Category Archives: Anakim

The European Origins of the Book of Genesis: Dmitri Panchenko on the Giants of Gen. 6.1-4

Frost Giant

Frost Giant

In a recent article, “Европейские элементы в Книге Бытия (6: 1-16)” ["European Elements in the Book of Genesis (6.1-16)"], Dmitri Panchenko argues that the Nephilim of Genesis 6.1-4 have European origins.

The argument for Greek origins to biblical giant stories is not new: it was argued in various ways, for example, by Robert H. Pfeiffer (“A Non-Israelite Source of the Book of Genesis”, Introduction to the Old Testament), E.C.B. MacLaurin (“Anak/ ’Αναξ”), and Othniel Margalit (The Sea Peoples in the Bible). But Panchenko adds to these arguments, in particular by offering some possible philological grounds.

Panchenko begins with the general observation that, while Gen. 6.1-4 is anomalous in the Hebrew Bible, stories of gods mating with mortals and genealogies going back to gods are common in Greek and northern European sources. Like MacLaurin, whom he does not cite, Panchenko posits the dissemination of such traditions from the “Sea Peoples”, some of whose descendents, the Philistines, were the neighbours of the ancient Judeans. Panchenko refers to another one of his articles, ”Mice Destroying an Army (Hdt. 2. 141) and a Solution of the Tocharian Problem” (Hyperboreus 16/17 [2010/2011]: 32-45), in which he hypothesises a northwestern European, probably Scandanavian origin for the Sea Peoples.

Thus, Panchenko makes a claim that I haven’t seen before: that the Bible is dependent, in Genesis 6, on Scandanavian myth.

Panchenko then argues that, while Nephilim has no convincing Semitic etymology, it has a European cognate which suggests inhabitants of heaven, or those who come from the heavens/sky. Panchenko suggests that the term “Nephilim” belongs with Indo-European terms such as the Russian небо (“sky”), Latin nebula (“cloud”), Greek nepheli (“cloud”), Old Icelandic Niflheim (“kingdom of darkness”).

The suggestion is intriguing. If Gen. 6.1-4 refers to heavenly beings, the proposed etymological link has some foundation. It would be sounder if there were heavenly beings of some significance with this name, but this does not seem to be the case. For example, Nephele is a cloud nymph in Greek myth, but without any major role to play, and is rather more specific a figure than the very general “sons of god(s)” of Gen. 6.1-4. Panchenko posits an ancient predecessor to the Nibelung/Niflungr of medieval German and Norse mythology, which may have given rise to the Gen. 6.1-4 Nefilim. But this is a conjecture that requires further support. In any case, Gen. 6.1-4 does not refer to the heavens. While Gen. 6.1-4 does refer to the “sons of god(s)”, it is difficult to determine whether the short passage conceives them as heavenly or earthly beings, and the interpretation has been widely debated without any definitive resolution to the matter.

Panchenko adduces 1 Enoch 6.2, and its parallel description of the “sons of god(s)” as “sons of heaven”, as a further basis for his argument. However, it is highly problematic for Panchenko to use 1 Enoch in order to support his case. For 1 Enoch 6.2 may well be dependent on the tradition in Genesis 6. Whatever the relationship between the two texts, which is a complex issue in itself, the phrase “the angels, sons of heaven” in 1 Enoch 6.2 appears to exegete the vague “sons of god(s)” in Gen. 6.2. “Heaven” is most probably a theological circumlocution for god/elohim. Contrary to Panchenko’s contention, 1 Enoch cannot provide good evidence to interpret the meaning of a text on which it is itself dependent.

Panchenko makes a related argument concerning the derivation of “Anak” from the Mycenaean wa-na-ka or Homeric wanax. A similar argument was made most fully in recent years by MacLaurin, whose work Panchenko unfortunately does not engage. The common element of kingship/lordship between Anax and Anak is again intriguing. But in the absence of further parallel elements between the Greek and Hebrew sources, the case is less than compelling.

The remainder of Panchenko’s article looks at an alleged parallel between Snorri and Genesis concerning the Giant-Flood narrative.

Panchenko’s suggestion of the dependence of Gen. 6.1-4 on Greek (or even Scandanvian) sources is worthwhile, but given the brevity of the biblical material, it proves difficult to convert the suggestion into a convincing one. But Panchenko has made a case for an interpretive option that should be considered by biblical gigantologists.


See: Dmitri Panchenko, “Европейские элементы в Книге Бытия (6: 1-16)”, pages 438-446 in  РОССИЙСКАЯ АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК ИНСТИТУТ ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ НАУЧНЫЙ СОВЕТ РАН ПО КЛАССИЧЕСКОЙ ФИЛОЛОГИИ, СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОМУ ИЗУЧЕНИЮ ЯЗЫКОВ И ЛИТЕРАТУР ИНДОЕВРОПЕЙСКОЕ ЯЗЫКОЗНАНИЕ И КЛАССИЧЕСКАЯ ФИЛОЛОГИЯ – XV. Материалы чтений, посвященных памяти профессора Иосифа Моисеевича Тронского 20-22 июня 2011 г. Отв. редактор Н. Н. Казанский. СПб.: Наука, 2011.

1 Comment

Filed under 1 Enoch, Anakim, Biblical Exegesis, Genesis 6.1-4, Nephilim

How tall were the Giant Anakim? Out with the biblical scholars; in with the biblical conspiracy theorists, children’s books authors, government propagandists, homeschoolers, and pre-moderns!

Giant in forced perspectiveWhen the Israelite spies explore the land in Numbers 13, they report seeing giants: the “descendents of Anak” . The question that most people ask me is: how tall were these Anakim?

They were remarkably tall, if we accept the comparison the spies make between the height of the Israelites and that of the Anakim (Num. 13.33): “And we were, in our eyes, like grasshoppers” (ונהי בעינינו כחגבים). It’s probably not a literal comparison, though: in Isa. 40.22, the inhabitants of earth are described as being “like grasshoppers” from the perspective of Yahweh’s heavenly focalisation. Yet while probably figurative, the comparison does indicate that the Anakim boasted some impressive and towering height. This description is followed by a parallel clause: וכן היינו  בעיניהם, often translated “and so we were in their eyes”. However, if we treat the second line as synonymous parallelism, perhaps the better translation of וכן is “and like a gnat” (with the assimilation of the  כ- prefix to the first radical). The translation of the parallelism would then be:  “And we were, in our eyes, like grasshoppers; and like a gnat we were in their eyes”. Similar translations have been suggested by Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 242; Maarsingh, Numbers, 47; Budd, Numbers, 146; and HALOT, כן V.

Yet whether the comparison is with grasshoppers or with grasshoppers and a gnat, we cannot employ the comparison to make any exact estimation of the imagined height of the Anakim. Quite apart from the figurative nature of the comparison, the report of the spies in Numbers 13.33 appears at the end of what the narrative has introduced as a דבה (“evil report” or “malicious report”). At this point in the narrative, the spies are doing all they can to dissuade the people from following Yahweh’s command to go into the land. The majority of the spies are also in opposition to the good spy, Caleb, who encourages the people to enter the land (13.30), and who later is the only one mentioned as being spared from Yahweh’s decree that this entire generation shall die in the desert (14.24). Caleb does not dispute this description of the inhabitants, even when he refers to them (14.9). But his silence on their stature does not settle matters one way or the other.

However, another element in the narrative suggests that the Anakim were not merely imagined as very tall humans (say 7- or 8-feet tall), but that they were thought to be fantastically tall. This element is the enormous bunch of grapes the spies find in the Eshcol Valley, which is so large that it can only be “carried on a pole between two [men]” (Num. 13.23). The bunch of grapes is mentioned immediately after the first mention of the “descendents of Anak” who are inhabitants of Hebron (Num. 13.22). The naming of the Eshcol Valley (“Grape-bunch Valley”) is explained in terms of the gigantic bunch of grapes carried by the two spies (Num. 13.24). Even if the Hebron tradition (13.22) and Eshcol tradition (13.23-24) had no original tradition-historical connection, the best explanation for the gigantic size of the grapes in Num. 13.23-24 is that they match the size of the gigantic inhabitants of the land. The giant grapes and giant inhabitants fit very well together. Indeed, motifs of “eating” or “devouring” are ambiguously associated with both the land and its inhabitants in Num. 13.32 and 14.9. Therefore, we should not – as some commentators have done – search for examples of very tall humans as the “historical kernel” of this account. Instead, the author of Num. 13-14 is describing the Anakim in fantastic terms: as eaters of grape bunches so large that it is impossible for a single person to carry one! The height of the Anakim is removed from the realm of ordinary human parallels, consistent with their assignment to an ancient era, before regular mortals (the Israelites) occupied the land. The narrative in Num. 13-14 leads us into the realm of the fantastic.

We should therefore disregard the attempts of biblical commentaries to rationalise the height of the Anakim. For example, Jeffrey Tigay (in his 1996 commentary on Deuteronomy) attempts to compare the Anakim to 7-foot “Watusi” or 7-foot skeletons found in the Jordan. His assumptions are not much different from those of George Gray at the beginning of the same century, who stated, “There is, of course, nothing intrinsically improbable in the existence in Ḥebron of three individuals famous for their height,” defining the “historical” sons of Anak as “a class of very tall men, whose height lingered long in the memory of the Hebrews”. Indeed, most biblical scholars are  unable to deal with the fantastic as fantastic when it comes to the story of the giant Anakim in Numbers 13-14.

In a paradoxical turn, those who get this passage right are not the rational experts, but those who deal most bizarrely with biblical texts: biblical conspiracy theorists, children’s books authors, government propagandists, American homeschoolers, and pre-moderns.

We should consult the spinners of fantasy to understand fantasy! Here are examples of each:

1. The biblical conspiracy theorist

Rob Skiba runs the Babylon Rising Blog, which includes a number of detailed pages on The Return of the Nephilim. Rob has helpfully worked out what size a bunch of grapes must be if they need to be carried by two men. From this, Rob has worked out what size the Anakim must be if the gigantic bunch of grapes appears normal to them:

It’s not mere coincidence that God gives us these details to consider. He is showing us connection after connection, helping us to see the “bigger” picture. As I began to realize this, I took a closer look at the grapes. As I did, I saw that the grapes actually confirmed the size of the giants who were eating them! …

Looking at this graphic, we can see that a 6 foot tall man would have no trouble carrying a cluster of grapes scaled to anything smaller than that which a 30 foot giant would have been eating. But much bigger than that, and you can see why it took two men to carry one cluster on a pole! So, the grapes are showing us that these giants were massively huge! And this is a fact that is later confirmed by the prophet Amos who wrote about God describing them as being tall as cedar trees:

Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.

- Amos 2:9 (KJV)

(Rob Skiba, “The Return of the Nephilim”)

2. The children’s book author

In How Do You Feed a Hungry Giant: A Munch-and-Sip Pop-Up Book by Caitlin Friedman, illustrated by Shaw Nielsen, a friendly giant arrives in Oscar’s backyard, asking to be fed. The first thing Oscar gets to feeds the giant is three bunches of grapes. However, this turns out to be grossly inadequate for the giant’s considerable appetite, and the giant eats the three bunches of grapes in “one big gulp”. In a variation on what occurs in Num. 13-14, three normal bunches of grapes fill up Oscar’s hands, but are tiny in the gargantuan hands of the giant:

How Do You Feed a Hungry Giant, by Caitlin Friedman, illustrated by Shaw Nielsen

How Do You Feed a Hungry Giant, by Caitlin Friedman, illustrated by Shaw Nielsen

How Do You Feed a Hungry Giant, by Caitlin Friedman, illustrated by Shaw Nielsen

3. The government propagandist

The Israeli government has been spinning fantasies about the land and its inhabitants for several decades – such as the myth of an “empty land” and the legend of creating paradise out of a desert. The Israeli Ministry of Tourism bases its logo on the spy narrative in Num. 13-14. As might be expected, the grapes are enormous, out-of-proportion to anything which Israeli tourism really has to offer:

Israeli Ministry of Tourism logo

4. The American Homeschooler

My son is working on a project for an upcoming history, art, and science fair for homeschoolers. It’s called the Valley of Eshcol and comes from Numbers 13:23

(Bunny Trails Photography)

I don’t know whether this plasticine study of Numbers 13.23 was classified under history, art, or science. Within the American homeschooling system, I guess that “history” would be probable.

But, that aside, check out this fantastic, gigantic bunch of grapes, and tiny Israelite spies set against enormous trees:

5. The pre-modern

Yeah, ok, I know that modernity brings its own myths and all. But when it comes to the biblical myths, there is a great deal of continuity in mindset until the modern era. As a consequence, pre-moderns tend to take the biblical references to a fantastically large bunch of grapes in either a literal or allegorical (eucharistic, etc) sense. Contrast modern depictions of the grapes of Num 13, which tend to be downsized and made more “realistic”.

In this depiction on a 4th-5thC lamp, the bunch of grapes is even lower than the spies’ feet (which must have made walking difficult):

Insofar as the biblical conspiracy theorist, the children’s book author, government propagandist, American homeschooler, and pre-modern enter into much the same dimension of fantasy as that entered into by the author of Num. 13-14 – wherein giant and human realms exist on vastly different scales – they provide far more insight into the biblical spy narrative than almost every modern biblical commentator.

So – how tall were the Anakim? Far taller than any humans we know of. In the imagination of the author of Num. 13-14, the Anakim were somewhere between 15- and 40-feet tall. Mere humans would have appeared like grasshoppers or gnats beside them.

15 Comments

Filed under Anakim, Biblical Giants, Children's lit, Conspiracy theorists, Numbers 13-14, War, Violence & Business

The Brick Testament: Old Testament Collection (Genesis-Kings) to be Published

The Brick Bible: A New Spin on the Old TestamentFor years, The Brick Testament has entertained us with its online portrayal of biblical stories, lovingly recreated with Lego bricks and figurines. Now, the entire Genesis-Kings collection is to be published in book form. Brendan Powell Smith’s The Brick Bible: A New Spin on the Old Testament (Skyhorse Publishing) will be available from 1 October 2011:

Brendan Powell Smith has spent the last decade creating nearly 5,000 scenes from the bible—with Legos. His wonderfully original sets are featured on his website, Bricktestament.com, but for the first time 1,500 photographs of these creative designs—depicting the Old Testament from Earth’s creation to the Books of Kings—are brought together in book format. The Holy Bible is complex; sometimes dark, and other times joyous, and Smith’s masterful work is a far cry from what a small child might build. The beauty of The Brick Bible is that everyone, from the devout to nonbelievers, will find something breathtaking, fascinating, or entertaining within this collection. Smith’s subtle touch brings out the nuances of each scene and makes you reconsider the way you look at Legos—it’s something that needs to be seen to be believed.

- Publisher’s blurb

No doubt, there will be Giants, as the Bible is full of them… including Ishbi-Benob, whose bronze spearhead weighed three hundred shekels,and who was killed by one of David’s mighty men, Abishai:

And King Og of Bashan:

Og of Bashan

And Goliath:
Goliath
And the Anakim:

Anakim

And of course, there are the Nephilim, who came down to the Earth to have sexual intercourse with women, and – in Powell’s interpretation, apparently – made them peform oral sex on their angelic members:

Nephilim

Leave a comment

Filed under 1 Samuel 17, 2 Samuel 21, 23, Anakim, Deuteronomy 3, Goliath, Ishbi-Benob, Joshua 11, Literature, Nephilim

The Meads of Asphodel summon the Anakim: Sons of Anak Rise!

The Meads of Asphodel

The Meads of Asphodel

“Sons of Anak Rise”
The Meads of Asphodel
Exhuming the Grave of Yeshua
Supernal Music, 2003

Slain of hebron desert titans
Sons of anak rise.
Earth born giants torn asunder
Sons of anak rise.

Ishbiben ohya achor
Beelisas arba lahmi
Sons of anak rise
Sons of anak rise.

Og of bashan great goliath
Sons of anak rise
Horim emim mighty nephilim
Sons of anak rise.

With midian steel the giants fell
All murdered by the hebrew priests
& they shall not rise nor live again
These sons of anak deceased.

Og of bashan great goliath
Sons of anak rise
Horim emim mighty nephilim
Sons of anak rise.

The Meads of Asphodel

The Meads of Asphodel

The Meads of Asphodel are a UK band which deliver that all-too-rare combination of black metal and 70s prog rock. The band was founded in 1998 by lead vocalist, Metatron.

3 Comments

Filed under Anakim, Emim, Goliath, Horim, King Og, Music, Nephilim

Giant Librarians of the Ancient World

Big Bad Bible GiantsI learned something I never knew about Giants from the best basic guide to Giants of the Bible. According to Big Bad Bible Giants, authored by Ed Strauss and illustrated by Anthony Carpenter (Zondersexist, 2005), the Bible tells the story of an ancient city populated by Giant librarians!

