Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(02-06-2013 07:14 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I tend to disagree with some of the ideas of the documentary hypothesis as I follow the chiastic hypothesis. This is essentially that because there is a structure to the books in the Pentateuch, there is a reasonable reason to believe that it was written by one person. However, this person most likely drew on multiple traditions and viewpoints. Also there do appear to be pieces added here and there, but not to the extant that the documentary hypothesis proposes.

Well, since you have no qualification in the area, and you offer not a shred of evidence one way or the other, and scholars FAR more enlightened than you have proven yourself, I guess with no real argument, no one really cares what you say. Of course there is "structure". The GROUP that assembled it, made certain there was a structure. The fact that the correct parts were matched, when it was assembled together, proves nothing. Exactly what "extent" would prove or disprove it. Your statement is actually meaningless, as well as lacking any supportive evidence, and expertise.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-06-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
I'll be brief:

*JDEP scholars/BB have yet to suggest a logical motivation for the "collaborative" efforts that produced a Torah, other than "they needed a book of worship"

*The theory is counter-logical e.g. didn't the first few synagogues who used the texts notice the mythic structure, the reference to historical events long past, the "errors", etc?

*There is no empirical evidence of editing. In other words, no one can show the old forms of the books and their edited forms. All they can do is look at stylistic choices in Hebrew and make assumptions. We can "prove" there were four Shakespeares and 11 Einsteins by similar means.

*There are reasons besides "they could write" to discredit the theory. There are descriptions of structures that show that either the writers wrote earlier than secular scholars say or else the "editors" invented modern archaeology centuries before Christ. There are the admonitions against idols of Yahweh (10 commandments) and only one idol that might be Yahweh has been found in Israel. Of course, there is the fact that there were synagogues teaching the Mosaic law long before it was supposedly written.

*No one can explain, therefore, how it was that "Moses" was writen in 300 BCE and how the Septuagint was then distributed to thousands of synagogues (where Jews read Torah) by the 200s BCE.

*Etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2013 11:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(04-06-2013 01:10 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'll be brief:

*JDEP scholars/BB have yet to suggest a logical motivation for the "collaborative" efforts that produced a Torah, other than "they needed a book of worship"

*The theory is counter-logical e.g. didn't the first few synagogues who used the texts notice the mythic structure, the reference to historical events long past, the "errors", etc?

*There is no empirical evidence of editing. In other words, no one can show the old forms of the books and their edited forms. All they can do is look at stylistic choices in Hebrew and make assumptions. We can "prove" there were four Shakespeares and 11 Einsteins by similar means.

*There are reasons besides "they could write" to discredit the theory. There are descriptions of structures that show that either the writers wrote earlier than secular scholars say or else the "editors" invented modern archaeology centuries before Christ. There are the admonitions against idols of Yahweh (10 commandments) and only one idol that might be Yahweh has been found in Israel. Of course, there is the fact that there were synagogues teaching the Mosaic law long before it was supposedly written.

*No one can explain, therefore, how it was that "Moses" was writen in 300 BCE and how the Septuagint was then distributed to thousands of synagogues (where Jews read Torah) by the 200s BCE.

*Etc.

1. I never said they "needed a book of worship". Just SPJTJ lying again. Just proves SPJTJ has never really read anything legitimate about it, as they HAVE suggested and proposed all sorts of reasons for it. It's perfectly obvious, anyway. He just doesn't know what they are, as he's never studied the Bible. They needed a cultural organizational tool after the Exile to create and keep the post-exilic nation, North and South, bound together, to refashion the defeated people. It was NOT a "book of worship" It's was a TOOL for (attempted) political unification. A "national story". A 'National history". Ezra agreed to return with the book, from Exile, and had the letter from Artaxerxes, who thought, (obviously) Ezra would do what he wanted. They cooked it up in Exile, and there is no evidence for it before he introduced it in Ezra, and Nehhmiah 8. Ezra was a scribe, and the only other "law-giver", other than Moses. I realize you have never really read the Bible, but in Ezra and Nehemiah it describes the political steps made to refashion the nation, post exile. The FIRST time in human history the Torah of Moses is ever mentioned is Nehemiah 8, when Ezra reads it out, before the assembled nation, on the river bank, in the Fall. It was a LAW text. Not a "worship" book. Law is for "political cohesion". The entire OT is political. Maybe even your pea-brain can get that.

"The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian exilic period (c. 600 BCE) and that it was completed by the Persian period (c. 400 BCE)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

2. There were no "synagogues" that used it for many years, and no, they were mostly all illiterates. The priests had every reason to use it. Your premise is false. It's PERFECTLY logical.
Do you have any clue how long it took at that time to make even ONE copy of it, much less "thousands". What a joke you are. You know NOTHING of the ancient Near East.
The Jews did not "worship" communally until AFTER Ezra told them they HAD to, AFTER the (2nd) temple was rebuilt. How is it you know NO history ? Ezra (352 BCE), instituted the Great Assembly and instituted the Kaddish, Kedushah, Barechu, and the rest of the communal service (requiring the participation of a minyan or quorum of ten) as well as the obligation for individuals to participate in these services. Would be really nice if you would get yourself an education.

THEN, there arose both in Israel and the Diaspora places set aside to pray communally. Thus was born the “Place of Gathering”—"Beit Kenesset" in Hebrew, and "synagogos" in Greek.
The primary public worship experience remained the journey to Jerusalem to participate in and be inspired by the Temple service. Not "synagogue".

3. There are MOUNTAINS of editing evidence. Shakespeare's and Einstein's vocabulary and style did not change abruptly, every few pages, and chapters. You are a literary DOLT. You have no clue what you are even talking about, or denying. Just parroting the shit of the Far Fundie Right. You refuse to see what almost every scholar agrees upon, (the VAST majority), and what is right in front of your face. YOU are, by far, in the tiny minority here, SPJTJ. You and your Bible-code, and fortune-telling nonsense.

