Abraham in History and Tradition

Cazelles, H.; Seters, John Van

doi:10.2307/1516973

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Aside from Cross (1973), see especially Cassuto (1975;first published in Hebrew in 1943). Some reviewers (e.g., Cazelles, 1978;McEvenue, 1977;de Pury, 1978) attacked Van Seters' literary analysis by applying different methods to his texts and by showing that the different methods yield results in line with an alternate theory. That is, however, as it must be.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Theory and Argument in Biblical Criticism

Greenstein¹

2020

Essays on Biblical Method and Translation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is the viewpoint that creates the object." (de Saussure, 1966, p. 8) Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay has recently published a preliminary report and reading of Hebrew inscriptions incised on two thin silver strips (Barkay, 1986, esp. pp. 29-31). Each has been identified as a version of the so-called priestly benediction that appears in the Masoretic Text in Num 6:24-26. The larger text is said to contain traces of the three benedictions that we read in the MT. Contrary to what an innocent reader might suppose from any of a number of newspaper accounts of the discovery and deciphering of the texts, the paleographer, Ada Yardeni, did not identify the famous passage by simply reading the ancient Hebrew characters. She had, at first, considerable difficulty in distinguishing the Hebrew letters from other scratches in the silver. She could, however, make out three instances of the tetragrammaton, YHWH. She proceeded to identify, decipher, and read additional letters and words only after a friend had suggested that, in view of the three occurrences of YHWH, the text might correspond to the threefold priestly benediction (Rabinovich, 1986, p. 12). The delicately engraved

show abstract

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, some reviewers (e.g., Cazelles, 1978;Pardee, 1979;Roberts, 1977) dismissed Van Seters' reconstruction because it took account of Genesis alone, and only part of Genesis at that. They implied that such a theory might not be able to explain the composition of the entire Torah, or of at least the Tetrateuch.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%