gistfile1.txt

If the Documentary Hypothesis is to be believed (and I find some pretty severe holes in the hypothesis), then future revisers could have potentially smoothed out the rough grammar, but given the position that Moses held throughout Jewish history, it seems odd that they would smooth his writing, but keep his speech such as it is in its present state. 	swasheck 	apr 4 at 14:55

@swasheck: Moses is not the author of Pentateuch, the documentary hypothesis is correct, and J,E,P,D _made Moses up_ to teach people about God. There are no holes in the hypothesis, and it is unlikely that there were previous documents, other than some terse Geneologies, used by J and E. I think J wrote this in an actual immitation of a Hebrew foreign accent, so as to make it sound like dialog with a non-native or awkward speaker, like Borat. 	Ron Maimon 	apr 4 at 17:16

@swasheck, I also disagree with the documentary hypothesis, but I do acknowledge later editors and copyists. Could it be that the editors smoothened the prose but preserved Moses' direct quotations because that is the Hebrew way? In the synoptic Gospels, there will often be variations in the setting of parallel accounts but Jesus' quotations will be tighter. Another example, in the rabbinics, they may not know a situation that Simeon b. Shetai spoke in, but they will have the speech. 	Frank Luke 	apr 4 at 17:17

@FrankLuke: There are no "direct quotations"! Please stop it. This is the kind of fraudulent analysis I wanted to avoid. I just want to know 1. How many errors? 2. Where are they exactly? 3. Is the English accurate in clunkiness and errors? 	Ron Maimon 	apr 4 at 17:18

@RonMaimon I've defended you at least once. I'd appreciate a bit more respect from you, thank you. Additionally, I'd appreciate a bit of intellectual honesty since there *are* holes within the Documentary Hypothesis. If Moses is a fictitious creation, why does it matter if his grammar is as broken as you claim? 	swasheck 	apr 4 at 18:34

@FrankLuke Could be. However, I assumed that this was going to ultimately be from a position of denying the Christian adherence to the authority of Scripture and, as such, just bypassed a Christian worldview. 	swasheck 	apr 4 at 18:36

@swasheck, I'm sure that is the questioner's intent. However, you did stay within Jewish tradition of unity of the Torah and my response is to that. When we deal with the text, we also have to take into account the worldview of the copyists and editors to see what they would preserve and what they would have leeway with. From the rabbinics, I see that quotes are to be preserved while descriptive portions can be updated. 	Frank Luke 	apr 4 at 18:54

@FrankLuke Very true. Thanks. As it stands, I wholeheartedly agree with you. 	swasheck 	apr 4 at 19:07

@swasheck: I didn't say anything about you, only about Moses and the authors, yet you somehow manage to get offended. It is impossible to meet you halfway, because there is 0% chance that this story was written by Moses. The only reason people believe it is because they take the words of religious people, who make up far crazier stuff than authorship--- honesty is _way_ down on their priority list. Politeness and honesty don't mix. I don't care about where an idea comes from, if it's wrong, it's wrong, and if its right, it's right. Whether you're Mother Teresa or Adolph Hitler. 	Ron Maimon 	apr 5 at 0:04

@FrankLuke: That is _NOT_ my intent--- I don't need to attack the stupid things religious people sometimes believe (or better, _claim to_ believe). Any person with half a brain can see that Moses didn't write the book in half a second. I am just asking in order to figure out the translation issues that came up for me in doing the translation. I don't give a fig about this or that crazy superstitious belief that some people hold, or some other one. They are all equally ridiculous. I want to know where the grammar errors are, for purpose of translation--- I wasn't sure I did it right. 	Ron Maimon 	apr 5 at 6:28

@swasheck: I didn't say anything about you, only about Moses and the authors, yet you somehow manage to get offended. It is impossible to meet you halfway, because there is 0% chance that this story was written by Moses. The only reason people believe it is because they take seriously the words of religious people, who make up far crazier stuff than authorship--- honesty is way down on their priority list. Politeness and honesty don't mix. I don't care about where an idea comes from, if it's wrong, it's wrong, and if its right, it's right. Whether you're Mother Teresa or Adolph Hitler. 	Ron Maimon 	apr 5 at 6:30

