Friday, March 21, 2014

In Agreement with CMI on Authorship of Genesis

1) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Rejecting Pelagius and Calvin, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : In Agreement with CMI on Authorship of Genesis

Video commented on
CMIcreationstation : Who wrote Genesis?
Scoop of video I did not comment on:
In the days of Wellhausen and Astruc, one major argument, since then very much discredited by clay tablets with cuneiform writing, was that in the days of Moses writing had as yet not been invented!
You mentioned Jean Astruc.

He was:
  • medical doctor (specialised in syphilis)
  • grandson of probable non-Catholics
  • descending probably from Jews, since his last name probably refers to Jewish astrology (Astruc = born under a good star).

"Jean Astruc (Sauves, Auvergne, 19 March 1684 – Paris, 5 May 1766) "

About same time you find:

"Antoine Augustin Calmet, O.S.B. (26 February 1672 – 25 October 1757),"

He was:
  • son of a Farrier
  • born in Holy Roman Empire
  • Benedictine Monk (OSB = Order of Saint Benedict)
  • derided by Voltaire for believing in ghosts and vampires or at least taking reports of them somewhat seriously.

Guess which if these IS cited in the Roman Catholic Bible Commentary of Father George Leo Haydock, 1859?

Right, Calmet. I have checked videos by Kent Hovind and seen him agree with Calmet.

And at same time as Haydock Bible, you find Barnes Notes. Guess which of the two proposes gap theory and local flood? Right, Haydock doesn't.

You also mention Julius Wellhausen. He was the son of a Lutheran Pastor.

He lived about a century earlier than Ratzinger, and that man (born in a Catholic family) is nevertheless an admirer of Luther.

Btw, Wellhausen is well in favour with Lutheran Theologians in Lund.
Deuteronomy 34, here is what the Catholic Haydock comment says:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
DEUTERONOMY - Chapter 34

ibid. DEUTERONOMY - Introduction

Left column is comments, scroll down to ver 5, and then it refers to Introduction, see second link.
Excuse me, but just before 6:00 why is there a Swedish book open?

I could read the words "öfre bukregionen" (with the pre-1906 spelling öfre=upper, now spelled, except by me and similar buffs "övre")? It seems to be a medical book.*

The words mean "upper abdominal region" or "upper stomach region".

Have they anything to do with the Bible?

P. 18*

[Asterisk is not to footnote but was in book. Possibly to mark end or beginning of a fascicle or because in a supplement distinct from other pagination]

Epigastrium (gr) den öfre delen af underlifvet, (öfre bukregionen Re-

Two lines, end of page.

The book must be from after 1870's, pretty certainly.

Standard spelling of shorted stressed open "e" (much more French "è" than NZ "e" in "pen") changed from "e" to "ä" in the sympathies with Denmark over Sleswig-Holstein.

Swedish "gerna" became "gärna" because German spelling was "gerne", Danish spelling "gærne". So a book where "plants" is spelled "växter" rather than "vexter" or "wexter"** is post-1870's. A few lines above the two cited.

Did you put it there to see if I am a Swede and if I have a sane motive (like Conservatism) for spellings like "öfre" or "vexter"? Because just this morning I was confronted with a Swede in the homeless shelter. He even asked me to speak our language in front of the people.

In words with English w, Swedish used to have v/w. In words with English wh, Swedish used to have hv/hw. In words with English v (if Germanic rather than French/Latin), Swedish used to have f or fv/fw depending on whether next letter was space/consonant or vowel. 1906 THAT pretty simple stuff changed but the VERY convoluted spellings for either jod or sje-sound remained. Jod could and can be spelled yod in English loans, like yacht, with j or g or gj, with dj, lj which loose their first sound° ... and that remained.*** And so on. Instead of simplifying learning of writing, it only created an artificial gap between older generations and older print and newer generations and newer readers (the gap between newer print and older readers who already died is of course not artificial).

PLUS 1906 Sweden gave the Nobel price of Literature to Carducci, who had written an "Inno a Satana" ... so would you consider me mad for preferring a pre-1906, perhaps even pre-1870's spelling when changed pronunciation the same time was not at all the issue?

* Actually, probably more general biology, since mentioning "växter" = plants.

** Using w for v was mostly in connexion with printing in blackletters ("fraktur", those that were most usual in Germany up to 1940 when Hitler forbade them, but are also used in Austria). If you printed in normal antiqua, you usually used v. Possibly a personal taste of printers identifying variously more or less with Germans.

*** Older pronunciation of G before soft vowels, of GJ, of DJ = English J which is not a real Jod, but a Jeem. Is still used in Finland to pronounce this, and in Finland also LJ has an audible L.

° I actually forgot to mention the spelling HJ, where H was lost from pronunciation very early, just as in HV. Both H are heard in Icelandic, neither in most Swedish dialects. Now, "hjerta" = heart, was respelled to "hjärta" in 1870's, but kept the H in 1906. But "hvad" = what, was respelled to "vad" and became orthographic as well as phonetic homonym of "vad" - ankle or wade (since a place in the river where water reaches ankles of grown men, though the words are not homonyms in all forms, related but not same, "en vad" = "an ankle", "ett vad" = a wade / a bet). As "hval" = whale, der Wahlfisch, became of "val" = choice, die Wahl. The ONE point of 1906 spelling reform certainly was to divide generations.
Would not be persuaded "though one rose from the dead".

Can you see a parallel with the Lazarus who DID rise from the dead, but not to convert a rich man's brothers, but for the sake of his sister's confession?

Well, there were people there who DID NOT believe. They decided to kill both Lazarus and Jesus.

And those guys were among the founders of Judaism as we know it today.
9:57, about editing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Confer Pius XII in Humani Generis 1950, paragraph 38.*

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

Notice the last words?

If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

This is pretty much a disavowal of the impression previously given by his Bible commission in answer to a Bishop of Paris, but it is worded politely. And (this is the tragedy), that one document has been taken as a warrant for pursuing the other stuff mentioned in the paragraph, as if "this may be conceded" referred to all of above. But mentioning a set of statements from a previous document of less dignity, picking out one and saying about that one "this may be conceded" and adding to that that it was done under inerrant inspiration is not the same as conferring licitness status on all statements in that previous document.

* Cited ("ultimately") from:

Papal Encyclicals Net : Pius XII : Humani Generis

And cited through my own article against Hutchison's misreading:

MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : One group member promoted Hutchison
12:05 ... would you then say that when God reveals his name as JHVH to Moses, He was repeating what He had already told Adam?

Because that would explain why Moses' mother was named not Elisabeth but Johsabeth.
13:21 "unique"

Wellhausen hypothesis was in 19th C Germany not unique about Ancient Literature. Same approach was - alas - used on Homer. But on Homer it is SO discredited since then.

Wellhausen has also found a parallel in Bultmann - so taken down by CSL

So, Wellhausen and Bultmann have had a since discredited companion in Homeric scholarship. Here is a guy who thought that the "Ur-Ilias" (Original or _Primordial_ Iliad) was simply the Achilleid and that in the original ending Achilles DID treat the body of Hector about as badly as the body of Ahab was treated in the Bible:

Wikipedia : Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff

Here are people, who if he counts as a Bultmann, would count as CSL on the question, as mentioned in my Philologica blog (after me reading them):

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Showing posts sorted by relevance for query walter leaf.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Showing posts sorted by relevance for query bowra.

No comments: