Old Testament Texts / Another Look
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 3.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2012, 01:33 AM
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
Hey Bucky, you've written that

"Because Genesis is a conflation of J-1, the Yahwist-1 source, with J-2, E, and P." which is the "4 source
hypothesis."

I assume "J1" is the same thing as the "Yahwist-1 source?", no 2 is 'J-2", no 3 is "E", no 4 is "P?"

Could you explain who and what theses sources are? I did watch the videos, but I ain't got it straight yet. Or...could you direct us to a site that correctly explains it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2012, 04:42 AM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2012 09:13 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
(23-12-2012 01:33 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey Bucky, you've written that

"Because Genesis is a conflation of J-1, the Yahwist-1 source, with J-2, E, and P." which is the "4 source
hypothesis."

I assume "J1" is the same thing as the "Yahwist-1 source?", no 2 is 'J-2", no 3 is "E", no 4 is "P?"

Could you explain who and what theses sources are? I did watch the videos, but I ain't got it straight yet. Or...could you direct us to a site that correctly explains it?

I sort of explained some of it in : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...olden+Calf
There are many books on the Documentary Hypothesis, the two sited at the end of that post are quite good. If you want a long type of class, there is the free Yale class from a Jewish scholar at http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies .
Deborah was the first of the actual historical Judges who we know for sure existed. She attempted to unify the tribes to confront the threats of the international invasions and other local threats.
Another good author is Israel Konol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Knohl

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2013, 03:29 AM
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
There is another hook on Genesis 1.

You can see a few motifs in action.

God speaks things in to existence - let there be light and there is light - = action by Fiat
God also does work - God made the firmament - = action by effort

The 'Days' have been added - can be seen Gen 1:9-13, where God creates seas and then plants, should have been separate 'efforts' there but the editors needed to keep it to seven days.

"The Sources of the Creation Story" by Julian Morgenstern available at archive.org is quite heavy going but you do not need hebrew to get a good feel of a persuasive argument.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Baud2Bits
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baud2Bits's post
03-10-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
(03-09-2012 08:27 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  and how Paul didn't write the letters attributed to him since he was actually illiterate
I know this post is a year old, but do you have a source on that? I know that there are several books attributed to Paul that he didn't write, and several are disputed, but I thought that there were something like seven attributed to a single author (who might as well be Paul). Did you mean that he simply dictated them instead of writing them?


(03-09-2012 08:27 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  and how the entire bible was essentially assembled by committee at the Council of Gnicea.
Actually, that wasn't done in the Council of Nicaea. From my understanding, that myth was largely spread by The DaVinci Code, of all things. That being said, while biblical canon was not established in the first Council of Nicaea, the process also wasn't complete by then.

First Council of Nicaea misconceptions
Development of the Christian biblical canon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
04-10-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
Thanks for the share "Bucky Ball".

(12-09-2012 10:17 PM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  <snip>
It is a change of heart *1. If you are honest with yourself, you will realise that deep down it is rebellion *2. <snip>
He invites each one of us to repent of sin and come to Him, accepting Him as Lord of our lives. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comments on Matt 11:28 *3 "Those who come to Christ aright, come as sinners, to a full, suitable, able, and willing Saviour; venture their souls upon him, and trust in him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows his willingness to save, and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds."

*1 : I prefer the therm "changement of opinion" in place of "change of heart" because the faith is a psychological stuff in your brain.
*2 : How can you know that we aren't honest with ourself ? are you in ours brains ? I have a question for you : Why I'm happiest since my deconversion ?
*3 : I didn't verified if this verse is authentical. But I would like to know if you made researches to know "which verses are authentical and which verses aren't authentical".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 09:29 PM
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
(03-10-2013 01:24 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(03-09-2012 08:27 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  and how Paul didn't write the letters attributed to him since he was actually illiterate
I know this post is a year old, but do you have a source on that? I know that there are several books attributed to Paul that he didn't write, and several are disputed, but I thought that there were something like seven attributed to a single author (who might as well be Paul). Did you mean that he simply dictated them instead of writing them?


(03-09-2012 08:27 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  and how the entire bible was essentially assembled by committee at the Council of Gnicea.
Actually, that wasn't done in the Council of Nicaea. From my understanding, that myth was largely spread by The DaVinci Code, of all things. That being said, while biblical canon was not established in the first Council of Nicaea, the process also wasn't complete by then.

First Council of Nicaea misconceptions
Development of the Christian biblical canon

Paul is traditionally credited with writing thirteen of the twenty-seven titles in the New Testament. All scholars admit that other parties who used Paul’s name to give them credibility wrote a number of “his” letters, and they were then attributed to Paul. This was a common practice of the time, and was, in fact, forgery. Many scholars claim only the following letters are genuine: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus probably aren’t genuine. Hebrews is universally recognized as not genuine. The doubtful letters, including Hebrews, are labeled as “deutero-Pauline.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...epistles).

It’s thought he wrote his first surviving letter, to the Thessalonians, in 50–51 CE and his last enduring dispatch to an individual named Philemon, in 61–63 CE. Anonymous reporters penned the deutero-Pauline posts, probably in the early second century.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
Thanks for the info on this thread, ever since I've became an atheist I've developed an intense curiosity about how the biblical texts came to be written. It is quite astounding the obvious plagiarism from other myths and the real explanations for redundant and contradictory texts usually emanate from these tribal internecine struggles. It's so obvious now that I've gained a better understanding of it.

And it's so laughable when I see the apologists doing their word ballet to explain it.

