For Tom of Tomndebb OT Formation

[Jois]

Hi Tom,

Are you too busy to think/write about OT strand formation?
Want to wait until after the holidays?

I've been looking at my third grade social studies text's
time line and think it is probably as valid as any other.
It might be a good place to start - to accept this as a
given in an OT Biblical discussion.

A TIME LINE OF HEBREW HISTORY TO 332 B.C.E.

1800 Abraham comes to Cannan

1260 Moses leads the Hebrews from Egypt
|
|The period of Judges
|
1050 Wars with the Philistines begin

1020 Saul is King
1000 David is King
David conquers Jerusalem

961 Soloman is King

922 The Kindgom is divided into Israel and Judah


722 Assyrians conquer Israel


586 Babylonians conquer Judah
The Babylonian Captivity

539 Cyrus the Persian conquers Babylon
|
|Palestine ruled by Persia
|
322 Alexander the Great conquers Palestine


My third grade text is:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc. The Human Adventure: Four World Views.
Pub. 1971 and in (sadly) out of print. I'm trying to find a
teacher's manual for it since third graders don't usually
get a lot of footnotes/sources in their texts.

So even if you don't want to start this now, save or remind
me to reprint this later if you agree with these
approximate dates.




------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[tomndebb]

I actually don't have any recent chronologies. I had to let my Biblical Archaeology Review lapse (with a few others) when I began indulging in the hobby of child-rearing. I do have some textual references that I use for constructing general sequences. (Think Pert or Gantt chart rather than calendar.)

OTOH, I'll have more time to try this sort of thing over the weekend (unless my wife reminds me of plans of which I was previously unaware).

Is there a specific goal for this question? I have vague memories of earlier discussions, but I would be better able to put together coherent text if I knew where we wanted to arrive.

------------------
Tom~

[Jois]

Is there a specific goal for this question? Well, sort of... I've been
working on the formation process for a while, think I have all the corners
glued down, but when I step back to see the whole picture it usually looks
more like Picasso than da Vinci. I think this info might be helpful to
other people, too.

In an earlier post you kindly offered to give your rendering of the J, P, E
(&?) strands that go into making the first 5-6 books of the OT. I was
trying to think of ways to establish "givens" so you wouldn't have to
construct something/everything from ground zero.

I picked this chronology because it is simple and basic and probably as
accurate as we need for this purpose. If you agree then that's one thing
out of the way.

Gantt chart would be helpful.

Is there anything else we could establish as a given?

Finally, is the board just too rough right now do something like this?

Thank you.

[tomndebb]

The board's never too rough. (You just have to wear higher hip boots sometimes.)

OK. I remember the discussion, now. I think I can work this out over the weekend--barring marital obligations. (Then PM and Moriah get to fill in my gaps and Dex gets a week to correct it. I don't remember how much interest Polycarp, Euty, and a few others have in Redaktionegeschichte, but they're all welcome to cover my errors.)

(Of course, if you have any talent as a user of computer services, you will wait until it's a 300 post thread, then come back to say "But that isn't what I wanted.")

------------------
Tom~

[C K Dexter Haven]

I think that more recent attempts at chronologies differ from yours by perhaps ten years at a few of the earlier points. However, I'm at work at the moment, and don't have references handy.

[Jois]

LOL - I'll print this on a "Post-it" so I won't forget when the time comes!Of course, if you have any talent as a user of computer services, you will wait until it's a 300 post thread, then come back to say "But that isn't what I wanted."

[moriah]

You called my name and summoned me, O master!

The outline of history of the OT is basically good enough for general knowledge.

As far as the timeline for the theorized documentary strands that were woven to make up the Torah (and a few of the following historical books), here is an excerpt from THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA
James Orr, M.A., D.D. General Editor
Copyright, 1939, by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (now in public domain)....

