Hendel Takes on Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd

Ronald Hendel isn’t an admirer of the work of Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd.  In fact, that’s an understatement.  Read his essay in Bible and Interpretation to see why.

I sure hope Y, R, and E. strike back.  They clearly need to.  And they should be able to take him- there are three of them and only one of him!

About Jim

I am a Pastor, and Lecturer in Church History and Biblical Studies at Ming Hua Theological College.
This entry was posted in Biblical Studies Resources and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Hendel Takes on Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd

  1. steph says:

    I suspect Hendel has the heavier weight in evidence and argument, thank you for drawing attention to this. I had a little runaround to have a look at cvs, and thought this was, well hum…. click on ‘What is pink?” http://ehrensvard.dk/?CV_English


  2. He has not, but it will destroy his conservative outlook. I believe that he got his education within the Albright school back when I was also a student. He is certainly not a heavyweight within this business. So let us see how our friends will tackle him.


  3. Hello Steph

    Well, this goes to show how easy it occasionally is, even for smart
    people like you and Ron Hendel, to get the wrong impression when
    relying on popular internet summaries, op-eds, biographies, etc.,
    rather than reading the books themselves.

    As for Ron, as we will point out, we are probably in agreement more
    than he thinks, and reading our books should clear away many of the
    misunderstandings that he got from relying on a “potted summary”.

    As for me, yes, I currently spend a lot of my time in a company called
    What is pink?, but that in and of itself does not make me an amateur
    in this field, in which I continue to teach at the university level.
    And I would still like to regard myself as a specialist in biblical
    Hebrew syntax.


  4. steph says:

    I prefer Philip’s response to Lemche, obviously. I will follow this up later.


  5. steph says:

    No, some of the Brits have become more truthful about history than Copenhagen. Compare HB scholar Thomas on the Messiah Myth with bananas.


  6. steph says:

    …And I like Philip very much, and he is an honest scholar and a gentleman… I’m not impressed with recent developments at Copenhagen including ideas and methodology and assumptions around dating texts peculiarly late. One of the main points that Hendel has right is his citation of part of 4Q Sam, which is the tip of an iceberg from the Dead Sea Scrolls. These have a much earlier text of the Hebrew bible than the MT, and despite its many faults and biases, this also shows that the LXX is sometimes also obviously earlier than the MT. These insights into the development of the Hebrew language are not dependent on whether the scholar who made them is Jewish or Israeli or in any way dependent on Albright.


  7. Yes, Hendel is right with regard to 4QSam, this is one of the points we agree on – but in the analysis of malkut and many other features, we are using the accepted MT-only methodology, showing from the inside why it fails. We are wonderfully in agreement with what you say about the textual history in your comment. And, as we try to get people to understand, we have always been of the opinion that Hebrew developed in the first millennium BCE – of course! – and that biblical Hebrew is impacted by this development. But the state of the text, and other factors, make linguistic dating of biblical texts an endeavour that we are not yet very well equipped to do.


  8. steph says:

    I agree with Philip that before Hendel’s gust of wind he should have read the book. Obviously anyone else making judgements of scholarship should do the same. anyone wanting to demolish their case really ought to deal with the book, not a summary in an article.

    I am astonished at NPL’s extraordinarily pompous and unqualified assumption that I don’t know what is happening in Copenhagen and elsewhere, and his ludicrously silly suggestion that I am “infected by the American decease (sic) according to which you win if three people win for you, and only two for me.” It’s ‘sad’ that this sort of rhetorical attack ‘seems’ characteristic of an otherwise competent scholar. I won’t bother responding on the discussion group. He’s far too rude and I haven’t read the book.


Comments are closed.