An interesting parallel to the Pillar of Fire/Cloud (quote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently began working through the Mesopotamian Epic of Erra - the myth of the god Erra, and his pal Ishum, who decides that the head-god Marduk has grown old and senile and needs a good butt-kicking. Erra wamts to take over the rule of the three major spaces of existence: the heavens, the earth and the underworld. The various tablets we have of the Epic come from around the 8th-9th centuries B.C.E., though it has been surmised that elements of the story existed prior to the date of the tablets we have, as is pretty common in many ancient stories.
Erra is a type of flame deity, and Ishum even more so. They also rally to their cause seven warrior deities. I suppose the number seven should be noted, but that's a pretty common parallel and doesn't bear pointing out. The real surprising parallel comes in how Ishum and Yahweh manifest themselves.
The parallel I noticed comes when Erra first decides to go on the march:
He said to you (Ishum), "I shall go out into the open country -
You will be the torch, people can see your light.
You are to march in front, and the gods [will follow you].
You are the sword that slaughters [.....]."
(Tablet I, Trans. S. Dalley, "Erra and Ishum" - Myths from Mespotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford: 1989)
I don't know about you, but the image of the theophany of a god in fire leading an army immediately brought to mind a familiar story, found in the Yahwistic Source of the Torah/Pentateuch, when the Israelites are fleeing Exodus:
Now YHWH goes before them,
by day in a column of cloud, to lead them the way,
by night in a column of fire, to give light to them,
to (be able to) go by day and by night.
There does not retire
the column of cloud by day
or the column of fire by night
from before the people!
(Exodus 13:21-22, SB Fox)
The column of cloud moved ahead of them
and stood behind them...
Here was the cloud and the darkness,
and (there) it lit up the night;
the-one did not come near the-other all night.
(Exodus 14:19-20 w/Yahwistic Source isolated)
The "column" or "pillar" does not merely serve the purpose of, like in the Erra Epic, "be[ing] the torch, [so that] people can see your light", but also serves a purpose of offense and defense:
Now it was at the daybreak-watch:
YHWH looked out against the camp of Egypt in the column of fire and cloud,
and he panicked the camp of Egypt...
Egypt said:
I must flee before Israel,
for YHWH makes war for them against Egypt!
(Exodus 14:24-25 w/Yahwistic Source isolated)
This theophany of Yahweh in fire (recall the Burning Bush and other fire-related occurrences) and cloud (recall the theophany in Job, as well as Yahweh's general nature as a storm-god) and the dual roles it serves to "be the torch " and be "the sword that slaughters" is very similar to Ishum's role in the Erra Epic. We may quibble about the cloud, and of course the possibility that neither of the authors knew each other's work - but I find it all very interesting. I look forward to tackling the rest of the work, but this passage stopped me dead in my tracks heh heh!
Any thoughts? I have briefly just stopped to post this, and will look into it some more, but would love some thoughts on the matter.
It is an interesting parallel, but I don't think any kind of genetic relationship is likely. Forwards and rearwards were common military conventions throughout the ancient Near East, which served as the most common backdrop for conceptualizing the deity's defense of his or her nation. The primary purpose of the cloud and the fire was to symbolize the divine presence and glory while also obscuring God's form (as is more explicitly spelled out in the Deuteronomistic literature). Deities were commonly conceptualized as being so bright and glorious that it was painful or dangerous to look directly at them. Fire was the closest natural analogy, and so the divinity could be represented with fire and their anthropomorphic form could be hidden, protecting the viewer from harm (at least in the biblical iterations, cf. Exod 33:20). The fire and cloud didn't frighten the Egyptians because it represented a sword or a light for the way, but because it represented the presence of the deity, which was thought to fight on the side of its nation. For some good discussions about these various principles, see the following books:
It is an interesting parallel, but I don't think any kind of genetic relationship is likely. Forwards and rearwards were common military conventions throughout the ancient Near East, which served as the most common backdrop for conceptualizing the deity's defense of his or her nation. The primary purpose of the cloud and the fire was to symbolize the divine presence and glory while also obscuring God's form (as is more explicitly spelled out in the Deuteronomistic literature). Deities were commonly conceptualized as being so bright and glorious that it was painful or dangerous to look directly at them. Fire was the closest natural analogy, and so the divinity could be represented with fire and their anthropomorphic form could be hidden, protecting the viewer from harm (at least in the biblical iterations, cf. Exod 33:20). The fire and cloud didn't frighten the Egyptians because it represented a sword or a light for the way, but because it represented the presence of the deity, which was thought to fight on the side of its nation. For some good discussions about these various principles, see the following books:
I figured it was a loooong stretch, anyways, and your comment on the grammatical terminology of "forwards and rearwards" is exactly where I figured the parallel would fall down in the first place - I just haven't bothered to check for how such language is used consistently in war contexts in cognate literature, or even how idiomatic the terms are. I haven't read Kang's work yet, currently working through Klingbeil's Yahweh Fighting From Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography (Eisenbrauns 1999) but don't expect to find anything in there pertaining to the divine kabod as portrayed in Exodus.
