• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The time of Judeo-Christian writings

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
I have some questions about this subject, such as.

1) What period of time did the writings of the OT cover and what period of time did the writings of the NT cover?

2) When were these writings physically generated?

3) Can the Scripture writings, relative to historical events, be corroborated and if so by what means?

4) Can the Egyptian Pharoes and the kings in the Bible, as well as other world leaders, be verified with secular means?

5) IF, your answers are indeed fact, can you provide links, sources that will corroborate your assertions? If not, then it will be construed as only an opinion.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Dating the Pentateuch writings:By the evidence the Pentateuch is an evolved text compiled and edited from different sources. Early sources of the compilation are Babylonian, Canaaite and Ugarit cuneiform tablets, and compiled into Hebrew with Hebrew cultural editions, and interpretations at some time after about 800 BCE. There is no evidence of Hebrew scripture before this, and only a few primitive Hebrew/Ugarite script before this. Scholars mostly describe these writings in there roughly the present form as written in the 6th and 5th century BCE.

The four source argument for the Pentateuch, YEDP.

Most scholars agree that the five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomycame from four sources, the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly source, each telling the same basic story, and joined together by various editors. Since the 1970s there has been a revolution in scholarship: the Elohist source is now widely regarded as no more than a variation on the Yahwist, while the Priestly source is increasingly seen not as a document but as a body of revisions and expansions to the Yahwist (or "non-Priestly") material. (The Deuteronomistic source does not appear in Genesis).



This brief, but more specific references and discussion to follow.
 
Last edited:

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
This brief, but more specific references and discussion to follow.


Very interesting, thanks for sharing, unfortunately, it is not likely that I will purchase the referenced books and the comments seem to only address #2).

I get the impression these are hypothesise, not necessarily indisputable facts, your thoughts?

"All three agree that the Torah is not a unified work from a single author (traditionally Moses) but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands. They differ on the nature of these sources and how they were combined. According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors")." Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

This verse seems to me as if Jesus is attributing the writing to Moses.

"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?" Mark 12:26 (NASB95)

John seems to suggest the same.

“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” John 1:45 (NASB95)

And Paul.

For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.” Romans 10:5 (NASB95)

“But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;” 2 Corinthians 3:15 (NASB95)
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
If you have an interest in this subject then you should verify it by doing research. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to take your interest seriously.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Very interesting, thanks for sharing, unfortunately, it is not likely that I will purchase the referenced books and the comments seem to only address #2).

I get the impression these are hypothesise, not necessarily indisputable facts, your thoughts?

"All three agree that the Torah is not a unified work from a single author (traditionally Moses) but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands. They differ on the nature of these sources and how they were combined. According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors")." Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

This verse seems to me as if Jesus is attributing the writing to Moses.

"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?" Mark 12:26 (NASB95)

John seems to suggest the same.

“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” John 1:45 (NASB95)

And Paul.

For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.” Romans 10:5 (NASB95)

“But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;” 2 Corinthians 3:15 (NASB95)

The above citations are the principle reason that most of the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses as the author. but scholarship and archaeological evidence does not support this.

I will follow with more on this discussion, and more specific references on individual scholars and archaeological evidence. Indisputable facts is a high nebulous bar to hold up. The archaeological and text evidence is good to support what I cited, but yes subject to revision as more evidence is found.

Instead of dealing with all the scripture of the Bible I will address the Pentateuch in detail.

The most comprehensive work and commentary on Genesis is Claus Westermann's three volume set of Genesis A Continental Commentary translated from German. I have these volumes and I may comment from them in the future.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This is a link to a rather lengthy article that seems to make a very good argument that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.


"What Evidence Proves That Moses Wrote The First Five Books Of the Old Testament? The Authorship of the Pentateuch"

https://www.jashow.org/articles/bib...oses-wrote-the-first-five-books-of-the-bible/

The reference you gave by John Ankerberg is the evangelical apologist argument relying almost exclusively on the internal text evidence for arguing the historical accuracy of the Bible. In this case the Pentateuch.

The scholars also rely on actual archaeological evidence or the lack there of, and the broader study of related cultures such as Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit, and linguistics.

First, those who compiled the Pentateuch from various source at some time after 1,000-800 BCE described Moses as the author to give the weight of authority, There are no texts of the Pentateuch that date before 600 BCE, and no known primitive Hebrew/Canaanite text prior to about 1,000 BCE.

