Greetings PioneerSchmioneer,
I began this thread for two reasons—to present my findings and
elicit “substantive criticism” Substantive criticism entails
first reading what I have written then, finding a
problem with the points made, presenting a more reasonable
explanation of the facts. So far the only person who has approached
this has been peacefulpete who attempted to otherwise explain Jubilees’
explication of twenty-two works with specific arguments regarding how
to count the works of creation in the text. This necessitated a response from me
and I find that my response squarely addressed the points he raised.
Unfortunately, you have gone in a different direction. You have not
made “substantive criticisms” of my paper for the simple fact
that you still have not cited any factual errors or flaws in my
reasoning from what I have written. You said concerning my thesis,
“My comments were not meant in anyway to be seen or read as saying
I disagree,” and concerning the alternative thesis (symmetrical
arrangement), “I neither disagree with nor endorse the view.” So
you have presented yourself as a non-committal observer who is simply
throwing out disinterested comments on the subject.
Yet your comments from the beginning have made implicit arguments.
And so I have tried from the beginning to address your points. But
the fact that you do not formally make arguments or explicitly cite
sources in support of your pronouncements makes things unnecessarily
difficult. And when you have given a name, Konrad Schmid, the scholar
actually said the opposite of the position you had taken. And when
this was demonstrated to you, you simply attempted to turn things
around and characterized my citations as “red herrings” and
“gaslighting.”
Your only explicit point is to question my level of Hebrew
proficiency. But even here there is no “substantive criticism” of
my position. Why? Because your questioning is not based on examples
of factual errors related to Hebrew in my paper or even in my
comments here. Your questioning came in relation to my statement that
Krüger is wrong in his utilization of a symmetrical arrangement of
eight creative acts. You took an opposing position and claimed, “The
text has a cadence to it that demonstrates this.”
Please note that this claim effectively makes you an advocate for a
symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts even through you say,
“I neither disagree with nor endorse the view.”
Now if it is true that “cadence”
in
the text “demonstrates” an intentional symmetrical arrangement of
eight creative works by the author, it would be
important to the discussion of the narrative structure. And so I
replied, “I would very much like to hear how ‘cadence’ can
account for … glaring logical problems in the symmetrical
arrangement as well as how scholars who recognize these problems like
I do are in error.” Thus I am asking you to substantiate your
point here. I, for my part, have already substantiated my own claim that the utilization of a symmetrical arrangement of eight
creative acts by scholars is wrong by the very paper I have written.
Yet you failed to substantiate your own claim when asked. And I tried
to bring this fact to your attention, but apparently to avail.
And thus you have continued on, unsubstantiated in your own claim, trying to
shift the burden of proof back on to me to prove my understanding of
Hebrew is such to sustain the claim I made. But again, this I have already
done in my paper, a paper from which you still have yet to cite any
example of a factual error related to Hebrew on my part, let alone
anything fatal to the position I advance. Remember, the thread is
about making “substantive criticisms” of the alternative
narrative structure which I advance in my paper. It is therefore
obvious that any criticism should start there since that is the whole
point of the discussion. But you dismiss the idea as “BS” and say
that my directing you to my paper is the same situation as what the
translators of the New World Translation do. Let us once again
take up your comparison with an example to show exactly how one should
proceed in offering criticism.
Jer 29:10 in the original New World Translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures (1958 edition) reads,
“For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the
fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon, I shall turn my
attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good
promise in bringing you back to this place.’
Jonsson argues that the translation of lĕbābel
as “at Babylon” here is incorrect and should be
translated as “for Babylon” (Carl Olof Jonsson, The
Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th ed. (Atlanta, Ga.:
Commentary Press, 2004), 211–5). Does Jonsson simply assert that
the translators of the New World Translation, by translating
as “at Babylon,” show they had no knowledge of Hebrew? No. He
first cites other translations and relates that while some of these
read like the New World Translation, most read as “for
Babylon” and explains how this actually fits better with other statements in
Jeremiah. And then, not relying on an argument from populism, he goes
into the reason why the preposition lĕ
is best translated as “for” here by noting the opinion of Hebrew
scholars. His first sentence reads, “Modern Hebrew scholars
generally agree that the local or spatial sense of le is
highly improbable, if not impossible, at Jer. 29:10.” Does he just
end there with a blanket appeal to anonymous authorities? No. He
cites a number of scholars to establish the point. Do the scholars he
cites simply appeal to their own educational qualifications as if
that were sufficient to establish the argument? No. They each give
the specific reasons for how they arrive at the position they
do from a consideration of the larger context and ancient
translations. The case that Jonsson brings against the translation
“at
Babylon” in Jer 29:10 is therefore not established by questioning
the translator’s very ability to understand Hebrew or by popularity
or by simple appeals to authorities, his case is established by
providing a superior explanation of the facts.