That Glory itself is, as you point out, another problem with seeing a parallel - as the Exodus Account does not portray Yahweh himself, but rather the possibly hypostatized Glory of Yahweh (much like Ezekiel's vision is not of Yahweh, as such, but of his Glory). I have read Sommer's work and find it extremely helpful but I don't particularly agree with his attempt to hypostatize Yahweh into lesser beings and aspects as much as he does. I think he has let some later traditional views of deity influence his work in this regard. I know you have been particularly active in this area of deity yourself, so am not sure if you would agree with me or not on my critique of Sommer (as unarticulated as it is). Regardless, I think there are elements of Yahweh's actions that may have been viewed - especially by earlier authors - as more "immediate", and less removed as an "aspect" of God to preserve some sort of divine dignity. Perhaps I need to revisit Sommer again and see if I missed something that may change my mind, but I find that some Biblical authors may not have been so reticent in depicting deity. I don't know - perhaps the cloud is a reflection of the Assyrian imagery of the winged deity in the nimbus mirroring (and thus divinely approving?) the actions of his presumably human subject. A storm-god background of the storm and fire cloud makes sense to me.
Do you feel that this same aspectual nature of Yahweh can be found in other deities of the ancient Near East? For example, Marduk assuming the "names" and powers of the deities he displaced in Enuma Elish? Or even the story of Hathor acting as Re's Eye (with further connotations of becoming Sakhmet even) in "the Destruction of Mankind" (COS 1.24)?
I hate to even mention this work due to its extremely speculative nature, but J. C. de Moor and M. C. A. Korpel have made some interesting (I'm not sure how compelling, haven't made up my mind yet) arguments as to fire being closely related to El, especially volcanic aspects of the Ugaritic El's abode of the twin mountains, in Adam, Eve, and the Devil: New Beginnings (Sheffield 2014, pp. 26-41) - but I find it difficult to reconcile with the storm-god nature of Yahweh in the Exodus, even if their arguments were nothing more than speculation. It's a really odd work, full of interesting and valuable information, but so far I haven't found myself convinced in the slightest that they are anywhere close to being correct with their main thesis. Sinai/Horeb may have aspects of fire that are more related to lightning, rather than to Korpel and Moor's volcanic "Abode of El" - which they posit is Mt. Ararat, of all places.
Thanks for the recommendations - I shall have to check out those works.
I figured it was a loooong stretch, anyways, and your comment on the grammatical terminology of "forwards and rearwards" is exactly where I figured the parallel would fall down in the first place - I just haven't bothered to check for how such language is used consistently in war contexts in cognate literature, or even how idiomatic the terms are. I haven't read Kang's work yet, currently working through Klingbeil's Yahweh Fighting From Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography (Eisenbrauns 1999) but don't expect to find anything in there pertaining to the divine kabod as portrayed in Exodus.
Not a whole lot in there on that. Most of it has to do with YHWH's conceptualization as a storm deity. It has a lot of good data, although I find the analysis just a bit outdated. Kang will have more about the kabod, but Biblical Ambiguities speaks at length about it, although not in a military context. Mettinger's book, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, has more of that kind of discussion, but it's kinda hard to find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
That Glory itself is, as you point out, another problem with seeing a parallel - as the Exodus Account does not portray Yahweh himself, but rather the possibly hypostatized Glory of Yahweh (much like Ezekiel's vision is not of Yahweh, as such, but of his Glory).
