P List
Here's a list of P words we've done so far. This list will be continuously update and a link to it will appear on the side bar. The format is the following. (61 P, 0 JE, 1 D ) means the word appears 61 times in P, 0 times in JE, and once in D. Words are included in this list if they are rare in at least one of J E or D.
Elokim
(innumerable P, innumerable J, innumerable E, innumerable D)
קָרְבָּן
(235 P, 0 EJ, 0 D)
אָנִי
(123 P, 51 EJ, 2 D)
Circular Inclusio
(119 P, 2 EJ, 1 D)
עֵדָה
(110 P, 0 EJ, 0 D)
B'toch
(65 P, 16 EJ, 2 D)
הוֹלִיד
(61 P, 0 JE, 1 D )
Min (species)
(30 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
Ani Hashem Elokeichem/hen
(30 P, 0 JE, 1 D )
תוֹלְדוֹת
(28 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
Sheretz
(27 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
P'ru ur'vu
(10 P, 1/2 JE, 0 D )
Fell on His Face
(8 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
l'ochla
(7 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
Becoming a (great) nation
(7 P, 1/2 JE, 0 D )
Kel Shakai
(5 P, 1 JE, 0 D )
posted by littlefoxlings at 10:19 PM
6 Comments:
LF, Great! Thanks for the list. For the sake of thouroghness, you may want to enter the exact Hebrew equivalent for each word (or sample thereof, in case of concept, such as circular inclusio). In that way the list becomes a one stop focal point.
As an aside, I do sense an ambivalence in your writing. One minute you seem convinced one way the next minute you're very uncertain.
1/04/2007 11:44 AM
For the sake of thouroghness, you may want to enter the exact Hebrew equivalent for each word (or sample thereof, in case of concept, such as circular inclusio). In that way the list becomes a one stop focal point.
For the sake of time, I may not want to do that. Most are self explanatory. If someone doesn’t follow me, he can always click on the link. The posts tend to be very thorough.
As an aside, I do sense an ambivalence in your writing. One minute you seem convinced one way the next minute you're very uncertain.
True. I am very fickle. Some of it though, may be explained by subtle differences in the conversation. For example, while I am unsure about DH, I am sure that some arguments of the anti DH are BS.
Anyway, I don’t see a need to come to any rigid conclusion about DH since it has no practical effect on my life. Why do I need to have an opinion? I also don’t see why there is so much exchange of opinion in debate. In my view, the focus of debate should be the exchange of arguments and evidence, people can draw their own conclusions. Though, I suppose I am often curious what other people think.
1/04/2007 12:54 PM
>For the sake of time, I may not want to do that. Most are self explanatory. If someone doesn’t follow me, he can always click on the link. The posts tend to be very thorough.
Understood.
>Why do I need to have an opinion?
I understand ambivalence. It's just that my impression is that you gave two strong but different verdicts (very recently).
>Though, I suppose I am often curious what other people think.
Very understandable; like a sanity check. Speaking of which, in the comments to the prior post, I noted that you never addressed the political issues behind the DH split for the two burials. Do you agree with what I stated as being the rationale for the P version of the burial?
Another aside, concerning all the items in your posts - are these standard issues discussed in the the literature, or are these your own observations?
1/04/2007 2:11 PM
It's just that my impression is that you gave two strong but different verdicts (very recently).
Not sure about what in specific so I can’t comment more. Was it perhaps my scathing rebuke of the political conspiracy theories in REF? If so, I don’t see any inconsistency. I have much respect for the divisions between P, D, & JE, I just don’t see any evidence to support his understanding of the political basis for the distinctions.
Speaking of which, in the comments to the prior post, I noted that you never addressed the political issues behind the DH split for the two burials. Do you agree with what I stated as being the rationale for the P version of the burial?
It is because of my hesitation regarding REF that I did not respond to this. Firstly, I do not even feel comfortable with his assumption that P is from the South. Furthermore, I believe he says J is from the South and E is from the North. This statement is in itself a hard sell for many reasons. Firstly, the entire division between J & E is debate as it does not have the sort of evidence P vs JE does. Even if one accepts that division, generally it is much easier to support a case that a given section of JE must be composite due to a duplicate, contradiction etc. than it is to figure out which is J and which is E. In the case of JE vs. P it is easy not only to note the need for multiple authorship but to actually divide it up based on linguistics. However, in J vs. E, while it is often clear that there are two authors, it is often not clear what is who.