The Giant Librarians of Debir
The Giant Librarians of Debir

This is not something I’ve discovered in any biblical commentary, because Big Bad Bible Giants has the scoop. It’s all a matter of almost logical inference from three things that the Bible tells us: (1) the city of Debir was also known as Kiriath-Sepher (“The City of Scribes”); (2) Othniel defeated the inhabitants of Debir; and (3) some of the inhabitants of Palestine were Giants. Ed Strauss’s conclusion is that Othniel must have defeated a group of Giant librarians in the city of Debir:

 
Giant libraries
In Joshua’s day, about 600 years after Abraham, the giant Anakites had a city in south Canaan called Debir (Joshua 11:21). The giants called it Kiriath Sepher, which means “City of Scribes” or “City of Books.” The city’s other name was Kiriath Sannah, which means “City of Instruction” (Joshua 15:49). Bible scholars believe Kiriath Sepher was a major center of learning and culture for all of Canaan. It probably had a huge library full of scrolls, and was the city where giants went to learn.
Can’t you just picture a dozen heavy, hairy giants sitting around mumbling loudly as they read? You can be sure they weren’t sitting in ordinary-sized desks!
What were their books about? No idea. All the monster scrolls seem to have been torched when the Israelites conquered the city (Judges 1:11-13).
 –  Ed Strauss, Big Bad Bible Giants
 

Ah yes – there would be traces of these giant books and giant libraries around today, if only the Israelites hadn’t destroyed them all. Ed Strauss also offers us a picture of Othniel’s defeat of the city of Debir, the city of Giant librarians: 

We don’t know the details of this battle and how well the giants fought, whether they made their last stand at the library…
 –  Ed Strauss, Big Bad Bible Giants
Ah – the Last Stand of the Giants at the Library. Mark my words – there’s a film in that!
 
And as a special bonus, a great track from the era of “the Dunedin Sound”:
 

5 Comments

Filed under Anakim, Ancient Jewish texts, Children's lit, Joshua 14-15, Judges 1, Numbers 13-14

A Basic Introduction to Giants of the Bible… and Zondervan’s Sexism toward Children, and the Zondervan Gender-Prejudiced Bibles

People are always asking me, “Can you recommend a basic introduction to the Giants of the Bible?” Well, yes I can! One of the most basic introductions to biblical Giants is Big Bad Bible Giants, authored by Ed Strauss and illustrated by Anthony Carpenter (published by the Zondervan children’s subdivision, Zonderkidz).

Big Bad Bible Giants - authored by Ed Strauss, illustrations by Anthony Carpenter

Big Bad Bible Giants - authored by Ed Strauss, illustrations by Anthony Carpenter

I’m serious. If you want a basic introduction to the Giants of the Bible, let this be your guide. It covers all the Giants of the Bible, including the Nephilim, the Rephaites, the Zamzummites, the Emites, the Anakites, the Avvites, King Og of Bashan, Goliath, Lahmi, and Ishbi-Benob of Gath, Anak, Ahiman, Sheshai, Talmai, and the multidigit monster – with cartoons.

What’s more, this is a book for boys. Not for girls. Apparently, only young Christian boys should take an interest in the gory occupation of slaying Giants. But wait, you say, hasn’t the author ever heard of Buffy? Alas, even Buffy could not grow to the physical proportions of Our Lord:

Perfect for boys aged 8 to 12, the 2:52 series is based on Luke 2:52: “And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” Focussing on four primary areas of growth, this guiding verse can help boys become more like Jesus mentally (smarter), physically (stronger), spiritually (deeper), and socially (cooler). From Bibles and devotionals to fiction and nonfiction, with plenty of gross and gory mixed in, there is something for every boy.

The 2:52 series also offers these other boyish (not girly) titles: Bible Heroes and Bad Guys, Bible Angels and Demons, Bible Wars and Weapons, Creepy Creatures and Bizarre Beasts from the Bible, Weird and Gross Bible Stuff, Bible Freaks and Geeks, and Seriously Sick Bible Stuff. That’s the sorts of things that boys just love, but girls do not, according to Zondervan’s 2:52 series.

