!	MODNOTE Split off from this thread. Stijn

Agrippina wrote:The only way that Solomon can be dated with even the slightest certainty is by comparing the dates that are verifiable from outside sources, ie. the records of the Assyrians and Babylonians who write about the subsequent kings, Rehoboam etc.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Dating%20the%20Reigns%20of%20the%20%20Kings%20of%20Judah%20and%20Kings%20of%20Israel.htm

Ancient sources don't say anything about David and Solomon, which may indicate that they were only minor kings, however the size of the walls of "David's City" in Jerusalem indicate that Solomon's palace, and the dating fits the biblical time of Solomon, may have been a considerable building. But nothing more than that. It is not even possible to verify that David wrote Psalms and Proverbs, those may also have been manufactured when the rest of the Bible was written. Take a look at the Documentary Hypothesis. There are a plethora of sites about it all over the internet.

As much as I agree with some of the stances on the Documentary Hypothesis it only concerns itself with the writing of the Pentateuch not the Bible or even the other books of the Old Testament. Next, it is flawed because it relies on a computer analysis of the text to try to peice together sections and "source criticism." The problem with this is the Pentateuch is a work of literature and ancient literature for that matter and being that the Pentateuch is the best case of ancient Jewish writing, alongside the other books of the Old Testament, it is hard to draw reliable conclusions. Tradition has always placed Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and why not? I have so far not heard a convincing argument aside from a skeptic argument with no facts just skepticism, about why Moses could not be the author of the Pentateuch?

Finkelstein says that modern archeologists no longer investigate Palestine with a Bible in their hands because the Bible is simply not consistent or dependable as a source. They rather use what they find, from science, to verify biblical accounts.

Of course. I get really annoyed with apologists who constantly seek archeological verification for the stories within the Bible. In my view I do believe that the Bible is historically reliable in the roughest sense, and archeology can indeed help piece the stories together either by affirming or correcting dates within the Bible. But to say that the Bible is historically accurate is a blowing it out of one's arse. Archeology has corrected many "claims" of the Bible.

willhud9 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:The only way that Solomon can be dated with even the slightest certainty is by comparing the dates that are verifiable from outside sources, ie. the records of the Assyrians and Babylonians who write about the subsequent kings, Rehoboam etc.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Dating%20the%20Reigns%20of%20the%20%20Kings%20of%20Judah%20and%20Kings%20of%20Israel.htm

Ancient sources don't say anything about David and Solomon, which may indicate that they were only minor kings, however the size of the walls of "David's City" in Jerusalem indicate that Solomon's palace, and the dating fits the biblical time of Solomon, may have been a considerable building. But nothing more than that. It is not even possible to verify that David wrote Psalms and Proverbs, those may also have been manufactured when the rest of the Bible was written. Take a look at the Documentary Hypothesis. There are a plethora of sites about it all over the internet.

As much as I agree with some of the stances on the Documentary Hypothesis it only concerns itself with the writing of the Pentateuch not the Bible or even the other books of the Old Testament. Next, it is flawed because it relies on a computer analysis of the text to try to peice together sections and "source criticism." The problem with this is the Pentateuch is a work of literature and ancient literature for that matter and being that the Pentateuch is the best case of ancient Jewish writing, alongside the other books of the Old Testament, it is hard to draw reliable conclusions. Tradition has always placed Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and why not? I have so far not heard a convincing argument aside from a skeptic argument with no facts just skepticism, about why Moses could not be the author of the Pentateuch?

The bits that he supposedly wrote about his own death for instance?

I make a little joke about the improbability of it in my book. How did he manage the materials for writing for one thing, and travelling in the desert, did he have scribes on a well-sprung wagon writing down his words? Also how did he know the stories, growing up as an Egyptian prince? Apart from that, the writing is so different, it can't have been one writer. I've read for instance the creation story several times, both versions, it's obvious they were different writers. In the same way you can see it with the gospels, different people telling the story in their own way, even in an English translation.

Just from a historical account point of view, is it necessary to state the obvious? The creation didn't happen that way, the flood, all the characters and the exile didn't happen, so why should the writer be the only historically correct thing anyway.

Finkelstein says that modern archeologists no longer investigate Palestine with a Bible in their hands because the Bible is simply not consistent or dependable as a source. They rather use what they find, from science, to verify biblical accounts.

Of course. I get really annoyed with apologists who constantly seek archeological verification for the stories within the Bible. In my view I do believe that the Bible is historically reliable in the roughest sense, and archeology can indeed help piece the stories together either by affirming or correcting dates within the Bible. But to say that the Bible is historically accurate is a blowing it out of one's arse. Archeology has corrected many "claims" of the Bible.[/quote]

Exactly. Archeology, rather than verify the biblical stories, disproves them, more and more.

willhud9 wrote:As much as I agree with some of the stances on the Documentary Hypothesis it only concerns itself with the writing of the Pentateuch not the Bible or even the other books of the Old Testament. Next, it is flawed because it relies on a computer analysis of the text to try to peice together sections and "source criticism." The problem with this is the Pentateuch is a work of literature and ancient literature for that matter and being that the Pentateuch is the best case of ancient Jewish writing, alongside the other books of the Old Testament, it is hard to draw reliable conclusions. Tradition has always placed Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and why not? I have so far not heard a convincing argument aside from a skeptic argument with no facts just skepticism, about why Moses could not be the author of the Pentateuch?

There's one grand misconception about the documentary hypothesis. I obviously cannot explain it any better than Richard Elliott Friedman, so I'll just quote him. The quote is from "The Bible With Sources Revealed" (2003), from a chapter called "Collection of Evidence", which lists 7 lines of evidence pointing towards 4 different sources for the Pentateuch.

Richard Elliot Friedman wrote:

3. Consistent Content
A) The Revelation of God's Name

This line of evidence is frequently described as a matter of terminology: namely, that different sources use different names for God. But that is not correct. The point is not that different sources have different names of God. The point is that the different sources have a different idea of when the name YHWH was first revealed to humans. According to J, the name was known since the earliest generations of humans. [...] But in E and P it is stated just as explicitly that YHWH doesn't reveal this name until the generation of Moses.

Relevant texts for J: Gen 4:1, 26
Relevant texts for E & P: Gen 17:1, Exod 6:2-3

Just in case: Friedman postulates 4 different sources: J (the Jahweh-source, since it refers to YHWH by that name from the very beginning), E (the Elohim source, because it states that YWHW doesn't reveal his name until the time of Moses), P (the Priestly source, because its main concern is priesthood) and D, which takes up most of Deuteronomy. In addition to that, Friedman postulates that a redactor combined the four sources into one text.

I could elaborate on Friedman's arguments, but a) it'd be beyond the scope of this thread and b) I'd have to re-read a couple of things myself.

stijndeloose wrote:

Snip

That is all handy and everything, and I know the document hypothesis very well, having written a paper at Liberty in affirming the bloody thing and saying that it was a reliable hypothesis, again, I am not so much disagreeing with the theory as critically assessing its claims.

Just the name of God is unimportant if Moses was in fact the author. He would have knowledge of YAHWEH and Elohim and thus could incorporate both names into Genesis, if he was in fact the author of the Book. Since each name of God gave a specific role or function as God, it would also effect the kind of literature presented. YAHWEH had more narration, while Elohim had more prose, etc. To me, aside from the fact, that there is no given evidence for Moses to have existed aside from the Bible(and so what?), it can be safe to assume that Moses could possibly be the author of the Pentateuch. The ONLY book in the Pentateuch that may actually not have been written by Moses would be Deuteronomy which was either written by Joshua, Samuel, or most likely Ezra. Which would relate to the Babylonian Captivity and the return to Judah.