I'm wary of appealing to hypostases to understand the Name and the Glory, etc. I think they function as personified aspects of God's agency, but "hypostasis" doesn't sit right with me. But that's a paper I'm currently working on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I have read Sommer's work and find it extremely helpful but I don't particularly agree with his attempt to hypostatize Yahweh into lesser beings and aspects as much as he does. I think he has let some later traditional views of deity influence his work in this regard.
I agree. I don't think we need to try to systematize his conceptualization so much, and there is some more traditional exegesis to which he appeals that I think kinda handicaps his analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I know you have been particularly active in this area of deity yourself, so am not sure if you would agree with me or not on my critique of Sommer (as unarticulated as it is). Regardless, I think there are elements of Yahweh's actions that may have been viewed - especially by earlier authors - as more "immediate", and less removed as an "aspect" of God to preserve some sort of divine dignity.
Absolutely. I have a blog post up here that discusses one of the aspects of YHWH's early immanence that was obscured by later editors and authors. I think the personification of God's Glory is one of the later ways that authors came up with to maintain some continuity with earlier narrative while at the same time promoting newer notions of God's transcendence and hiddenness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Perhaps I need to revisit Sommer again and see if I missed something that may change my mind, but I find that some Biblical authors may not have been so reticent in depicting deity. I don't know - perhaps the cloud is a reflection of the Assyrian imagery of the winged deity in the nimbus mirroring (and thus divinely approving?) the actions of his presumably human subject. A storm-god background of the storm and fire cloud makes sense to me.
Well, the title "Rider of the Clouds" is something attributed to YHWH that was borrowed from Balu. That may help contextualize the imagery, but it's not a direct cognate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Do you feel that this same aspectual nature of Yahweh can be found in other deities of the ancient Near East? For example, Marduk assuming the "names" and powers of the deities he displaced in Enuma Elish? Or even the story of Hathor acting as Re's Eye (with further connotations of becoming Sakhmet even) in "the Destruction of Mankind" (COS 1.24)?
I'm working on some other research right now about divine images operating as secondary divine agents. The angel of YHWH having YHWH's name "in him" I think is a manifestation of this notion of communicable divine agency, and I think this is the conceptual background of Jesus' later relationship to, and subsequent identification with, God. A good bit of research is Beate Pongratz-Leisten's paper, "Divine Agency and Astralization of Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia."
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I hate to even mention this work due to its extremely speculative nature, but J. C. de Moor and M. C. A. Korpel have made some interesting (I'm not sure how compelling, haven't made up my mind yet) arguments as to fire being closely related to El, especially volcanic aspects of the Ugaritic El's abode of the twin mountains, in Adam, Eve, and the Devil: New Beginnings (Sheffield 2014, pp. 26-41) - but I find it difficult to reconcile with the storm-god nature of Yahweh in the Exodus, even if their arguments were nothing more than speculation.
Not a huge fan of Korpel and de Moor, and I think they overstate the case, but at the same time, the imagery of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible constitutes both El imagery and Balu imagery. The latter is the storm deity/warrior imagery. The former is less well defined. The combination of the two in those places in the Hebrew Bible where the imagery is blended is not consistent or well thought out. There's definitely more work left to be done there. I discuss this in chapter 3 of one of my theses, which is on the conceptualization of deity in the Hebrew Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
It's a really odd work, full of interesting and valuable information, but so far I haven't found myself convinced in the slightest that they are anywhere close to being correct with their main thesis. Sinai/Horeb may have aspects of fire that are more related to lightning, rather than to Korpel and Moor's volcanic "Abode of El" - which they posit is Mt. Ararat, of all places.
Thanks for the recommendations - I shall have to check out those works.
My pleasure! Let me know if you come across anything else you find particularly helpful.
Whopper just finished reading who wrote the bible, very good stuff in it. Seems to me that the J and E are the beginnings of the OT and P and D are at odds with one another, both writing contrary to each other.
As Jerimiah or his scribe wrote D and D wrote Deuteronomy, I do not think Jerimiah would refer to that which he wrote as being from the lying pen of the scribes. If Friedman is correct in his analysis then it would seem to me that Jerimiah was questioning the writer of P, calling what is written therein (in P ) from the lying pen of the scribes.
Anyway that is something worth checking into, which I will be doing.
P.S. Toorn's book arrived today and I will be reading it next, maybe it will shed more light on the subject.
That's great to hear!
Who Wrote the Bible? is a good introduction to the subject, and it certainly has proven to be popular and still readily available in virtually any bookstore. I think he does an excellent job of approaching the subject from a semi-conservative (in terms of his historical dating) stance that does not alienate readers into thinking that a faith crisis should ensue. The only "faith crisis" that might ensue is if one is theologically wedded to the idea of traditional authorship - and this shouldn't really be an issue for most people.
Friedman is probably a little too speculative with the attribution of authorship to Jeremiah or his scribe Baruch (depending on what edition of the book you ordered, you will notice that he changed his opinion from the 1st edition to the latest), but even if he is correct, the question you raise concerning their motivation in critiquing Deuteronomy will find a little better elucidation when you consider that they were probably protesting one particular edition of Deuteronomy - not the entire finished product. This is where Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible will provide more details, as it goes into both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah in some detail. The Jewish Study Bible's introduction to the translation is a nice summary, as well - which I recall you own, I think.
Interesting stuff, though, isn't it? To be honest with you, I find that the entire endeavor of composite authorship adds a depth that might otherwise be missed in the Hebrew Bible. I find it extremely interesting to see how the religious ideas of the Israelites changed over time and how different authors and traditions wrestled with each other and their relationship to God. You ordered Friedman's The Bible With Sources Revealed, correct? That is an excellent way of seeing the structure of the Pentateuch that doesn't require taking a pencil and outlining one's Bible heh heh! There are some attributions to an author here or there that can be debated, and my copy has a lot of notes and reassignments, but I still find it a good resource. A similar type of Bible was released over a hundred years ago: The Polychrome Bible. below.
I'm working on some other research right now about divine images operating as secondary divine agents. The angel of YHWH having YHWH's name "in him" I think is a manifestation of this notion of communicable divine agency, and I think this is the conceptual background of Jesus' later relationship to, and subsequent identification with, God. A good bit of research is Beate Pongratz-Leisten's paper, "Divine Agency and Astralization of Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia."
My pleasure! Let me know if you come across anything else you find particularly helpful.
A quick note before I get to your post: not sure if you've checked this article out by Theodore J. Lewis, but I think you might find it extremely useful in the subject we're discussing: "`Athtartu's Incantations and the Use of Divine Names as Weapons", from JNES Vol. 70, No. 2 (October 2011), pp. 207-228. It raises some interesting views on "the Name" (it starts with an examination of "`Athtartu Name of Ba`lu" and also examines Yahweh).
I've uploaded a copy to box for you if interested, in case you don't have access: https://app.box.com/s/2swnu5hufhkr95nkzy5w.
I would be interested in your opinion on his conclusions.
I've started through Biblical Ambiguities. Very interesting so far! I especially agree with his critique of post-modernism's refusal to find meaning (pp. 5-7), and his observation that mirrors my misgivings concerning some of Sommer's conclusions:
Nowhere in Tanakh are we informed that literal statements about the deity are impossible because of transcendence or any other divine characteristic....
...the act of classifying a phrase as metaphorical frequently turns out to be a modern-made smoke screen to obfuscate truths the interpreters would rather not confront when it comes to the religion(s) of biblical literature.
(p. 11)
Relate to the above work, I've been working through a recent thesis by Paul Cho (too many works, too little time!), and besides the main attraction of the work it devotes a large section of the beginning to the use of metaphor, Aristotle's original understanding of it and how he applies it to the Sea imagery in the HB: The Sea in the Hebrew Bible: Myth, Metaphor and Muthos (Harvard 2014). Available here: The Sea in the Hebrew Bible: Myth, Metaphor, and Muthos
Who Wrote the Bible? is a good introduction to the subject, and it certainly has proven to be popular and still readily available in virtually any bookstore. I think he does an excellent job of approaching the subject from a semi-conservative (in terms of his historical dating) stance that does not alienate readers into thinking that a faith crisis should ensue. The only "faith crisis" that might ensue is if one is theologically wedded to the idea of traditional authorship - and this shouldn't really be an issue for most people.