After attention had been drawn by earlier writers to various signs of post-Mosaic date and extraordinary perplexities in the Pentateuch, the first real step toward what its advocates have, till within the last few years, called "the modern position" was taken by J. Astruc (1753). He propounded what Carpenter terms "the clue to the documents," i.e. the difference of the divine appellations in Genesis as a test of authorship. On this view the word 'Elohim ("God") is characteristic of one principal source and the Tetragrammaton, i.e. the divine name YHWH represented by the "LORD" or "GOD" of the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), shows the presence of another. Despite occasional warnings, this clue was followed in the main for 150 years. It forms the starting-point of the whole current critical development, but the most recent investigations have successfully proved that it is unreliable (see below, 3, (2)) Astruc was followed by Eichhorn (1780), who made a more thorough examination of Genesis, indicating numerous differences of style, representation, etc.

Geddes (1792) and Vater (1802-1805) extended the method applied to Genesis to the other books of the Pentateuch.

In 1798 Ilgen distinguished two Elohists in Genesis, but this view did not find followers for some time. The next step of fundamental importance was the assignment of the bulk of Deuteronomy to the 7th century BC. This was due to De Wette (1806). Hupfeld (1853) again distinguished a second Elohist, and this has been accepted by most critics. Thus, there are four main documents at least: D (the bulk of Deuteronomy), two Elohists (P and E) and one document (Jahwist) that uses the Tetragrammaton in Genesis. From 1822 (Bleek) a series of writers maintained that the Book of Joshua was compounded from the same documents as the Pentateuch (see HEXATEUCH).
Two other developments call for notice: (1) there has been a tendency to subdivide these documents further, regarding them as the work of schools rather than of individuals, and resolving them into different strata (P1, Secondary Priestly Writers, P3, etc., J1, Later additions to J, etc., or in the notation of other writers Jj Je, etc.); (2) a particular scheme of dating has found wide acceptance. In the first period of the critical development it was assumed that the principal Elohist (P) was the earliest document. A succession of writers of whom Reuss, Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen are the most prominent have, however, maintained that this is not the first but the last in point of time and should be referred to the exile or later. On this view theory is in outline as follows: J and E (so called from their respective divine appellations)--on the relative dates of which opinions differ--were composed probably during the early monarchy and subsequently combined by a redactor (Rje) into a single document JE. In the 7th century D, the bulk of Deuteronomy, was composed. It was published in the 18th year of Josiah's reign. Later it was combined with JE into JED by a redactor (Rjed). P or Priestly Code the last of all (originally the first Elohist, now the Priestly Code) incorporated an earlier code of uncertain date which consists in the main of most of Lev 17-26 and is known as the Law of Holiness (H or Ph). P itself is largely postexilic. Ultimately it was joined with JED by a priestly redactor (Rp) into substantially our present Pentateuch. As already stated, theory is subject to many minor variations. Moreover, it is admitted that not all its portions are equally well supported. The division of JE into J and E is regarded as less certain than the separation of Pentateuch. Again, there are variations in the analysis, differences of opinion as to the exact dating of the documents, and so forth. Yet the view just sketched has been held by a very numerous and influential school during recent years, nor is it altogether fair to lay stress on minor divergences of opinion. It is in the abstract conceivable that the main positions might be true, and that yet the data were inadequate to enable all the minor details to be determined with certainty.


Here is a more simplified link:
http://www2.bc.edu/~constas/hebrew_bible.html

Peace.

[jab1]

I have here a small book (74 pages) entitled Adam's Rib, written by Robert Graves and illustrated by wood engravings made by James Metcalf and (c)1955 by Trianon Press of Great Britain. It makes an interesting argument: That the reason the first four chapters of Genesis[i] are so mixed up is because the Hebrews got the story from a series of pictures that were read in the wrong order:It seems probable, then, that the legends of the first four books of [i]Genesis were deduced from Mycenaeo-Edomite pictorial engravings captured at Hebron by the Israelites; that the characters in the original Garden of Eden legend were Hebe, Agenor, his twin-brother Bel, and two other 'sons of Phoroneus' mentioned by Greek mythographers, namely, Cephus and Iasus; and that the Creation was accomplished, with the help of the North Wind, by the Goddess Baou, or Thetis, who appears in Genesis 1.2 as the 'Spirit of God,' a female abstraction which the Pharisees read as Jehovah's Glory, or Wisdom.