4. "There are the admonitions against idols of Yahweh (10 commandments) and only one idol that might be Yahweh has been found in Israel."

BULLSHIT. A complete lie. Baal. Ashera, (Yahweh's WIFE), and the god Sin, (which became Allah), to name just three. Idols of all three, WITH idols of Yahweh have been found, TOGETHER. There are three, (4 actually), and I didn't even have to think about it. Clearly your have not the foggiest notion about the subject, of which you attempt to speak, in utter ignorance. You should be fired. You are so incompetent. Nice try.

5. "distributed to thousands of synagogues (where Jews read Torah) by the 200s BCE."
There were never "thousands" of synagogues EVER. There probably aren't even "thousands" today. So now all you have to do is prove that piece of shit assertion.

Fail again, reverend.
Try harder next time.

(Maybe you should stick to plagiarizing little vignettes about your "challenged" family members).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-06-2013, 11:05 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Are you alright Bucky. You seem kind of angry

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 11:09 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(04-06-2013 11:05 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Are you alright Bucky. You seem kind of angry

Never better.
Impatient with ignoramuses, (ignorami ??) now and then.
Especially ones like SPJTJ who keep repeating the same nonsense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 10:44 AM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Sorry for not responding yet guys. I'm a little busy with work. I'll post later tonight.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
@BuckyBall
Sorry for calling you a bit angry, It just seemed your reaction was a little more ad-hominim then normal.

Quote:Well, since you have no qualification in the area, and you offer not a shred of evidence one way or the other, and scholars FAR more enlightened than you have proven yourself, I guess with no real argument, no one really cares what you say

I would just like to say that I find it funny that this website promotes thinking for yourself so much and yet when I say "you know what I think" the immediate reply is "NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK!":sadcryface:

Anyway I would first like to point out that I used to be a huge proponent of the documentary hypothesis until around mid January. So it isn't like I am some fundie ignoring evidence. My authority is mostly coming from my Biblical Literature professor (I'm in first year uni). Next year I will follow up the course with Biblical History. My teacher seems to know what he's talking about. He has a masters (I think theology) and also is the Hebrew and koine Greek professor. Also the fact that Erxomai knew about the chiastic theory should at least go some way to proving that I'm not just talking out my ass. Which is a lot harder then Ace Ventura made it look.

Quote:Of course there is "structure". The GROUP that assembled it, made certain there was a structure. The fact that the correct parts were matched, when it was assembled together, proves nothing. Exactly what "extent" would prove or disprove it.

The main thing I am arguing is that the structure that is present in the Bible seems to disagree with the documentary Hypothesis, at least compared to how "most" atheists seem to understand it (when I say most I mean that even on here, I've seen threads where this is how it is presented). I often see it argued that the pentateuch is nothing more than a patchwork of random pieces thrown together with a little bit of chronology thrown in to make it flow.

What I am trying to argue more of is that it is possible there were multiple traditions, in the same way there are philosophical works and theological works that exist in the catholic church yet look at God from a different way. This is obvious as it says that God gave the law to such and such and then continues with the narrative. This means that the law had to almost certainly exist before the narrative. However the amount of structure within these books tends to lean towards one author spending a significant amount of time organizing and pouring over notes to come up with an excellent piece of literature, even if we can't appreciate it in modern times. Much the same way Shakespeare's movement from chaos to order will fly over many heads today and that's only a five hundred year remove in our own language.

Quote:Your statement is actually meaningless, as well as lacking any supportive evidence, and expertise.

This was really more of an introductory post to let everyone know I'm in the conversation and where I stand. So I still haven't got to the meat of my argument. I just prefer this to be more like a real conversation.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TarzanSmith's post
05-06-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
As a crazy person to an assumed sane audience, there's a coupla Johnnies over here. Dodgy

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
@ Erxomai

First I'd like to apologize for taking so long to respond.

Quote:Chiasmus appears throughout both Old and New Testaments. Your reasoning leads to the implication that one person wrote the entire bible.

I would just like to point out from the start that in my biblical literature class we only covered up to Joshua.
Yes it is true that Chiasmus appear throughout the bible as it was a common literary structure of ancient Hebrew literature. Matthew is quite heavy with Chiasms as well. However there is a difference between Chiasms that tie a story together and ones that tie stories together. Much of the Pentateuch seems to be tying a single narrative together At least that is the way it was presented to me (I would also like to point out that I am trying to summarize a course worth of material into internet posts). My main disagreement with the documentary Hypothesis is that it takes different pieces of what to me seems to be a clearly written narrative and says they are from different sources. I will give an example in my next post to try and make myself clear. I kinda feel like I'm rambling a bit.

Quote:Also, chiastic structure shows how artificial the text of the bible is. It is not history, it is myth, like the stories of the Greek pantheon.

You mentioned that you were on your way to becoming a pastor, and from what I could tell you seemed to belong to one of the more reputable denominations, so I would assume that you can understand that there exists different senses of scripture. As a Catholic there is no requirement to believe that everything that the bible says happened is a historical fact, in fact it is somewhat discouraged. Although we believe that God does work through history it should be no test of faith to realize that someone in the narrative was not exactly as portrayed or even existed. I'm of the strong conviction that Job never existed and that the entire book is a great big parable. In response to this question I always like to quote one of my favorite authors. Mr. Farley Mowatt (who I am pretty sure is an agnostic if not an atheist) said that "Facts should not get in the way of the Truth".

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Sorry Guys I can't give you an example right now as I can't find my biblical literature anthology book. I will keep on looking.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: