing before 1200

I disagree entirely.

(taking the later date for the Exodus) by Moses, it seems more reasonable for me to accept the fact that "a virgin shall conceive... name him Immanuel..." is the closest thing that anyone can say at the time of the purported writing of 1 Nephi (600 BC) that one can say without risking the charge of blasphemy.

Blasphemy is not a concern that any historical critic can legitimately have, and I don't believe the conclusion that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in 1200 BCE has any evidentiary support.

In all the paragraphs above, excepting the last, I presume that the LDS people and I could agree, but it is a place where, perhaps this discussion could continue.

Again, good job, Dan.

Seriously, are you trying to turn a new leaf? This sort of stuff is very much unlike what you have done before. (zero sarcasm)

I think you'll see that previous posts you may have found abrasive were largely in reaction to marginalizing or belittling language.

[Brant Gardner]

Even if the original is correct as redacted, then there are also great problems with the phrase, "Mother of the Son of God" from a Jewish perspective. That is because the Jewish (and Christian) view of God is that there is no beginning nor ending for God; he always is.

As Maklelan noted, this is an anachronistic interpretation of the situation in 600 BC. If you are interested, I addressed my understanding of the issue here.

[John T]

As Maklelan noted, this is an anachronistic interpretation of the situation in 600 BC. If you are interested, I addressed my understanding of the issue here.

What was the image of the mother-goddess Asherah doing in the temple in Jerusalem? She was there because she was the wife, or consort, of Yahweh. Several inscriptions have been discovered that specifically speak of "Yahweh and his Asherah." Scholars [ a few, not all and they are liberals who do] accept this as an indication that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh

I see where you and Dan share the documentary hypothesis, and how he (and you) promote the late date for authorship of the book. You gave yourself away when you used serendipity to describe the finding the copy of the law, and the subsequent revival under Josiah. But in doing that, you also sabotage your own cause because the naturalistic explanation and subsequent innuendo that the book was concocted to create a revival falls short of the purpose, structure and content of the book.

We both know that Ha Dabarim was Hellenized in the LXX to "Second Law" hence Deuteronomy. But few understand that the structure of the book is in the format of a suzerainty treaty, as detailed in the Meridith Kline book

The fact that it conforms to the treaty structure of the nations existing at the time of Moses is strong, primary evidence of its early, not late date. Here is its structure:

1. A Preamble or Introduction (1:1-5)

2. A review of the past relationship between the parties (1:6-4:49)

3. Basic stipulations that ensured fidelity to the treaty (5:1-26:19)

4. Sanctions in the form of blessings and curses (27:1-30:20)

5. Witness to the treaty (32:1)

6. A provision for the storage and reading of the treaty (31:1-34:12)

You also sabotage your own cause because your statements rule out the miraculous, in favor of a naturalistic explanation of things. My understanding of the things in the BoM require you to believe in divine intervention in the story of the journey of the Jewish families from the middle east and landing on the coast of the Americas. A denial of the miraculous in one area automatically created a denial of divine intervention in the other area. But an acceptance of the miraculous in the life of King Josiah does not close the door to other areas of divine intervention.

The purpose of the book is remember, and it is commanded 14 times.

Remember the Lord, your God

Remember what the Amalikites did

remember how you were a slave in Egypt

Remember the 40 years in the wilderness, etc.

To have the position that the book is concocted in the 6th century BC is to have the presupposition that the book was merely a political manipulation, which would increase the power and authority of Josiah. There is nothing either in the book to indicate that, nor is there indication that such a forgery was required to make Josiah more powerful, the late date writing theory is seriously wanting.

I choose not to deal with the blasphemy of "a consort of YHWH". it is merely a modern construct of those wishing to malign God, and is oppositional to everything that God reveals himself to be.

Essentially by adopting the late date theory, you also shoot the LDS position in the foot, so I am surprised that you and Dan subscribe to it.

My position remains that even as hard as the implications of Isaiah 7:14 were difficult to swallow for the Jews, the phrasing on the BoM is less subtle, and in-your-face, that "Mother of God" or the most blasphemous (in Jewish eyes) "Mother of the Son of God" would be cause for rioting in the streets.

As far as the issue of "translation" is concerned, it is imperative to have source documents from which to compare and contrast. Jews and Christians can go back to the MT or DSS as a base, Mormons can not do that for the BoM. Therefore the word "translation" as it applies to the BoM is actually a misnomer. Any pronouncement on the nature of the language, or any discussion about the purported language of Reformed Egyptian, should correctly include the word "speculate" to make an accurate statement. Otherwise, we have pompous pronouncements masquerading as fact,

[Benjamin McGuire]

The fact that it conforms to the treaty structure of the nations existing at the time of Moses is strong, primary evidence of its early, not late date.