The book goes on to say that these pictures were arranged in a series of rows, one atop the other, that were to have been read thusly:
<--------
987654321
--------->
123456789
<--------
987654321

And so on to the end. This sequence is called boustro-phedon, which means, "as the ox ploughs."

But the Hebrews read right to left exclusively:

<---------
987654321
<---------
987654321
<---------
987654321

And that's how the sequence got out of order: Light before the Sun; plants before the Sun; Cain "knowing" his wife, even though he, Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth; Cain worrying others would kill him even though there WERE no others.

The authors also postulate that a picture depicting a rival killing another with a knife in the heart was mis-interpreted as God creating Eve from one of Adam's ribs, hence the title of this book. this process of mis-interpretation is called "iconotropy."

Have any of you heard any of this before? And this book I'm holding is available at the Public Library, so maybe it's fairly easy to find. And I'm treating it carefully because it's a First Edition and 44 years old!

Just tryin' to help.

------------------
&gt;&lt; DARWIN &gt;
____L__L___

[jab1]

Sorry about the italics screw-up.

------------------
&gt;&lt; DARWIN &gt;
____L__L___

[moriah]

jab,

Never heard of the book Adam's Rib (though I liked the movie :) ).

From what you described, I can say that it is not anywhere near what current mainstream consensus is on the formation of the creation story.

There are much simpler parallels and analogous creation stories from other Ancient Near East cultures that can explain where the Hebrews got their creation story from. And using Occam's razor, the complicated turn of events described in that book should be discounted.

Light was created before light sources simply because the ancient Hebrews did not understand the science behind light.

Peace.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Important in these discussions to remember that when it comes to the events preceding about 600 BC, we just don't know for sure. There have been many theories and explanations put forth, some with hidden biases (for instance, during the 1800s, several of the most famous writers involved in developing the soi-disant Documentary theory had the not-so-hidden agenda of "proving" that all Israelite writings were "borrowed" from other cultures because the Jews couldn't have invented anything new.)

Most scholars today agree that the earliest writers (called J and E, based on the Name they use fo God) were combined to form a JE-document. Friedman's book, WHO WROTE THE BIBLE, is probably the best lay-persons version: he postulates that the J and E had a common narrative thread in ancient times but applied different interpretations -- for instance, stressing the role of the Aaronite priests compared to the other priestly families. These different emphases led to different versions of the same story -- thus, both J and E have versions of Joseph (IIRC, I'm doing this from a London hotel and away from my resources), with Levi or Reuben playing a role somewhat better than the other brothers, respectively. Same story, different details.

Friedman postulates that the JE document was put together after the destruction of the northern kingdom (700s BC), when the remnants of the northern kingdom tried to integrate into the southern kingdom. The combined document was a way of saying, we have a common ancestry and tradition. This would explain why there was so much duplication -- both versions were included.

The Deuteronomist document (D) is most interesting -- Friedman posits that most of it was written before the Babylonians destroyed Judea, but that it was then edited (by the same hand) after Jerusalem was destroyed. Friedman puts forth Jeremiah as a likely candidate for D-author.

The P document is a separate strand, but presumably combined with JE document sometime prior to around 600s BC. Friedman puts forth the suggestion that Ezra (or his scribe Baruch) is a likely candidate for redactor, around 550 BC.

Note that an additional complexity is that a given document strand might have been edited by "followers" of the school -- hence, some analysts split the Deuteronomist document into D1 and D2 (and perhaps others).

That help? I did this from memory, so I expect Tom and Moriah to have at it.

Also, please note, that there is a traditionalist school that continues to maintain a common author (either written or dictated by God, presumably to Moses) with only minor or no emendation. The people who hold to this view (I presume CMKeller?, inter alia) have answers to all the arguments of the Documentary theorists, and those answers can be quite compelling.