Friedman is probably a little too speculative with the attribution of authorship to Jeremiah or his scribe Baruch (depending on what edition of the book you ordered, you will notice that he changed his opinion from the 1st edition to the latest), but even if he is correct, the question you raise concerning their motivation in critiquing Deuteronomy will find a little better elucidation when you consider that they were probably protesting one particular edition of Deuteronomy - not the entire finished product. This is where Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible will provide more details, as it goes into both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah in some detail. The Jewish Study Bible's introduction to the translation is a nice summary, as well - which I recall you own, I think.
Interesting stuff, though, isn't it? To be honest with you, I find that the entire endeavor of composite authorship adds a depth that might otherwise be missed in the Hebrew Bible. I find it extremely interesting to see how the religious ideas of the Israelites changed over time and how different authors and traditions wrestled with each other and their relationship to God. You ordered Friedman's The Bible With Sources Revealed, correct? That is an excellent way of seeing the structure of the Pentateuch that doesn't require taking a pencil and outlining one's Bible heh heh! There are some attributions to an author here or there that can be debated, and my copy has a lot of notes and reassignments, but I still find it a good resource. A similar type of Bible was released over a hundred years ago: The Polychrome Bible. below.
I agree, Friedman did a very good job of making an intro to the documentary hypothesis. It was a very easy and fast read.
You also mentioned Joel Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis and stated that it was the best book to date on the subject. I think I will have to pick up a copy of that one also.
My copy was his latest where he changed it from Jeremiah to Baruch ( which he states he did). I am a little better then half way through scribal cultures and have seen where Toorn's states that Deuteronomy is composed of 4 different writings.
Yes, both the documentary hypothesis and scribal culture are interesting stuff, specially to me as this is a new field of study for myself. I have stated for years that the bible is made up of what people believed at the time and that we can see their progression of belief throughout the bible. Both the documentary hypothesis and scribal cultures backs up what I have stated. The thing is that just because someone believes something and puts it in writing does not make that belief in writing correct.
For instance P and D have a very different view of God, P seems to be based upon judgment and that we need to go to the priests (aaronite priest) to make atonement for sins, while D J E seem to speak mostly about forgiveness and mercy and that people can go to any Levite. To me it looks like a power struggle to get people to serve God in a way that conforms to a certain set of rules.
Yes I got a copy of that book also, plus his commentary on the torah.
A quick note before I get to your post: not sure if you've checked this article out by Theodore J. Lewis, but I think you might find it extremely useful in the subject we're discussing: "`Athtartu's Incantations and the Use of Divine Names as Weapons", from JNES Vol. 70, No. 2 (October 2011), pp. 207-228. It raises some interesting views on "the Name" (it starts with an examination of "`Athtartu Name of Ba`lu" and also examines Yahweh).
I've uploaded a copy to box for you if interested, in case you don't have access: https://app.box.com/s/2swnu5hufhkr95nkzy5w.
I would be interested in your opinion on his conclusions.
Thanks for the link! I've downloaded it and will read it as soon as I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I've started through Biblical Ambiguities. Very interesting so far! I especially agree with his critique of post-modernism's refusal to find meaning (pp. 5-7), and his observation that mirrors my misgivings concerning some of Sommer's conclusions:
Nowhere in Tanakh are we informed that literal statements about the deity are impossible because of transcendence or any other divine characteristic....
...the act of classifying a phrase as metaphorical frequently turns out to be a modern-made smoke screen to obfuscate truths the interpreters would rather not confront when it comes to the religion(s) of biblical literature.
(p. 11)
Yeah, I've always found that proposition kinda laughable. I'm glad Aaron takes those scholars to task. You'll note he lumps Korpel and de Moor together in that critique as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Relate to the above work, I've been working through a recent thesis by Paul Cho (too many works, too little time!), and besides the main attraction of the work it devotes a large section of the beginning to the use of metaphor, Aristotle's original understanding of it and how he applies it to the Sea imagery in the HB: The Sea in the Hebrew Bible: Myth, Metaphor and Muthos (Harvard 2014). Available here: The Sea in the Hebrew Bible: Myth, Metaphor, and Muthos
That looks very interesting as well. Thanks for the heads up!
