Modern Philology – Differing Prolegomenas for Differing Approaches

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Aug 16, 2020 at 21:32

Elsewhere in this forum, the discussion of intellectualism and its influences on history brought about a certain cynicism in this observer, that, like that of Dr. Pipes, not all pursuits of intellectual endeavors produce common understanding of what the subject matter was intended to provide; that instead, resultant ongoing debates became the substitutes for that of which understanding was sought. In the exchanges between you and this observer, the approaches taken were unsure as to where our discussions might lead; that is until one of your observances 'clicked,' allowing this observer to take a long step into understanding what was a lifetime conundrum that turns out to be a philological issue (learned this term from, of all things, a movie called 'Forbidden Planet' with Walter Pidgeon playing a philologist).
Now, this reader is not a philologist by any sense of skill necessary to be a practicing student of language, but being a student of the Bible for the sake of discipleship required this observer to go deeper into the meanings of ancient words, that as you and this reader have exchanged, was necessary to determine what was truth and what was religious 'hermeneutics' from ages of Bible studies by the originalists. You mention Wellhausen, a name with which this reader was unfamiliar until this exchange; yet in looking it up, was found in the intellectual company of the late nineteenth century of many 'great' theologians with which this reader is familiar; all of which contributed significantly to the basis of much of the exegetical and hermeneutical body of Biblical knowledge that became the basis of this observer's confusion for decades; until your clue clarified why I can now believe with confidence.
Now, as this is being written, some remarks of yours are coming back, not the least of which, knowing who in actuality wrote the Quran. Debates about this has been contentious for many over the centuries but as you have alluded, the Persian influence makes more sense now than in the past. The connectivity of Arabic in its survivorship of things Aramaic/Syriac, blended with the Persian embrace (which actually has some intersection with Biblical inferences of nations under scrutiny for interfering with Israel and Judea), has now come into view with the what is happening in the region. It is, as they say, now coming together.
Now, since this started with how the tomes of the ancients were part of the written record of the developmental stages of humanity entering the modern ages in 'Western' cultural influences, we are now able to show that the 'religious' authoritarian influences were as much of causing such confused social attributes in the formative stages of each of the modern societies, that the image of Nebuchadnezzar's empires now makes more sense. To the greater point, the reasons of collapse are in greater view; and now it can be seen the prophetic projections of why 'Western' influences did/does very little to produce any comforting sense that Western Civilization will actually survive, understanding Daniel's view of the Apocalypse, in either the paleo-Hebrew or the Aramaic is much clearer.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".