The person who formulated the Documentary Hypothesis was Julius Wellhausen:

Wellhausen's theories about the development of the Old Testament are for Biblical criticism what Einstein is to physics. Wellhausen devised a new paradigm which explained many of the apparent inconsistencies in the Biblical texts. In the process, he upset many traditionalists who didn't like the concept that the early portions of the Bible were the product of four separate authors. Or that the Levitical code was redacted into the text by the priestly class at a very late date in the evolution of the Bible. Or that the Bible even evolved...
He has continued relevance. Wellhausen's theories have been built on by contemporary scholars. The current Christian fundamentalist movement emerged as a response to the Biblical criticism of Wellhausen and other 19th century scholars. Wellhausen remains difficult to fully grasp by all but those schooled in the ways of the Documentary hypothesis. However, brave readers willing to attempt an expedition through the Prolegomena will be richly rewarded, whichever side of the cultural divide you fall on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

The OT was assembled by priests during the Babylon Exile and the oldest evidence for it is from 600 BCE:

The scrolls were found in 1979 in Chamber 25 of Cave 24 at Ketef Hinnom (i.e. the shoulder of Hinnom), during excavations conducted by a team under the supervision of Gabriel Barkay, professor of archaeology at Bar-Ilan University.

The name YHWH is possibly from the Shasu who worshipped a god YHW, a group of people from Syria who settled in Canaan at a time around 1200 BCE with a general upheaval, thought to have been a slave/serf uprising which caused a settlement on the Highlands of ISrael. The settlement is identified by the "Israel Houses" a very simple kind of building and use of very plain pottery. The uprising is identified because the destruction is uniform and only found on the more ornate and larger houses in the previous settlements. Even though the worship of JHWH appears to arise at this time, there is also evidence of the worship of other gods, Baal and Ahserah, although the archeologists fail to comment on the worship of Molech which also still occurred at this time, because he is connected to child sacrifice. This is a link to the sacrifice of Isaac and why it is not seen as repugnant to the story writers.

willhud9 wrote:

stijndeloose wrote:

Snip

That is all handy and everything, and I know the document hypothesis very well, having written a paper at Liberty in affirming the bloody thing and saying that it was a reliable hypothesis, again, I am not so much disagreeing with the theory as critically assessing its claims.

Just the name of God is unimportant if Moses was in fact the author. He would have knowledge of YAHWEH and Elohim and thus could incorporate both names into Genesis, if he was in fact the author of the Book. Since each name of God gave a specific role or function as God, it would also effect the kind of literature presented. YAHWEH had more narration, while Elohim had more prose, etc. To me, aside from the fact, that there is no given evidence for Moses to have existed aside from the Bible(and so what?), it can be safe to assume that Moses could possibly be the author of the Pentateuch. The ONLY book in the Pentateuch that may actually not have been written by Moses would be Deuteronomy which was either written by Joshua, Samuel, or most likely Ezra. Which would relate to the Babylonian Captivity and the return to Judah.

With all due respect, either Moses, if he existed, wrote the Pentateuch in its entirety, or he didn't. If you wish to erect the hypothesis that he authored the earlier parts, but not Deuteronomy, then we're going to require some substantive evidence to support this hypothesis. We can certainly disregard Moses as the author of Deuteronomy, because if he was the author thereof, then he pulled off the remarkable trick of writing about his own death.

Indeed, taking a peek at this website, and in particular this summary of the Documentary Hypothesis, it becomes difficult to imagine that any single individual was responsible for all five books, and indeed, that hypothesis now enjoys much scholarly support. I don't claim to be an expert on this matter by any stretch of the imagination, but even an elementary perusal of the relevant sources suggests strongly that Moses was, if anything, a literary construct consisting of some fairly epic embellishments of the activities of an otherwise fairly ordinary human being.