Now since the translators of the New World Translation have
stated, “the merit of the translation rest[s], not on names, but
upon its faithful rendition of the Scriptures from their original
language,” then arguments which demonstrate that the translation
has not in fact been faithful to the original language in places need to be
addressed by offering an even better explanation if the translation
is to still be regarded. Yet in the present example the
translators have not addressed the argument made by Jonsson at all
and continued on with their translation as if Jonsson’s criticism
simply did not exist. This can be seen in the most recent revision of
their translation which still reads “at
Babylon.” It is therefore not the failure to produce credentials
for inspection when asked that makes the translators suspect.
Translations may be legitimate or illegitimate regardless of the
credentials of the translator. It is the fact that the translators,
although expressing a claim of faithfulness to the original
languages, fail to answer criticisms when examples of the
translation’s unfaithfulness to the original languages are brought
forward.
So
if you wish to put me in the role of one of the translators of the
New World Translation,
then that places you in the role of Jonsson. So please, do as Jonsson
does with respect to the New World
Translation and actually read my paper,
find examples that you think constitute factual errors related to
Hebrew, collect your reasoned argument as to why you believe I am in
error, then bring your argument forward. And as you do this, please,
instead of vague statements about how “a
cadence” to
the text “demonstrates” an intentional symmetrical arrangement of
eight creative works based on the work of “a scholar” who
worked “some decades ago,” please give me
specifics as I have done with you here by clearly citing your sources
like Jonsson does. Then the ball will be back
in my court. And I will have to answer your
“substantive criticism.” And then we will see if I fail to give a
reasonable response as the translators of the New
World Translation do.
In
closing, you may be
correct that I should have ignored you a long time ago, but not
because you are a nobody, but because you have no “substantive
criticism” to make. I am the nobody. You literally have the entire world of scholarship with you. Hopefully you will justify the time it takes me
to type out these long responses
to you by following Jonsson’s course and providing me with
something substantial. Refuted or not, I can only stand the winner
through the gain
in knowledge.
[T]he view is found in basically all mainstream Bibles because it
became accepted a very long time ago based upon how the
Hebrew narrative reads like both the symmetry of prayers found in the
Siddur and the Hebrew psaltry.
— PioneerSchmioneer
Some decades ago a scholar recognized that the first
chapter of Genesis read like [an example of Jewish poetry] and a
light bulb went off and the entire process began with a thesis. The
rest was history, and now it is inside all the Bibles.
— PioneerSchmioneer
Let us finally turn to the scientific and philosophical significance
of Herder’s ‘hieroglyph’. When this theory first appears in the
drafts of 1768 or 1769, its claims to validity are
still modest. For example, the ‘hieroglyph’ still has nothing to
do with nature and natural science; it purports to be no more than a
structural feature of the creation story, a complex of symmetries and
parallelisms in the Mosaic description of the seven days of creation
which Herder describes as a ‘hieroglyph’. Its significance at
this stage is purely formal and poetic.
— Hugh Barr Nisbet, “Herder’s The Oldest Document of the
Human Race and his Philosophy of Religion and History,”
in On the Literature and Thought of the German Classical Era:
Collected Essays, ed. Hugh Barr Nisbet (Cambridge, UK: Open Book
Publishers, 2021), 155.
Two centuries ago Herder recognized the powerful
symmetry between the two triads of days: Day 1 corresponds to Day 4,
Day 2 to Day 5, Day 3 to Day 6. Corresponding to the light (1) are
the luminaries (4); to the creation of the expanse of the sky and the
separation of the waters (2) correspond the birds and the fish (5);
and to the appearance of the dry land and of vegetation (3)
correspond the land animals including mankind together with the gift
of food (6). Medieval tradition had recognized the
broad pattern, since it distinguished the work of separation (Days
1-3) from the work of adornment (Days 4-6).
— Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of
Genesis, trans. David G. Preston (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1984), 51.
Can you see why there is a need to cite sources?