@FrankLuke: That is NOT my intent--- I don't need to attack the stupid things religious people sometimes believe (or better, claim to believe). Any person with half a brain can see that Moses didn't write the book in half a second. I am asking in order to figure out the translation issues--- this is one place I was confused. I don't give a fig about this or that religious superstition. They are all equally ridiculous. I want to know where the grammar errors are in the text, for purpose of translation and for the purpose of linguistics--- I wasn't sure I did it right. 	Ron Maimon 	apr 5 at 6:31

@RonMaimon Your words betray your intent. If you're looking for an intelligent debate/conversation, then you'd probably eliminate words such as "fraudulent" and "stupid." I never said that I was offended, I was simply requesting that your tenor be more polite. It is possible to be both honest and kind. While I agree that correct is correct, and incorrect is incorrect, how this is addressed will go a long way to establishing credibility 	swasheck 	apr 5 at 13:53

@swasheck: I am not looking for a debate/conversation! I am not interested in debate or conversation with people who believe in religious superstition, as _they have nothing further to teach me_. I already understand God and Jesus and all that. I am only looking for the grammar errors in Moses's speech. 	Ron Maimon 	apr 5 at 16:25

@swasheck: It's for your sake, I am warning you that the stuff you believe is fraudulent and stupid. There is no polite way to say it, but I consider it what Jews call a "mitzva" to inform you of this. It is _impossible_ to be honest and kind simultaneously, as anyone who does science knows. One must just say what you know without beating around the bush, and people (who are usually not trained in the honesty of science) will get offended. I have no interest in a dialog about religion--- I already understand God and Jesus and all that. I just want to know Moses's grammar errors. 	Ron Maimon 	apr 5 at 16:28

@RonMaimon but see, that is where you are incorrect. You are perpetrating a false dichotomy (which religious folks are also guilty of holding) between Science and faith. They are not incompatible. There is, however, even "professional decorum" within the context of these disciplines, regardless of how sharply the parties disagree. "Fradulent" and "stupid" are simply not words that you would hear from academics in *any* field in any sort of public discourse. That is, unless, they are self-aggrandizing folk who are seeking fame for slaying a beast of some sort. 	swasheck 	apr 5 at 16:42

@RonMaimon Additionally, I still fail to find the reason for your request. It makes no logical sense since you've already clearly articulated your denial of a historical Moses. You are not seeking Moses' grammatical errors, but J's inconsistent grammatical tendencies (at best), or sloppy attempt fabricate a historical Moses tradition. Therefore, intelligent conversation/discourse about these things *is* at the very core of the question. *You* are the one bringing "God" and "Jesus" into this conversation. Please, no red herrings or straw men here. 	swasheck 	apr 5 at 16:45

@swasheck: I mean, that God and Jesus are the great lessons of Christian religion, and they are nontrivial and extremely important lessons, but I already got those messages, and I try my best to heed them and incorporate them into my life. I am interested in this because it reveals something about when a written idiom began: the idiom of writing in a broken version of the language to immitate a non-native speaker. This could tell you a lot about how non-native Hebrew speakers spoke, perhaps what a Coptic accent sounded like (because J is an amazingly faithful rendered of quirks) 	Ron Maimon 	apr 5 at 17:02

... further it might be skewing grammatical catalogues of proper Hebrew constructions, leading people to identify false usages as possible because they interpret these passages as grammatical. I am interested in the linguistics of the ancient grammar, because, like Piraha (although to a lesser extent) it is not fully recursive like a modern language. While you are right that in written discourse "fraudulent" and "stupid" are not used, on the internet, they are, which is why the internet makes science easier to do, because the honesty is just a little more honest. 	Ron Maimon 	apr 5 at 17:05

I see, and fair enough. While I still disagree with your assessment of the documentary hypothesis, I am extremely interested in the results of your research. I do hope that you pursue such research beyond the boundaries of SE since it sounds fascinating. I'd love to read the results. 	swasheck 	apr 5 at 17:27