The fact that it quotes Jeremiah is strong, primary evidence of its late, not its early date. Which is why, Deuteronomic scholarship has for decades spoken of Deuteronomy and Proto-Deuteronomy.

Ben M.

[J Green]

Indeed. John T is not forthcoming about the various views. While it is true that many scholars in the last two decades have viewed D as based on vassal treaties, there are two conclusions about the significance of this for dating and composition purposes. The Kitchens and Klines of the world argue that D is based on Hittite suzerainty treaties from the time of Moses (early composition), whereas the Frankenas and Wakefields contend that D is closer to the Assyrian Esarhaddon treaties of the 7th century B.C.E. (late composition). As usual, there are decent arguments for both sides, and although John T apparently sees this as decided, it most certainly is not. There is a general consensus for vassal treaty dependency, but there is no consensus that this means early composition. The two camps still exist within the vassal treaty discussion.

[maklelan]

I see where you and Dan share the documentary hypothesis, and how he (and you) promote the late date for authorship of the book. You gave yourself away when you used serendipity to describe the finding the copy of the law, and the subsequent revival under Josiah. But in doing that, you also sabotage your own cause because the naturalistic explanation and subsequent innuendo that the book was concocted to create a revival falls short of the purpose, structure and content of the book.

We both know that Ha Dabarim was Hellenized in the LXX to "Second Law" hence Deuteronomy. But few understand that the structure of the book is in the format of a suzerainty treaty, as detailed in the Meridith Kline book.

This is a standard fundamentalist assertion, but it's incredibly uninformed. Scholars refer today to the genre of Deuteronomy as a vassal treaty, not a suzerainty treaty. Fundamentalists argue that it shares close connections with Hittite suzerainty treaties, and they have to appeal to scholarship from the mid-twentieth century to show this (thus the use of the old term "suzerainty treaty"). The ties to Assyrian treaties, however, are stronger, and numerous aspects of the text point to a late preexilic and an exilic composition. Most scholars today believe the core of Deuteronomy is based on a late preexilic tradition that was expanded and put into the shape it has today during the Babylonian exile.

I talked about responding to marginalizing and belittling comments in a recent response to you. Given my chosen profession, I take accusations of naivety regarding the form and function of Deuteronomy as quite belittling. I hope you'll take that into consideration when you assess the tone of my response.

The fact that it conforms to the treaty structure of the nations existing at the time of Moses is strong, primary evidence of its early, not late date. Here is its structure:

1. A Preamble or Introduction (1:1-5)

2. A review of the past relationship between the parties (1:6-4:49)

3. Basic stipulations that ensured fidelity to the treaty (5:1-26:19)

4. Sanctions in the form of blessings and curses (27:1-30:20)

5. Witness to the treaty (32:1)

6. A provision for the storage and reading of the treaty (31:1-34:12)

Can you show how this squares with earlier treaties and not with Assyro-Babylonian treaties? It seems to me that you've just uncritically accepted an argument that you like and are asserting it as vehemently as possible in an effort to sound justifiably dismissive of other theories. I highly doubt you've read much research at all on this topic, and the research you have read seems confined to quite outdated arguments.

You also sabotage your own cause because your statements rule out the miraculous, in favor of a naturalistic explanation of things. My understanding of the things in the BoM require you to believe in divine intervention in the story of the journey of the Jewish families from the middle east and landing on the coast of the Americas. A denial of the miraculous in one area automatically created a denial of divine intervention in the other area. But an acceptance of the miraculous in the life of King Josiah does not close the door to other areas of divine intervention.

But if divine intervention is allowed in one instance, how could it possibly be denied for absolutely any other event? If we allow for divine intervention to overcome the obstacles that the facts lay in front of us then scholarship is quite literally useless. Any problem can be shoved away by burping up "revelation!" or "miracle!"

The purpose of the book is remember, and it is commanded 14 times.

Remember the Lord, your God

Remember what the Amalikites did

remember how you were a slave in Egypt

Remember the 40 years in the wilderness, etc.

And, of course, this would be a problem for people who lived it. It would, however, be a problem for people who have moved to, and are being assimilated into, another culture, and are separated by those events by several centuries. There's a reason that Deuteronomy is the only book in the Pentateuch that expresses these concerns.

To have the position that the book is concocted in the 6th century BC is to have the presupposition that the book was merely a political manipulation, which would increase the power and authority of Josiah. There is nothing either in the book to indicate that, nor is there indication that such a forgery was required to make Josiah more powerful, the late date writing theory is seriously wanting.

Actually there are numerous things in the book to indicate that. Jerusalem as the only legitimate cultic center is found nowhere except for Deuteronomy, and the textual and archaeological records show unequivocally that there were several Israelite temples spread out all over Israel until Josiah's day (and they popped up again after the exile - see Elephantine and Leontopolis). Clearly Josiah saw the centralization of worship as an effective means of consolidating both kingdoms under his rule. The polemic against the other gods also points exclusively to Assyria-Babylon. The Canaanite pantheon was clearly not what the author of Deuteronomy was worried about. He warns of astral deities (Deut 4:19), which was an aspect of Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian religions.

I choose not to deal with the blasphemy of "a consort of YHWH". it is merely a modern construct of those wishing to malign God, and is oppositional to everything that God reveals himself to be.

It is absolutely not a modern construct. Inscriptions dating to the eighth and seventh centuries BCE at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom explicitly mention "YHWH and his Asherah." The Israelite temple at Arad contains his and her incense stands and in the holy of holies there are his and her massebot. This stand from Tana'ach shows registers with both Asherah (bottom and third register) and YHWH (second and fourth):

This article shows a pot sherd with depictions of YHWH and Asherah as well.

It's not a modern construct in any sense of the word.

Essentially by adopting the late date theory, you also shoot the LDS position in the foot, so I am surprised that you and Dan subscribe to it.

It shoots nothing in the foot, it just undermines folk interpretations.

My position remains that even as hard as the implications of Isaiah 7:14 were difficult to swallow for the Jews, the phrasing on the BoM is less subtle, and in-your-face, that "Mother of God" or the most blasphemous (in Jewish eyes) "Mother of the Son of God" would be cause for rioting in the streets.

And I've shown that that's not the case at all.

As far as the issue of "translation" is concerned, it is imperative to have source documents from which to compare and contrast. Jews and Christians can go back to the MT or DSS as a base, Mormons can not do that for the BoM. Therefore the word "translation" as it applies to the BoM is actually a misnomer. Any pronouncement on the nature of the language, or any discussion about the purported language of Reformed Egyptian, should correctly include the word "speculate" to make an accurate statement. Otherwise, we have pompous pronouncements masquerading as fact,

I think you misunderstand the standards of historical and linguistic criticism.

[John T]

This is a standard fundamentalist assertion, but it's incredibly uninformed.

Please keep your patronizing to yourself That is not the way to go if you want quality discussion

Scholars refer today to the genre of Deuteronomy as a vassal treaty, not a suzerainty treaty. Fundamentalists argue that it shares close connections with Hittite suzerainty treaties, and they have to appeal to scholarship from the mid-twentieth century to show this (thus the use of the old term "suzerainty treaty"). The ties to Assyrian treaties, however, are stronger, and numerous aspects of the text point to a late preexilic and an exilic composition. Most scholars today believe the core of Deuteronomy is based on a late preexilic tradition that was expanded and put into the shape it has today during the Babylonian exile.

Again, more patronizing!

Technically it is called a suzerainty-vassal treaty. I merely shortened it.

Before I get more annoyed, try to find this in your school's library. It was written in 1963, and it is the basis for the claims I made.

Treaty of the great king: the covenant structure of Deuteronomy.

By Meredith G. Kline

You should be able to access this:

JSTOR: The Structure of Biblical Authority

The Structure of Biblical Authority. Murray Newman. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 94, No. 1, 117-118+120. Mar., 1975. ...

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231(197503)94%3A1%3C117%3ATSOBA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

I talked about responding to marginalizing and belittling comments in a recent response to you. Given my chosen profession, I take accusations of naivety regarding the form and function of Deuteronomy as quite belittling. I hope you'll take that into consideration when you assess the tone of my response.

You take offense where none was given. I write for others who lurk, and who may not know what I am talking about. If that offends you... well that is your problem.

[volgadon]

Before I get more annoyed, try to find this in your school's library. It was written in 1963, and it is the basis for the claims I made.

I love this. Dan hit the nail on the head with the following remark.

and they have to appeal to scholarship from the mid-twentieth century to show this

[Benjamin McGuire]

John T - isn't a nearly 50 year old text a bit dated?

[maklelan]

Please keep your patronizing to yourself That is not the way to go if you want quality discussion

I'm not patronizing. I'm being perfectly accurate. The only people that subscribe to this theory are fundamentalists, and it's an uninformed argument. If you disagree then please show me why.

Again, more patronizing!

Technically it is called a suzerainty-vassal treaty. I merely shortened it.

In contemporary scholarship it's referred to as a vassal treaty.

Before I get more annoyed,

I told you to keep in mind what causes my responses to be curt.

try to find this in your school's library. It was written in 1963, and it is the basis for the claims I made.

Treaty of the great king: the covenant structure of Deuteronomy.

By Meredith G. Kline

I looked at it long ago. You'll notice in my comments I said that these conservative ideas are based on outdated scholarship from the middle of the 20th century. A 12th r 13th century date for Deuteronomy has no currency in contemporary scholarship.

