>J is the title that scholars ascribe to the nameless writer they believe is responsible for the text, written between 950 & 900, on which Genesis, Exodus & Numbers is based. In The Book of J, Bloom & Rosenberg draw the J text out of the surrounding material & present it as the seminal classic it is. In addition to Rosenberg's original translations, Bloom argues in several essays that "J" was not a religious writer but a fierce ironist & a woman living in the court of King Solomon. He also argues that J is a writer on par with Homer, Shakespeare & Tolstoy. Bloom also offers historical context, a discussion of the theory of how the different texts came together to create the Bible & translation notes. Rosenberg's translations from the Hebrew bring J's stories to life & reveal her towering originality & grasp of humanity.
goodreads.com
>woman
>ironist
>on par with Shakespeare
What does Veeky Forums have to say?
J is the title that scholars ascribe to the nameless writer they believe is responsible for the text...
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
blueletterbible.org
twitter.com
I'm not informed enough on the text or its authorship to comment but I will say that if Bloom said it, you can generally assume it's not for affirmative action purposes.
women are simply inferior to us as white men. Bloom confirmed trying to breed out whiteness and destroying Western civilization
>Tolstoy on par with Shakespeare
Always keep in mind, in the context of the late 20th Century, that Bloom is a Jew and Jews are angry at their God because they feel abandoned by Him. This has been a feeling that waxes and wanes throughout the history of the Jewish people, but it was especially prevalent in the half-century after the Holocaust, for various reasons. Even non-practicing Jews felt a sense of anger at the Lord for allowing their nation to go through such terrible strife. So, in return, they attempted to tear down and belittle God at every turn, in ways both overt and subtle. This explains not only modern Old Testament criticism but also philosophical and literary movements such as deconstructionism and critical theory, both of which were started by Jews. For in the end they are and always have been a stiff-necked people, eager to challenge their God and put Him to the test.
>Bloom argues in several essays that "J" was not a religious writer but a fierce ironist & a woman living in the court of King Solomon
Lol what. That's pretty far from how the documentary hypothesis is usually understood, each source is generally thought to have come from a tradition with multiple authors.
There needs to be a separate board for discussing texts of jewish neurosis and the opinions of subversive jewish individuals pretending they have anything positive to contribute to European culture and the western literary tradition.
>go back to >>>/jewpseudolit/!!!
They are simply destroying our board and our white world. Try reading McDonald's Culture of Critique Series for the ultimate redpill
>Tolstoy on par with Shakespeare
>muh bible myths on par with either one
this is why you don't let a literary critic do historical scholarship -- they botch it all to shit and fill it with preconceived notions
this
>They are simply destroying our board
It's getting to be a real problem, these jews who come to a board centered around European cultural and artistic traditions then scream like chimps at us while trying to mix their bizarre, subversive, and totalitarian traditions and works in with our own and acting like we should care. What a strange desert tribe of people.
They are genociding our white online presence
>centered around European culture
Not necessarily true.
Anyway I agree that Catholics should piss off, but your samefagging in this thread is autistic.
No, it's true. And these are my only posts itt.
Okay sure fella anyway, your hatred of Jews isn't getting you anywhere in life, in fact if you voiced it publically your marginal existence would probably become even moreso. Maybe they are conspiring to take over the world, but what choice do we have but to compete and conquer? People like you remind me of Malcom X, we wuz kangz, etc. What is the point of shitting up our board with your whining? Stop crying like a bitch and make something of yourself.
Daily reminder that Bloom is idiot who dont know what he talking about
youtube.com
The only one who appears to be whining here is you, just like it is you who is also shitting up the board by defending jews inserting themselves into European cultural spheres. If you had an inkling of awareness of the jewish problem you'd be smart enough to keep your mouth shut, but I understand some just aren't meant to explore intellectual matters.
Your pretense is shabby, and your ideas are cuntish.
>an inkling of awareness
>doesn't realize "inkling" isn't a measure
>explores intellectual matters
Explore deez nutz you pseud
Weak. I suspect these posters are mulattos or lower tier whites who lack the intellectual capacity to tackle the jewish problem.
anyone have a copy of this? the usual places turn up empty
looks fascinating
>turning jew against jew
fuck em both.
J would later go on to write "The sensuous woman".
Reminder that that wasn't even his own idea to begin with and he took it from a reviewer who chided him for not going far enough.
>Bloom argues in several essays that "J" was not a religious writer but a fierce ironist & a woman living in the court of King Solomon.
This is soothsaying, divination via graphemes and syntagma rather than the entrails of a goat.
The documentary hypothesis has been orthodoxy in academia for over a century but is based on a precarious stack of dubious assumptions.
E.g.,
>Now the original critical division into documents was made on the supposition that several hundred years later than Moses there arose two schools of writers, one of which, in Judah, used the word "Jehovah" when they spoke of the deity, and the other, in the Northern Kingdom, "Elohim." And so the critics came to designate one set of passages as belonging to the J document and the other to the E document. These they supposed had been cut up and pieced together by a later editor so as to make the existing continuous narrative. But when, as frequently occurred, one of these words is found in passages where it is thought the other word should have been used, it is supposed, wholly on theoretical grounds, that a mistake had been made by the editor, or, as they call him, the "redactor," and so with no further ceremony the objection is arbitrarily removed without consulting the direct textual evidence.
>But upon comparing the early texts, versions, and quotations it appears that the words, "Jehovah" and "Elohim," were so nearly synonymous that there was originally little uniformity in their use. Jehovah is the Jewish name of the deity, and Elohim the title. The use of the words is precisely like that of the English in referring to their king or the Americans to their president. In ordinary usage, "George V.", "the king," and "King George" are synonymous in their meaning. Similarly "Taft," "the president," and "President Taft" are used by Americans during his term of office to indicate an identical concept. So it was with the Hebrews. "Jehovah" was the name, "Elohim" the title, and "Jehovah Elohim"—Lord God—signified nothing more. blueletterbible.org
The evidence is such that the DH cannot be conclusively proved or disproved. It will remain a fixed star in the academic constellation until such time, if ever, a strong interpreter who declines to bow to orthodoxy wrests it from its place.
There are respected Bible scholars who go against it, especially in Europe. I personally don't buy it, the idea of neatly divided traditions seems like a huge leap and forces scholars to put passages into one or another. A better model is that the Torah is compiled from many blocks of interrelated Israelite religious texts. Some are fairly independent like the Tower of Babel story, some are alternate stories about the se thing like the two creation accounts, and some are interrelated like the many religious laws. Rather than distinctive traditions there's a patchwork, which explains the differences between passages with far fewer assumptions and less conjecture than the DH.