[tomndebb]

Jois:when I step back to see the whole picture it usually looks
more like Picasso than da Vinci.
(It occasionally looks more like Jackson Pollock.)

I am not going to produce what I attempted. There are substantial sections (e.g., most of Deuteronomy) which are attributed to a single author and in looking over my schematic, I figured that I could type in the more fragmented parts with simply a bit more effort.

However, This is what I came up with for simply the first 15 chapters of Genesis:
P: Gn 1:1 - 2:4a
J: Gn 2:4b - 4:26
P: Gn 5:1 - 5:28
J: Gn 5:29
P: Gn 5:30 - 5:32
J: Gn 6:1 - 6:8
P: Gn 6:9 - 6:22
J: Gn 7:1 - 7:5
P: Gn 7:6 -
J: Gn 7:7 - 7:10
P: Gn 7:11
J: Gn 7:12
P: Gn 7:13 - 7:16a
J: Gn 7:16b
P: Gn 7:17a
J: Gn 7:17b
P: Gn 7:18 - 7:21
J: Gn 7:22 - 7:23
P: Gn 7:24 - 8:2a
J: Gn 8:2b - 8:3a
P: Gn 8:3b - 8:5
J: Gn 8:6 - 8:12
P: Gn 8:13a
J: Gn 8:13b
P: Gn 8:14 - 8:19
J: Gn 8:20 - 8:22
P: Gn 9:1 - 9:17
J: Gn 9:18 - 9:27
P: Gn 9:28 - 10:7
J: Gn 10:8 - 10:19
P: Gn 10:20
J: Gn 10:21
P: Gn 10:22 - 10:23
J: Gn 10:24 - 10:30
P: Gn 10:31 - 10:32
J: Gn 11:1 - 11:9
P: Gn 11:10 - 11:27
J: Gn 11:28 - 11:30
P: Gn 11:31 - 11:32
J: Gn 12:1 - 12:4a
P: Gn 12:4b - 12:5
J: Gn 12:6 - 13:5
P: Gn 13:6
J: Gn 13:7 - 13:11a
P: Gn 13:11b - 13:12a
J: Gn 13:12b - 13:18
*: Gn 14:1 - 14:24 (special insertion of older material)
E/J: Gn 15:1 - 15:26 (mixed reviews as to E or J as the source)

I'm afraid that I do not have the energy to complete even Genesis, much less the remaining five books.
I am continuing to look for an on-line presentation of this material. Unfortunately, 95% of the sites that address the issue are fundy cranks that are attacking this literary reconstruction.

(The "fundy crank" comment refers to the specific sites I have found. I have no problem with or disdain for a Christian or Jew who takes the position that the Mosaic authorship is established in tradition and that any discrepancies that are found are simply misperceptions or minor adjustments to the text that we cannot understand at this distant remove. I do not agree with that position, but the position may be valid. My problem with the "fundy cranks" is that every one of them claims that the "higher criticism" approach is merely an attempt to remove God and Divine Revelation from the bible, perpetrated by unbelievers. That calumny is simply not true. If you run the list of names in the citation that Moriah provided, you cannot find an unbeliever among them. These were men who truly believed that they were studying the Word of God, but discovered questions in it regarding how it came to be organized in the way that we find it, today.)

Until I can find an actual on-line schema, you can try the Encyclopædia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,119704+1,00.html
(If the link fails, search for "pentateuch" or search for "biblical literature" then select "Old Testament Literature" from the index on that article.)
The EB's article is fairly detailed while remaining (mostly) clear and it does present a broader outline of the sources and applications of J, E, P, and D (plus H!).

My schematic is found in The Men and the Message of the Old Testament by Peter F. Ellis.

The resource I rely on most heavily is Introduction to the Old Testament by Otto Eissfeldt.

The resource that I have seen most frequently referenced by other people is The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, Metzger, Bruce M. ed.

The source that Moriah posted is a pretty good synopsis of the road we took to get to our current understanding. (As any attempt to sketch a complex subject, briefly, it may fail to give enough detail in some areas while assuming too much knowledge on the part of the reader on the other--do you want it brief or complete? There is no brief and complete.)