And in addition to all this, for your rough-and-tumble, O-God-I-pray-every-night-that-he’s-heterosexual, scalliwag of a Christian boy, Zonderkidz publishes the 2:52 Boys Bible: The Ultimate Manual – complete with grey metallic plating on the front cover:

Finally a Bible just for boys! Discover gross and gory Bible stuff. Find out interesting and humorous Bible facts… Learn how to become more like Jesus mentally, physically, spiritually, and socially.

And just before you can say “gender stereotype”, let’s place the metal-plated 2:52 Boys Bible alongside what Zondervan offers for little girls… The Precious Princess Bible:

Zondervan Boy's Bible versus Zondervan "Precious Princess" Girl's Bible

Zondervan Boy's Bible versus Zondervan "Precious Princess" Girl's Bible

Just to top off this survey of systematic sexism at Zondervan, here’s a quote from the Zondervan Blog which proudly affirms that God does not discriminate!

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). God does not discriminate on the basis of gender, or race, or socio-economic status. All are invited, all are included.
– Keri Wyatt Kent, 2 October 2009, Zondervan Blog.

If God does not discriminate, Zondervan seems determined to do it for Him. Whether Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, Zondervan has a niche market just for you!

h/t: Gillian

8 Comments

Filed under Anakim, Biblical Giants, Books on Giants, Children's lit, Emim, Goliath, King Og, Nephilim, Rephaim

Giants were not Blondes! – Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Physiognomy

The Giant is made of stuff that is closer to the earth, raw and primitive, a mighty warrior and formidable opponent. On the other hand, as the nineteenth-century Science of Physiognomy teaches (as do some books you’ll find in the Mind-Body-Spirit section, today), the Blonde type is sensitive, cultured, perhaps even a little neurotic, but certainly at the other end of the physical spectrum from the Giant type.

Ralph Waldo Emerson: The Blonde Type

Ralph Waldo Emerson: The Blonde Type

Thus, Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his correspondence to Thomas Carlisle of 17 June 1870, by way of apology and excuse for his delay in replying to his friend, offers the following:

You are of the Anakim and know nothing of the debility and postponement of the blonde constitution.

But is this merely Emerson’s self-deprecatory excuse for his failure to write earlier, or do these words also claim some superior intellect for our neurotic litterateur? Is there embedded in this comparison between brute and blonde a subtle jibe aimed at Emerson’s influential precursor?

The “blonde constitution” was one shared, after all, by Our Lord and Saviour:

Careful investigation… seems to show two physical types among the Jews: one dark, with black hair and eyes, and the well-known hooked nose; another with very regular profile and beautiful features, but blonde, with light hair, and blue eyes… The blonde type is the one from which the traditional representations of the Saviour are made, and it is not improbably very ancient among the Jews.

- Mr. Charles Loring Brace, Races of the Old World (1863)

Sharrona Pearl recounts an amusing yet sobering anecdote about nineteenth-century “historian and children’s writer Reverend Charles Kingsley”, who was “particularly sensitive to the physiognomic implications of literary illustrations”:

when he was acting as an advising editor to illustrator Charles Bennett on an edition of John Bunyan’s 1678 classic Pilgrim’s Progress, he insisted that Bennett adhere to physiognomic conventions in the illustrations. An 1859 letter from Kingsley to Bennett included a number of suggestions about ways for Bennett to improve his drawings by increasing the physiognomic agreement between the literary and visual drawings of their characters… “The ‘lust of the flesh,’ is hardy animal enough. I have generally seen with strong animal passion, a tendency to high cheek bone; but only in a dark woman. Yours may stand for a blonde type, but even thin [sic] I should prefer a lower forehead… Give her very full features and bust.”

- Sharrona Pearl, About Faces: Physiognomy in Nineteenth-century Britain (Harvard, 2010)

All this explains precisely, at least according to Aristotle’s third and middle explanatory category of reasoning (i.e. of analogy), the thoroughgoing, even obsessive division of the first four books of the Old Testament between the earthy, natural Jehovist and the legalistic, dispassionate Priestly source, as carried out by biblical scholars in the “extended” ninteenth century.

(N.b., while in the humanities as a whole, what is referred to as the “extended” nineteenth century is generally considered to continue into ca. the 1920s, in biblical studies the extended nineteenth century proceeds still undaunted into the twenty-first.)

4 Comments

Filed under Anakim, Literature