Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Documentary Hypothesis -- some further discussion Message-ID: Date: 24 Dec 90 08:25:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 18 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu My quotation from Childs' commentary on Exodus 3 managed to drop 4 lines. Here's what I intended to post: "The other extreme [from Germanic Relgionsgeschichte reductionism] is found in Buber, who seeks to defend the unity of the section, but at the cost of considerable elimination of alleged accretions. Jacob, Cassuto, and Lacocque defend the traditional view that the interchange of divine names is a purposeful device of one author. However, both the extreme artificiality by which meaning is assigned to the use of the names, as well as the constant need to adjust the theory in every succeeding section, does not evoke great confidence in this approach." -- Michael L. Siemon In so far as people think they can see the m.siemon@ATT.COM "limits of human understanding", they think ...!att!sfsup!mls of course that they can see beyond these. standard disclaimer -- Ludwig Wittgenstein