OK, why am I going on about this? Because, if I remember correctly, REF says P & J are from the South and E is from the North. I generally prefer not to take a position on if a given verse is J or E, but if you forced me to I’d say the JE burial section here is J, not E, and so your vort would not work. Of course, you could say it’s E to make the vort work, as I have not strong evidence suggesting it’s J, but that’s circular reasoning.
Generally speaking, P places a very strong emphasis on Machpela, though the place does not even appear in other sources. This baffles scholars as it is not the sort of thing that P would care about and no one can figure out why he has such a hang up about it.
Another aside, concerning all the items in your posts - are these standard issues discussed in the the literature, or are these your own observations?
Hmmm…
Words:
For almost every word I assign to an author, I have seen it in at least one place in the literature, though there may be a few exceptions. This is both because I am just not smart enough to come up with something like that on my own and also because just about every word out there has already been assigned. For example, J E Carpenter has a list of over 500 “words” in his book. The punch line is that many of those 500 “words” are actually lists of several words.
In most of the posts, I also have some shaqla v’tarya about how compelling the word is, or if an argument to explain the linguistic clumpliness of that word can be made from thematic causes or circular reasoning and that is almost always my own. In some cases, I was able to find the frequency and distribution of the words in the literature, but that is about as far it is ever taken. Moreover, many times I could not even find that and so I counted on my own. Also, in some cases I found errors in the literature (or disagreed with it) about the frequency and distribution, so I try to count myself even if I do find a book with the numbers. I was disappointed that I could not find a book that dealt with all these issues in greater detail. Either it’s out there and I could not find it, or, for some reason, it has not been written yet.
Duplicates, contradictions etc….
As RJM noted, a lot of it is actually in the Rishonim. Some of it is not and is in the literature. A small minority is not and is my own. Generally, though, while I know there is a certain problem somewhere, I do not remember where or if I saw it somewhere.
I could do better in citing my sources. But I am hindered firstly by my lack of recollection of where things came from and also that much of what I quote that is in the literature I have seen in very many places so quoting all of them would not be feasible.
1/04/2007 7:46 PM
> I have much respect for the divisions between P, D, & JE,
I'm not sure how that gels with your post
http://littlefoxling.blogspot.com/2006/12/this-blog.html
>OK, why am I going on about this? Because, if I remember correctly, REF says P & J are from the South and E is from the North......
I'm not sure why, but with respect to P, REF does not seem to make a distinction between J & E. It's JE and P did not like it. (Timline seems to be JE came into being as early as 722. P may have been a hundred years later)
I will need to go back and re-read this.
Stepping back, I am somewhat confused as to what component of the book are REF's own Torah and which are the base DH. I was not aware that all this political stuff was REF's Chiddush.
LF, I'll be in touch.
1/04/2007 11:47 PM
> I have much respect for the divisions between P, D, & JE,
I'm not sure how that gels with your post
http://littlefoxling.blogspot.com/2006/12/this-blog.html
Well, as I said, I am fickle. But, I am not sure that there is really a contradiction here (and no, it's not because littlefoxling is actually 4 people). I have, since before I began this blog, to the present, been unsure about DH. On the other hand, if you forced me to say yes or no, do I accept it? my answer would definitely be yes. That was the case before and after the blog. I say in the post In this two month period, I’ve grown much more skeptical of the DH. , which is true. But, that only means that I have been slightly shifted away from DH. My confidence level has dropped but it is still above 50%. Perhaps I was unclear in the post.
I'm not sure why, but with respect to P, REF does not seem to make a distinction between J & E. It's JE and P did not like it.
Don’t follow you here.
Timeline seems to be JE came into being as early as 722. P may have been a hundred years later)
This is the sort of thing i don't like about REF. We know so little, and he is throwing around exact dates.
Stepping back, I am somewhat confused as to what component of the book are REF's own Torah and which are the base DH. I was not aware that all this political stuff was REF's Chiddush.
Well, I don't know enough to say what is his chidush and what is not his. I'm not saying he invented it. I am saying that it is not something that you will see widespread agreement about in scholars, even if there are some in has camp.
LF, I'll be in touch.
That's always a pleasure
1/04/2007 11:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home