Second, there is no claim by scholars that Hebrews were illiterate, just not any version of primitive Hebrew, nor any texts in Egypt attributed to Hebrews before ~1,000 BCE. Yes there are primitive alphabet letter texts found in 17th century Egypt and later, but these primitive alphabets bear no resemblance to Hebrew, The writing if any relationship is possible is with the development of Greek. Any link to the Hebrews is a far to much of a reach of conjecture to justify an agenda.

The bottom line is apologist arguments that references within the text justifying the historical accuracy of the text is 'begging the question' or a circular argument that the text justifies itself without significant archaeological evidence.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I am very interested in the archaeological evidence that would disprove Moses as being the author...with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that is.

Proving the negative is not logical, rational nor in the ability of any academic discipline such as archaeology, or academic Biblical scholarship. It is the evidence and research that develops the hypothesis for Biblical scholarship.

The simple fact is the absolute lack of archaeological evidence of authorship by Moses for the Pentateuch.

Only appealing strictly to the text justifying the text only, and the Holy Spirit justifies the belief does not represent a logical coherent argument outside the claim that 'faith' justifies the authorship and the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch.
 
Last edited:

Deidre

Well-Known Member
I have some questions about this subject, such as.

1) What period of time did the writings of the OT cover and what period of time did the writings of the NT cover?

2) When were these writings physically generated?

3) Can the Scripture writings, relative to historical events, be corroborated and if so by what means?

4) Can the Egyptian Pharoes and the kings in the Bible, as well as other world leaders, be verified with secular means?

5) IF, your answers are indeed fact, can you provide links, sources that will corroborate your assertions? If not, then it will be construed as only an opinion.

What do you base your faith on, as it is? I'm a former Christian, and the whole of my faith back then, was not based on objective facts. It was based on my own opinions and faith. If the Bible could be backed by objective historical facts as to the validity of Scripture writings, no one would need faith. It would be considered 'history,' then.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
1) What period of time did the writings of the OT cover and what period of time did the writings of the NT cover?

The exact period of time God wanted them to.

2) When were these writings physically generated?

When God wanted them to be.

3) Can the Scripture writings, relative to historical events, be corroborated and if so by what means?

By the scriptures themselves.

4) Can the Egyptian Pharoes and the kings in the Bible, as well as other world leaders, be verified with secular means?

Only if God wants them to be.

5) IF, your answers are indeed fact, can you provide links, sources that will corroborate your assertions? If not, then it will be construed as only an opinion.

God is my witness.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What do you base your faith on, as it is? I'm a former Christian, and the whole of my faith back then, was not based on objective facts. It was based on my own opinions and faith. If the Bible could be backed by objective historical facts as to the validity of Scripture writings, no one would need faith. It would be considered 'history,' then.

History is based more on archaeological evidence correlated with the text of the Bible and other ancient cultures and ancient literature,

The conclusion is that the Biblical text is set in history and not remotely accurate history,
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I have some questions about this subject, such as.

1) What period of time did the writings of the OT cover and what period of time did the writings of the NT cover?

2) When were these writings physically generated?

3) Can the Scripture writings, relative to historical events, be corroborated and if so by what means?

4) Can the Egyptian Pharoes and the kings in the Bible, as well as other world leaders, be verified with secular means?

5) IF, your answers are indeed fact, can you provide links, sources that will corroborate your assertions? If not, then it will be construed as only an opinion.
There are several posters who have studied history, linguistics and archeology extensively, although many don't seem to post anymore. Of those who I still see post, it might be beneficial to tag @Jayhawker Soule and @sayak83. Poster @LegionOnomaMoi and @fallingblood, and @Levite have some good posts regarding or indirectly relating to this topic if you care to comb through their posts, but they don't post anymore. There was a staff member who did masters studies regarding early christian writings/time period but i can't remember his name.

I think Jayhwaker would be a good person to ask about old posters as well that might have more information for you.

Best of luck in your research. Cheers.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The reference you gave by John Ankerberg is the evangelical apologist argument relying almost exclusively on the internal text evidence for arguing the historical accuracy of the Bible. In this case the Pentateuch.

The scholars also rely on actual archaeological evidence or the lack there of, and the broader study of related cultures such as Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit, and linguistics.

First, those who compiled the Pentateuch from various source at some time after 1,000-800 BCE described Moses as the author to give the weight of authority, There are no texts of the Pentateuch that date before 600 BCE, and no known primitive Hebrew/Canaanite text prior to about 1,000 BCE.

Second, there is no claim by scholars that Hebrews were illiterate, just not any version of primitive Hebrew, nor any texts in Egypt attributed to Hebrews before ~1,000 BCE. Yes there are primitive alphabet letter texts found in 17th century Egypt and later, but these primitive alphabets bear no resemblance to Hebrew, The writing if any relationship is possible is with the development of Greek. Any link to the Hebrews is a far to much of a reach of conjecture to justify an agenda.