Calilasseia wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

stijndeloose wrote:

Snip

That is all handy and everything, and I know the document hypothesis very well, having written a paper at Liberty in affirming the bloody thing and saying that it was a reliable hypothesis, again, I am not so much disagreeing with the theory as critically assessing its claims.

Just the name of God is unimportant if Moses was in fact the author. He would have knowledge of YAHWEH and Elohim and thus could incorporate both names into Genesis, if he was in fact the author of the Book. Since each name of God gave a specific role or function as God, it would also effect the kind of literature presented. YAHWEH had more narration, while Elohim had more prose, etc. To me, aside from the fact, that there is no given evidence for Moses to have existed aside from the Bible(and so what?), it can be safe to assume that Moses could possibly be the author of the Pentateuch. The ONLY book in the Pentateuch that may actually not have been written by Moses would be Deuteronomy which was either written by Joshua, Samuel, or most likely Ezra. Which would relate to the Babylonian Captivity and the return to Judah.

With all due respect, either Moses, if he existed, wrote the Pentateuch in its entirety, or he didn't. If you wish to erect the hypothesis that he authored the earlier parts, but not Deuteronomy, then we're going to require some substantive evidence to support this hypothesis. We can certainly disregard Moses as the author of Deuteronomy, because if he was the author thereof, then he pulled off the remarkable trick of writing about his own death.

Indeed, taking a peek at this website, and in particular this summary of the Documentary Hypothesis, it becomes difficult to imagine that any single individual was responsible for all five books, and indeed, that hypothesis now enjoys much scholarly support. I don't claim to be an expert on this matter by any stretch of the imagination, but even an elementary perusal of the relevant sources suggests strongly that Moses was, if anything, a literary construct consisting of some fairly epic embellishments of the activities of an otherwise fairly ordinary human being.

Very well, and as I said I am not arguing against the hypothesis. But Moses could still have been the author of the Pentateuch, albeit it had a high chance of being edited and perhaps altered in the time of Babylonian Captivity, but to deny Moses as a source is in my opinion miscalculated. Paul, a strong scholar and doer of the law, recognized Moses as the author of the Law. I do not believe we can so readily dismiss Moses as false.

No Moses could not have written anything. Look at his history. He was raised as an Egyptian prince, even if his mother (nurse) and sister (another nurse) had schooled him in his childhood about his history, he would have been culturally an Egyptian. If the Jews were indeed the Shasu, they were regarded as less than human by the Egyptians, he would not have mixed with them, and adopted their culture. Then look at the inconsistencies. He's a Jewish child (circumcised if you go with the Jewish business) but raised as an Egyptian, he would have been circumcised. He goes to Midian, the home of the Shasu to find a wife, and then he has to be circumcised, and has to remember to have his son circumcised. All nonsense, because the Egyptians were circumcising when Herodotus wrote his history about how they'd always done it.

Then the whole nonsense with the plagues. Every time the animals are killed, they miraculously come to life again to die again, and again, and again, and then he gets all the Egyptian eldest children killed again. These Egyptians are the people he's known as his "family' for all his life. Then they go off on their journey, taking nothing but the clothes on their backs, but they stop long enough to "borrow" the jewellery of the Egyptians. And the stories with inconsistencies go on and on like this. He destroys the golden calf, then grinds the gold into the drinking water, makes the people drink it and then miraculously has more gold to coat the Ark of the Covenant. It's all nonsense.

Only someone who heard word of mouth stories and a whole disparate group of people could have written the stories down. One person would have remembered about the circumcision and the different deaths of the animals and so on.

Calilasseia wrote:With all due respect, either Moses, if he existed, wrote the Pentateuch in its entirety, or he didn't. If you wish to erect the hypothesis that he authored the earlier parts, but not Deuteronomy, then we're going to require some substantive evidence to support this hypothesis. We can certainly disregard Moses as the author of Deuteronomy, because if he was the author thereof, then he pulled off the remarkable trick of writing about his own death.