I am going to continue to try to find an online schematic of the JEPD outline. I don't know how much luck I will have.

------------------
Tom~

[tomndebb]

Whew! The EB link worked (at least for me ;)). (It did take quite a while to load, but it came up.)

[C K Dexter Haven]

Friedman lists his own suggestion for authorship in the appendix to his book, WHO WROTE THE BIBLE.

Whilst there is some consensus on much of the authorship, there is far from unanimity. There is also the notion that an ultimate Redactor added bits and pieces of transition here and there -- taking a traditional story and inserting it at some spot, and giving it a few lines of introduction.

There was a recent book, THE STORY OF J, I think, which took the position that J was female and one of the world's greatest poets... but then seemed to assign everything the author viewed as great poetry to J.

So a schemata of which parts were written by whom is mostly guess work. One can't even use the J or E names of God as an indicator, since sentences that seem most logically ascribed to E sometimes use the J-name.

[Polycarp]

My own speculation on this is as follows:

I cannot satisfactorily juxtapose in my mind the ideas of (Mosaic) law evolving through the period of the two kingdoms, the Exile, and shortly afterwards, and the respect paid by Jewish people to the Torah since. Such information as we have about the Persian and Hellenistic period indicates respect at the not-one-jot-or-tittle level or nearly so. This does not "fit" with the scholarly speculations about J, E, P, D, and their redactors, friends, and relations.

My own hunch is something of the following sort: Moses began the process with teachings regarding YHWH and the right relationship of the Hebrew people, individually and collectively, with Him. Moses' teachings included moral-imperative, ritualistic, and behavioral strands. As the Hebrew people became a settled agro-pastoral community in Judges times, it was supplemented by additional legislation considered as derivative from what Moses had taught and therefore incorporated with it. Strands of this were preserved in Judea, the area around Shechem, and probably Shiloh. The latter was taken to Jerusalem when that fell to the Israelites about 1000 BC. As the prophetic tradition became a separate function from the priestly, a version focusing on ethical conduct but incorporating parts of the others evolved for their use. Each strand had varying emphases from the others. These gave rise to three distinct textual Torahs which were regarded as facets of one Law, similarly to what most Christians see with the four gospels. These strands eventually became the J, E, P, and D traditions. Towards the end of the Kingdoms and continuing thereafter, attempts were made to produce a "Harmony of the Torahs" analogous to the "Harmony of the Gospels" that used to be quite common in Christian use. This interfoliation of the four strands was adopted after the Exile as the finalized text.

Though it may sound like I'm regurgitating the 4-document hypothesis, there is a distinct difference. What I'm suggesting is the preservation of four honored and respected Torahs, all considered as derivative from Moses, and the successful attempt to unite them into one. The distinction between this and the oral-tradition complete flexibility of the other theory is to me significant.

[Jois]

Yikes, Tom, That schematic is going to pop the rivets on the edges as well as the corners... And it is too much work, too.

Moriah, Dex, Polycarp and the EB all point to a body of material (or several bodies of material) fluid enough at some point or at several points in time to be joined together or with other materials.

That sound fair?

And Dex, is it Friedman or Freedman, David Noel?

[jab1]

I once asked someone, "So who was Cain's wife?"

He replied, in perfect seriousness, "One of his sisters."

EWWWWWWW!!

------------------
&gt;&lt; DARWIN &gt;
____L___L__

[C K Dexter Haven]

I'll take your word on the spelling, jois, I'm in London on a business trip, and don't have access to my sources (spelling ain't one of my best traits.)

And I dont' disagree with you Polycarp. One of the joys of Freedman's approach is the focus on the similarity of the seemingly diverse texts, implying an original (Mosaic, if you want) that received different treatment over the centuries by different political factions (north and south) and then were again unified.

[Jois]

One of the reasons why I like this set up is that someone now can give you a nice crack on the noggen for asking that question to begin with...