The bottom line is apologist arguments that references within the text justifying the historical accuracy of the text is 'begging the question' or a circular argument that the text justifies itself without significant archaeological evidence.
@Ted Evans

While @shunyadragon continues his good coverage on the topic, I would post a few excerpts from an excellent book that talks about how historical investigation is done. The book is called "The pursuit of history" by John Tosh.

Here is an excerpt regarding what a primary source is and how they are to be used (or not used).

The distinction between primary and secondary sources, funda-
mental though it is to historical research, is rather less clear-cut than it might appear at first sight, and the precise demarcation varies among different authorities. By ‘original sources’ is meant evidence contemporary with the event or thought to which it refers. But how far should our definition of ‘contemporary’ be stretched? No one would quibble about a conversation reported a week or even a month after it took place, but what about the version of the same episode in an autobiography composed twenty years later? And how should we categorize an account of a riot written shortly afterwards, but by someone who was not present and relied entirely on hearsay? Although some purists regard the testimony of anyone who was not an eye-witness as a secondary source,1 it makes better sense to apply a broad definition but to recognize at the same time that some sources are more ‘primary’ than others. The historian will usually prefer those sources that are closest in time and place to the events in question. But sources more remote from the action have their own significance. The historian is often as much interested in what contemporaries thought was happening as in what actually happened: British reactions to the French Revolution, for example, had a profound influence on the climate of politics in this country, and from this point of view the often garbled reports of events in Paris which circulated in Britain at the time are an indispensable source. As this example suggests, to speak of a source as ‘primary’ implies no judgement of its reliability or freedom from bias. Many primary sources are inaccurate, muddled, based on hearsay or intended to mislead, and (as the next chapter will show) it is a vital part of the historian’s work to scrutinize the source for distortions of this kind. The distinction between primary and secondary is further complicated by the fact that sometimes primary and secondary material appear in the same work. Medieval chroniclers usually began with an account of world history from the Creation to the life of Christ, based on wellknown authorities; but what modern historians value them most for is the entries which they recorded year by year concerning current events. Equally a work can be primary in one context and secondary in another: Macaulay’s History of England (1848–55) is a secondary source whose reputation has been much undermined by modern research; but for anyone studying the political and historical assumptions of the early Victorian élite, Macaulay’s book, in its day a bestseller, is a significant primary source.


In the historian’s hierarchy of sources those that carry most weight are the ones that arise directly from everyday business or social intercourse, leaving open the task of interpretation. In every recent age men and women have sought to make sense of their times, and to interpret the pattern of events through books, broadsheets and newspapers. Such statements offer valuable insights into the mentality of the age, but for the historian they are no substitute for the direct, day-to-day evidence of thought and action provided by the letter, the diary and the memorandum: these are the ‘records’ of history par excellence. Historians wish to be as nearly as possible observers of the events in question; they do not want to deliver themselves into the hands of a narrator or commentator. The most revealing source is that which was written with no thought for posterity. Marc Bloch called this ‘the evidence of witnesses in spite of themselves’;2 it has all the fascination of eavesdropping.



I will add more if they might illuminate the study of history of texts.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?" Mark 12:26 (NASB95)
Tradition is not the same thing as fact, though.

I am very interested in the archaeological evidence that would disprove Moses as being the author
Hard for Moses to write about stuff after he died, though.

Also, he was raised as an Egyptian. Why would he know or care about Hebrew mythology? The only reason he ended up with Hebrews was murdering someone, after all. Had he followed what passed for due process in Egypt, none of his plot would've happened.

Also also (LOL), during the time of King Josiah, basically the bible complains that people didn't know the Word of God until a law book was found. Now, "a law book" isn't the same thing as 5 books, many of which cover stories and not just legalese. So where did the rest of it come from?

with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that is.
Do you want the Holy Spirit to tell you what sounds good to you or what happened in reality?

The exact period of time God wanted them to.
Nothing else interesting was going on in the rest of the world?

When God wanted them to be.
Or when the authors wanted them to be.

By the scriptures themselves.
No, but to compare them with historical evidence. Rameses II liked to brag about how epic he was against the Hittites, but the Hittites are like "Pffbt, that loser dropped everything and ran". Only archaeological evidence will determine who (if any) is telling the truth.

God is my witness.
But did you witness anything? God doesn't leave us His diary, after all.
 
Top