Think biography but not auto-biography.
Probably written after his death by his contemporaries based on first hand knowledge.

Agrippina wrote:No Moses could not have written anything. Look at his history. He was raised as an Egyptian prince, even if his mother (nurse) and sister (another nurse) had schooled him in his childhood about his history, he would have been culturally an Egyptian. If the Jews were indeed the Shasu, they were regarded as less than human by the Egyptians, he would not have mixed with them, and adopted their culture. Then look at the inconsistencies. He's a Jewish child (circumcised if you go with the Jewish business) but raised as an Egyptian, he would have been circumcised. He goes to Midian, the home of the Shasu to find a wife, and then he has to be circumcised, and has to remember to have his son circumcised. All nonsense, because the Egyptians were circumcising when Herodotus wrote his history about how they'd always done it.

Then the whole nonsense with the plagues. Every time the animals are killed, they miraculously come to life again to die again, and again, and again, and then he gets all the Egyptian eldest children killed again. These Egyptians are the people he's known as his "family' for all his life. Then they go off on their journey, taking nothing but the clothes on their backs, but they stop long enough to "borrow" the jewellery of the Egyptians. And the stories with inconsistencies go on and on like this. He destroys the golden calf, then grinds the gold into the drinking water, makes the people drink it and then miraculously has more gold to coat the Ark of the Covenant. It's all nonsense.

Only someone who heard word of mouth stories and a whole disparate group of people could have written the stories down. One person would have remembered about the circumcision and the different deaths of the animals and so on.

Unless of course, he was called by God whilst he ran from Egypt to Midia But is of course thinking in the theological sense and as skeptics we cannot do that.

If you read it piece by piece and over and over, like I've done, it's fairly obvious it's not the work of one person. Just look at the Moses inconsistencies.

Yes Willhud, if he was called by God. But he hadn't met him yet, he met him in Midian, the home of the Edomite Shasu (BTW the descendants of Esau, his great-uncle or something).

willhud9 wrote:Just the name of God is unimportant if Moses was in fact the author. He would have knowledge of YAHWEH and Elohim and thus could incorporate both names into Genesis, if he was in fact the author of the Book. Since each name of God gave a specific role or function as God, it would also effect the kind of literature presented. YAHWEH had more narration, while Elohim had more prose, etc.

Of course. But the argument has little do to with the name YHWH itself. It's when god reveals it to mankind that's an indication. In the J source, it's known from the beginning. In the P & E sources, he doesn't reveal it until the time of Moses.

willhud9 wrote:To me, aside from the fact, that there is no given evidence for Moses to have existed aside from the Bible(and so what?), it can be safe to assume that Moses could possibly be the author of the Pentateuch.

Dubious, as there's not conclusive evidence that Moses even existed.

EDIT: that is not to say that there aren't any problems with the Documentary Hypothesis, nor to say that it's the Ultimate Theory of the Composition of the PentateuchTM, though.

Agrippina wrote:If you read it piece by piece and over and over, like I've done, it's fairly obvious it's not the work of one person. Just look at the Moses inconsistencies.

What's really cool about "The Bible with Sources Revealed" is that Friedmann marks each source with a different colour (and the redactor(s) with yet another colour). Each coloured text does (almost) read like a seperate book.

:ponder:

Even the name MOSES is likely a translation of MSES, which means son of in Ancient Egyptian, hence Ramsses, Tutmoses, etc.

MOSES, if he did exist, likely had an Egyptian god as the first part of his name...

.

Agrippina wrote:If you read it piece by piece and over and over, like I've done, it's fairly obvious it's not the work of one person. Just look at the Moses inconsistencies.

Yes Willhud, if he was called by God. But he hadn't met him yet, he met him in Midian, the home of the Edomite Shasu (BTW the descendants of Esau, his great-uncle or something).

Its also not the work of one translator. Nor is there one version of the Bible. That should be considered.

Of course I know that it's not the work of one translator or only one version.