The tree of delusion is nourished by the vague promises and skewed perception of prayer. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
(29-06-2014 10:13 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Thanks for the info on this thread, ever since I've became an atheist I've developed an intense curiosity about how the biblical texts came to be written. It is quite astounding the obvious plagiarism from other myths and the real explanations for redundant and contradictory texts usually emanate from these tribal internecine struggles. It's so obvious now that I've gained a better understanding of it.

And it's so laughable when I see the apologists doing their word ballet to explain it.

Thanks. It's been very useful to have (even just for myself) as a reference. You might be interested in this one : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s
I think it brings out even more the "internecine" squabble thing. The two kingdoms HATED each other, and it's EVERYWHERE when you start looking for it. I think I referenced a couple good books at the end of it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 08:04 PM
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
(29-06-2014 10:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2014 10:13 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Thanks for the info on this thread, ever since I've became an atheist I've developed an intense curiosity about how the biblical texts came to be written. It is quite astounding the obvious plagiarism from other myths and the real explanations for redundant and contradictory texts usually emanate from these tribal internecine struggles. It's so obvious now that I've gained a better understanding of it.

And it's so laughable when I see the apologists doing their word ballet to explain it.

Thanks. It's been very useful to have (even just for myself) as a reference. You might be interested in this one : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s
I think it brings out even more the "internecine" squabble thing. The two kingdoms HATED each other, and it's EVERYWHERE when you start looking for it. I think I referenced a couple good books at the end of it.

BB. This may take the thread in a slightly different direction and perhaps it has been discussed already, my apologies if it already has, but I'm having an online debate on the topic of the Book of Daniel and when it was written. My understanding is that it was written much later than most bible nuts think and many prophecies are written after the fact. One bone of contention is the reference to Darius the Mead and Darius the Great and whether these were two different people living at separate times. Do you have references I can cite with this information as most of the information online is from the perspective of bible believers and therefore complete rot.

"If things aren't funny anymore then they're exactly what they are and life is just one long dental appointment interrupted occasionally by something exciting like waiting or falling asleep" Jason Robards in A Thousand Clowns
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 10:05 PM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2014 06:23 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Old Testament Texts / Another Look
(05-07-2014 08:04 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(29-06-2014 10:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thanks. It's been very useful to have (even just for myself) as a reference. You might be interested in this one : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s
I think it brings out even more the "internecine" squabble thing. The two kingdoms HATED each other, and it's EVERYWHERE when you start looking for it. I think I referenced a couple good books at the end of it.

BB. This may take the thread in a slightly different direction and perhaps it has been discussed already, my apologies if it already has, but I'm having an online debate on the topic of the Book of Daniel and when it was written. My understanding is that it was written much later than most bible nuts think and many prophecies are written after the fact. One bone of contention is the reference to Darius the Mead and Darius the Great and whether these were two different people living at separate times. Do you have references I can cite with this information as most of the information online is from the perspective of bible believers and therefore complete rot.

This is pretty much the consensus view of mainline scholarship.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...aniel.html
"Some people have referred to this motif of apocalypse literature as "prophecy after the fact," because by putting it in the mouth of a person who ostensibly lived a long time ago and letting that person tell the story it has the quality of predicting the future. Well, if he was right about those events, just think about what he's telling us about our own future and he gives us the confidence that we know what God has in store for us, that we know the plan of God for human history ... "

First of all, Daniel was excluded from the Hebrew canon, so we know it didn't exist in it's present form at that time, (or at the VERY LEAST, was not considered as having an importance equaling other texts) at 200 BCE. That is the very earliest it could have been written. It's really a three part text, and is an assemblage of 3 sources, at least. The "Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira" (the Book of Ecclesisiasticus) quotes every other book of the Jewish canon, but not Daniel, so it's dating is probably more like 180 BCE. It does contain older folk-tales from the Babylonian exile period, but it also has the "new" understanding of "prophesy as prediction" which was not always the case, but arose in the (same) Apocalyptic period. (There was a shift in the understanding of "prophesy" from "advice to the people of the SAME day" to prediction of halcyon days, and bad outcomes.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278
It's very obvious in Chapter 11, where the writer obviously KNEW Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the King of Syria, but did not know about his death, the time period it was written in. The writer knew the armed campaigns Antiochus made in Egypt, in 169 and 167 BCE, the sacking of the temple, and the setting up of the "abomination of desolation" and how they set up the stronghold inside Jerusalem called Akra. There is no way someone in 500-600 BCE could possibly have known that stuff. But the author missed the temple reconstruction and the death of Antiochus, or how it happened, in 164 BCE. The really important thing however is the "theology" and "philosophy" in Daniel, reflects the Apocalyptic period, and NOT the earlier period, which was significantly different. That's a kind of long subject to go into, but very interesting. It happened basically AFTER the Exile, because the social situation (pre-exile) had been disrupted, and new understandings had arisen, (which BTW had a direct impact on what was to soon follow, when the Way sect (Christianity) arose as an organic flow from precisely this period.
"The concepts of immortality and resurrection, with rewards for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, were raised for the first time in Judaism in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE" from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Authorship
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

http://www.bsw.org/biblica/vol-82-2001/d...-p244.html
This makes the most sense to me, as the first part was apparently written much eariler, or taken from something done much earlier, and this fits neatly with
having a Babylonian origin for the first few chapters.
Hope that helps. I will have to see what text books I have for the period. Pretty much anything by John J. Collins on the subject is good.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/chris...html#alias
http://infidels.org/library/modern/chris...aniel.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/DanielFailed...iesOf.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: