Subject: Re: Equidistant letters

From: [email-masked] (Moshe Shulman)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:10:30 -0600 (CST)

I have read with interest/amusement the discussion of ELS here. Usually these
discussions divide between 'Biblical scholars' on one side who discount the
results totally and 'religious' people on the other who use it to support all
manner of beliefs. It is quite rare that anyone will appear who has the
background in Mathematics to insert some sense into these discussions. First,
as of yet from all the results, which are non-trivial, the implications are
not certain. For example, does it prove or disprove DH? The answer is really
we don't know. Most Biblical scholars will discount it immediatly on the
assumption that it does (and hence must be quackery). However the facts are
the opposite. If the results would disprove DH, then the believers in DH would
be relegated to a classification similar to the flat earth society.

As far as I know there has yet to be any analysis as to whether these results
would span through sections the DH assigns to P and J or any other divisions.
Should such a result exist, then we would have to look upon it much as we look
on Carbon 14 dating of manuscripts and other scientific data. Scientific data
represents facts, theories must conform to the facts, facts are not rejected
because they do not conform to theory. (Anyone who wants to argue the opposite
would be advised to look into the history of Ptolemian astronomy.) The only
study I have seen that has a textual significance was one dealing with a few
verses in Leveticus here the MT and Samaritan texts differ. The MT had a
significant result that was not found in the Samaritan.

With that said, we have to look at it at this time as follows. It does seem to
indicate that the MT is superior (something that most have agreed with
anyway), and also that the DH may not be a good explanation of the present
text. One should neither discount, nor overplay the results.

-- 

                        |                             |
                        |    [email-masked]   |
                     ------_________________________------
                      |  | ....... ......... ....... |  |
                      |  | ....... ......... ....... |  |
                      |  | ....... ......... ....... |  |
                      |  | _________________________ |  |
                     ------                         ------
                        |                             |
                        |                             |

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:26:18 -0500 (EST)

Moshe Shulman wrote:
>  ... It is quite rare that anyone will appear who has the
> background in Mathematics to insert some sense into these discussions. ...

Speaking of which, does anyone actually have a copy of the paper, in 
particular one that they'd be willing to share? ( I've been having trouble 
finding a copy.)

For that matter, is it on-line anywhere?

> ... For example, does it prove or disprove DH? The answer is really
> assumption that it does (and hence must be quackery). 

Well, to be fair, I don't know of anyone who has called into question the
claim of the EDLs on the basis of any adverse effects that might 
have on the DH.  That would surely be one of the most minor of its effects. 

Rather, this a bit like claiming that physicists cling to the model of
Quantum Mechanics because otherwise light bulbs wouldn't work the way they
do.  ;-)

>     ... Scientific data
> because they do not conform to theory. 

True enough.  But --to repeat a point that bears frequent repetition in
this discussion-- the "facts" here are yet to be established. 

> ... (Anyone who wants to argue the opposite
> would be advised to look into the history of Ptolemian astronomy.) 

We must also bear in mind, of course, another model.  Namely that of 
Velikhovskian Astronomy.

Nichael Cramer
work: [email-masked]
home: [email-masked]
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:23:40 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> Most Biblical scholars will discount it [ELS] immediatly on the
> assumption that it does [disprove the Documentary Hypothesis] (and hence
> must be quackery). However the facts are

I don't see how any result from ELS could either prove or disprove the DH. 
The ease with which matres lectiones can be inserted into or deleted from
words would rather indicate that any scribe could artifically manipulate
the Hebrew text to generate interesting (i.e., hidden, esoteric) results,
accessible only to those "in the know."  However, it seems almost certain
that, if such a thing did happen, it would have to have been _after the
widespread use of matres lectiones in medial positions developed_ (i.e.,
after the fourth/third century B.C.E.? [my dates may be wrong here])! 
Thus, arguments for or against the DH are completely unaffected by ELS. 

The aspect of this discussion that focuses on whether hidden meanings are
present in the MT (whichever variant form of it) reminds me of a person I
knew who tried to convince me that Mikhael Gorbachev was the anti-Christ
because the letters of his name added up to 666.  Of course, that was only
true if you used a rather idiosyncratic conversion from the Cyrillic
alphabet to the Roman.  In other words, if a hidden message is present in
the text, it may be there because someone (either the reader or some
previous copyist) wants it to be.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------