Anything prior to Abraham sotry was an effort to explain what went on before Abraham was chosen. Someone adapted those tales from Ur (a lot easier to spell than Mesopotamia) in light of what the descendants of Abraham had learned about their God.

The pre-logical minds that heard those stories didn't care about where the wives came from, or the water, or the wood, or the animals; but the outcome, the fulfilling of the contract.

::Ice for Jag1::

[Jois]

<q>One of the joys of Freedman's approach is the focus on the similarity of the seemingly diverse texts, implying an original (Mosaic, if you want) that received different treatment over the centuries by different political factions (north and south) and then were again unified.</q> So,this makes the diagram a topological wonder rather than a straight Venn or any other model.

Excuse me, Jab1, I must have just heard a WWRAW (?)commercial.

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[tomndebb]

As I noted, sometimes it looks more a work by Jackson Pollock than even Picasso.

By the way, I may not have made it clear in various previous threads, but I am not at all persuaded that we can exhaustively narrow the authorship down to half-verses and interpolations. For example, to me, the difference in "voice" between the verses ending at Gn 2:4a and those beginning with Gn 2:4b are pretty distinct even in English translations, but to correctly and unquestionably identify unique authors in these passages on the flood
P: Gn 7:13 - 7:16a
J: Gn 7:16b
P: Gn 7:17a
J: Gn 7:17b
P: Gn 7:18 - 7:21
seems to be pushing it. (This division could be 100% accurate, I simply used it as a case where the assigning of authors gets pretty picky.)

I have seen how many of the conclusions are drawn and I respect the work that is done, but that does not mean that I simply accept the works of the various scholars as gospel (pardon the pun).

Dex mentioned that among anomalies, some J verses use Elohim to identify God while some E and P verses use the Tetragrammaton to name God. To elaborate on this, the various practioners of the literary criticism are not simply "making it up as they go along" assigning verses to whichever author they'd like. In the P and E sections, only Elohim is used to identify God until God identifies Himself to Moses in the burning bush. After that point, those two traditions use Elohim to refer to God and the Tetragrammaton to name Him. The point of naming the threads according to the word used to identify God is not an absolute in the literary research. Rather, the earliest attempts to unravel the threads were prompted by the noticeable contrast between various styles of speech and the recognition that each of those styles tended to use one or another of the words for God. (P was originally identified as E until it was recognized that E had two separate voices. J also has more than one "voice" and there are scholars who distinguish between J (being very religious in tone) and an L--laity--source that uses the Tetragrammaton but is generally quite secular in the tone of the thread.
Later analysis does not simply "follow the name" but looks for thematic consistency, the continuity or interruption/resumption of specific stories, and the apparent theology that any given tradition might appear to be putting forward. (Most scholars, today, speak of the various "traditions" instead of presuming a specific single human author.)

While this calls for subtle inferences about what is going on in the text, it is, of course, open to charges of conjecture. It can be a lot of fun, but it is by no means at the level of certainty that construction engineering requires.

Another aspect of the deductions made so far is that not only is Joshua an extension of the Pentateuch in a Hexateuch, but that some of the literary traditions (rather than authors) continue on (separately) in Judges, then in Samuel and Kings or in Chronicles. This links all of the narrative books in a single (multiply authored) work that synthesizes Jewish belief as they perceive themselves interacting with God in history.

To get to that level of analysis, you really need to get an actual text on the subject. Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible is probably an excellent place to start. I have purchased it in the last couple of years, but I've only dipped into it here and there. (It got shoved behind a couch and went missing for a while, so I haven't had time to read the whole thing, yet.)

(Factoid: The single-letter identifiers, J, E, P, D, H, (and L) are known as sigla.)

------------------
Tom~

[Jois]

I've been checking Powells, ADDALL, Amazon, Barnes and Noble and very little of:

Freedman, David Noel
Wright, G. Ernest
Speiser, E. A.

are still in print, or even available used.

Freedman and Albright were the editors of the Anchor Bible. Freedman is Albright's biographer and bibliographer, those works along with Freedman's multi volume biblical dictionary are available.