I agree, Friedman did a very good job of making an intro to the documentary hypothesis. It was a very easy and fast read.
You also mentioned Joel Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis and stated that it was the best book to date on the subject. I think I will have to pick up a copy of that one also.
My copy was his latest where he changed it from Jeremiah to Baruch ( which he states he did). I am a little better then half way through scribal cultures and have seen where Toorn's states that Deuteronomy is composed of 4 different writings.
Yes, both the documentary hypothesis and scribal culture are interesting stuff, specially to me as this is a new field of study for myself. I have stated for years that the bible is made up of what people believed at the time and that we can see their progression of belief throughout the bible. Both the documentary hypothesis and scribal cultures backs up what I have stated. The thing is that just because someone believes something and puts it in writing does not make that belief in writing correct.
For instance P and D have a very different view of God, P seems to be based upon judgment and that we need to go to the priests (aaronite priest) to make atonement for sins, while D J E seem to speak mostly about forgiveness and mercy and that people can go to any Levite. To me it looks like a power struggle to get people to serve God in a way that conforms to a certain set of rules.
Yes I got a copy of that book also, plus his commentary on the torah.
Yeah, I've always found that proposition kinda laughable. I'm glad Aaron takes those scholars to task. You'll note he lumps Korpel and de Moor together in that critique as well.
Yes, I noticed that Korpel (thus, by being a student of de Moor, implicating him as well to some degree) came up pretty quickly heh heh. She just can't catch a break!
Their recent work Adam, Eve, and the Devil had me a bit excited, but hesitant, but I ordered it anyways. When I found at that their theory was based on a new(ish) reading of KTU 1.107 and 1.100 (I didn't have access to "East of Eden" in ZAW 1983 at the time - still don't), I was kind of annoyed. In an opposite vein of Aaron's critique, they seem to have gone the exact opposite route: taking idiomatic and metaphorical phrases in an incantation text and reaching what they feel is a quite definite myth concerning a tree of life, Adammu and his wife (gods), Horon as the serpent and the loss of immortality of Adammu. While it probably is a sort of para-mythic text, I find their conclusions based too much on the Hebrew Bible's "Paradise Myth" as their starting point. I personally find, from a cursory reading of 1.107, that it may bear connotations of an incantation to cure a sexual disfunction (whether impotence, an STD or barrenness I haven't really researched it) and that the snake bite may be the metaphor - but I haven't really studied it in depth. and this is probably incorrect - but various phrases suggested it to me.
I'm honestly pleased with the amount of useful information in the work, but strongly disagree with their conclusions. It really is an excellent work if one ignores the entire point of the book heh heh!
I haven't read the 2nd work, but finally read the Farwell to the Yahwist? I still feel that the last several essays in the work do a fine job of throwing doubt on the very methodological approach of Schmid and Rendtorff before him: their critiques may apply to von Rad and Noth's theories, but neither of the latter were the end-all of the discussion to begin with and can be critiqued in their own right. Have you checked out J. Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (ABRL 2012)? He does a fine job of taking the European "School" to task while demonstrating the viability of the Elohistic Source as well, among that poor beleaguered Yahwist. He takes an approach that is not entirely dependent on the usual grounds, but is more on narrative integrity.
Regardless, it is good to see challenges that can help refine our view of the composition of the Hebrew Bible - but I found myself agreeing with Van Seters in Farewell, even if I don't agree with his own approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Thanks Daniel, that second one is pretty pricy, I think I will just start with the first one.
Yeh, some of these books are produced by publishers that aren't expecting to make much money for their efforts, so their prices end up extremely prohibitive - even for the scholars they are designed to be read by! Unless one has access from a University, it can be extremely problematic to keep abreast with certain subjects. That's why I'm a firm believer in good ol' Libgen.org for certain things.... I just wish that with the purchase of a physical copy, an ebook copy would be provided as well at no additional charge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that second one is pretty pricy, I think I will just start with the first one.