You take offense where none was given. I write for others who lurk, and who may not know what I am talking about. If that offends you... well that is your problem.

"You sabotage your own cause" is not simply writing for the layperson. Nor is "the late date writing theory is seriously wanting." I'll repeat my assessment. You have uncritically accepted an argument that you like and are asserting it as vehemently as possible in an effort to sound justifiably dismissive of other theories. I will give you an opportunity to prove me wrong, though. Please share with me what you believe to be the strongest pieces of evidence for a 7th or 6th century composition for Deuteronomy. If you've done much research at all you'll either have read the scholarship that espouses my position (the best approach) or you will have read enough opposing viewpoints to know which arguments they find most important to confront (a weaker approach but still better than just uncritically accepting the first argument you like). The ball's in your court.

By the way, here are some more current texts that will catch you up on scholarship related to the dating of Deuteronomy:

Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972); Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Bernard Levinson, "Textual Criticism, Assyriology, and the History of Interpretation: Deuteronomy 13:7a As a Text Case in Method," Journal of Biblical Literature 120.2 (2001): 211-43; Patricia Dutcher-Walls, "The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16

[John T]

I'm not patronizing. I'm being perfectly accurate. The only people that subscribe to this theory are fundamentalists, and it's an uninformed argument. If you disagree then please show me why.

Thanks again for your patronizing remark.

To call someone's scholarship into question simply because you do not happen to agree with the presuppositions he holds, and making the snide remark as you do "uninformed" is being very prideful and arrogant.

In contemporary scholarship it's referred to as a vassal treaty.

Is that oonly in the books YOU read?

I told you to keep in mind what causes my responses to be curt.

I am glad that you recognize your answers a being curt. HOWEVER it is only you who make them curt. This is a backhanded attempt to justify your rudeness, and THAT reasoning is severely wanting, and specious to boot.

By the way, here are some more current texts that will catch you up on scholarship related to the dating of Deuteronomy:

Thanks again for your patronizing remark.

Whenever you have something to say without demeaning those who hold different positions than you, I will be happy to dialog. Until then, you are on ignore. I have too many important things to do other than to waste my time with someone who is self-serving, and simultaneously alienating others. I will not be a part of your entertaining fantasies of greatness, constantly striving for perfection by ridiculing others, exaggerating genius by writing as if you already have your masters, or anything else that will elevate your self esteem at my expense, and coincidentally the expense of civility.

Good day, sir.

BTW please do not ask anyone to be your sock puppet, and post your questions to me.

[volgadon]

When confronted with a mound of evidence, reach for the ignore button. Add a dash of self-righteous indignation, and voila!

[maklelan]

Thanks again for your patronizing remark.

To call someone's scholarship into question simply because you do not happen to agree with the presuppositions he holds, and making the snide remark as you do "uninformed" is being very prideful and arrogant.

I didn't call it into question. I flat rejected it, and it's because I've done quite a bit of research in the area and know the conclusion is simply untenable. I also know that you've not done much research in the area and don't know just how weak your position is. If I'm wrong, prove it.

Is that oonly in the books YOU read?

No, it's in contemporary scholarship, which I've invited you to read. You can see this just as well as anyone else.

I am glad that you recognize your answers a being curt. HOWEVER it is only you who make them curt. This is a backhanded attempt to justify your rudeness, and THAT reasoning is severely wanting, and specious to boot.

It's neither specious nor wanting. If you presume to talk down to me about biblical scholarship then you have your work cut out for you, and I'll make sure you know it. That's how it works. If you think you should be allowed to naively belittle people without being called on it, then find somewhere else to debate.

Thanks again for your patronizing remark.

Whenever you have something to say without demeaning those who hold different positions than you,

Like I said, I only respond curtly when people are, without reason, belittling and marginalizing. Your position is untenable, and your method of presentation is presumptuous. If you bothered to actually engage my criticisms of your argument we could move on in a respectful manner, but I get the impression you're not prepared to defend your thesis and so prefer this line of defense. As I said before, you're welcome to prove me wrong, and I sincerely wish you would.

I will be happy to dialog.

Then please do so. See my previous criticisms of your conclusions and the scholarship I cited.

Until then, you are on ignore. I have too many important things to do other than to waste my time with someone who is self-serving, and simultaneously alienating others. I will not be a part of your entertaining fantasies of greatness, constantly striving for perfection by ridiculing others, exaggerating genius by writing as if you already have your masters, or anything else that will elevate your self esteem at my expense, and coincidentally the expense of civility.

Good day, sir.

BTW please do not ask anyone to be your sock puppet, and post your questions to me.

I've never asked anyone in my life to be my sock puppet, and I would never do something like that. I know you'll read my posts anyway.