Not one of the books Tom mentioned is in print or available used.

[tomndebb]

That figures.

(I'm surprised that Eissfeldt is not available, but it may run in cycles as a college text.)

[tomndebb]

Wait. Not David Noel Freedman.

Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? a trade paperback for around $14 or $15 that is still very much in print.

------------------
Tom~

[Jois]

I've been reading Albright's "The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra: an historical survey" and it mentions O. Eissfeldt's "brilliant" monograph on Deut. 32 pub. 1958.

Again, Eissfeldt is out of print and unavailable as a used book. Probably pop up in a while.

[Jois]

Thanks you, Tom, I found: Richard Elliott Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?" in Amazon. They had both used copies=out of print and new from another publisher. So I ordered a copy. Probably going to be a lot easier than Freedman, Albright and the others!

Not sure where I want to go from here!




------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[jab1]

Friedman has written others. The LAPL has seven lsted, although two books listed are actually two different editions of Who Wrote the Bible? If you want the titles of the others, look here: http://catalog.lapl.org:80/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?resultsScreen+15885+1+7+1

I have a lot of reading ahead of me. Which is one of the things I live for.

------------------
&gt;&lt; DARWIN &gt;
____L___L__

[jab1]

That link I provided may not work. Try this: http://catalog.lapl.org/ and click on "Search the Catalog" and have it search for Friedman, Richard Elliott and you'll get those other titles.

------------------
&gt;&lt; DARWIN &gt;
____L___L__

[Jois]

Good source, Jab1, but too far away for me.

I started reading about OT formation sort of back-end-to and read more primary sources than over-all summaries and have had trouble pulling it together. The EB article looks pretty good. Summaries offered by Moriah, Tom, Dex, and Polycarp are good, too.

Maybe I just want the impossible "brief and complete" that Tom mentioned.

Send any good ideas right back this way, please.

[Jois]

BTW: In your spare time - someone in the "About this Message Board" section somebody got a horse (?) to run - have you tried to get the Darwin FEET moving?

That'd be cool, too.

[Polycarp]

Here you are, JAB...
<marquee>< DARWIN ><
____J___J________
</marquee>


Or, with one code garbaged to make the how-to appear:
{marquee>< DARWIN ><
____J___J________
</marquee>

[Polycarp]

Here you are, JAB...
<marquee>< DARWIN ><
____J___J________
</marquee>


Or, with one code at beginning and end garbaged to make the how-to appear:
{marquee>< DARWIN ><
____J___J________
</marquee}

[Jois]

BTW: I'm already infamous at this local library, they make that little X sign when they see me and duck behind the desks. I gave them all little wooden stakes last year for Christmas last year, but I'm still here.


~~<blink>/</blink>~~~<blink>\</blink>~~~

With the one that walks on water you could add one of those musical things playing, "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" - perfection!

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[jab1]

I have NO idea how to do any of that. I just started doing this this year. Check my profile and you'll see when I got started. I'm lucky I remembered how to type. I'm willing to learn more, but I'm going to take it slowly. I have the time.

------------------
&gt;&lt; DARWIN &gt;
____L___L__

[Jois]

Never mind, I really crack up every time I see it now! If YOU want to change it yell for Louie in About is Message Board. He's usually good and kind and doesn't have to be kick started.

Niether does Polycarp; but I don't get the
marquee part, is it supposed to move?

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[jab1]

No, but I though about this:

>< DARWIN >
----L--L---

Wading through water. AND:

>< DARWIN >
^^^L^^L^^^^

Rough water.

Jois, I don't know where you live, your profile doesn't say, but those other books might be available at YOUR Public Library, too. And if you know the titles, you might be able to order them from Amazon or someone.

------------------
&gt;&lt; DARWIN &gt;
____L___L__

[Jois]

What about just blinking the feet



___<blink>L</blink>__<blink>L</blink>___


Hum

------------------
Oh, I'm gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

[jab1]

I guess it's supposed to move in sequence like the lights on a marquee.

------------------
&gt;&lt; DARWIN &gt;
____L___L__