-
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!
Friedman in defense of the Documentary Hypothesis
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Interesting conclusion from the source cited:
From: Current thought about the Documentary Hypothesis | Richard Elliott Friedman
"Tigay discusses why it is called the Documentary Hypothesis in his introduction, referring to its hypothetical methodology (p. 2). Really, it is long past time for us to stop referring to it as a hypothesis. The state of the evidence is such that it is now—at the very least—a theory, and a well established one at that. To my mind, in the absence of any proper refutation of its strongest evidence, it is fact."
From: Current thought about the Documentary Hypothesis | Richard Elliott Friedman
"Tigay discusses why it is called the Documentary Hypothesis in his introduction, referring to its hypothetical methodology (p. 2). Really, it is long past time for us to stop referring to it as a hypothesis. The state of the evidence is such that it is now—at the very least—a theory, and a well established one at that. To my mind, in the absence of any proper refutation of its strongest evidence, it is fact."
It remains a hypothesis, a theory (the most probable solution at present). It can never become a proven fact as it is not possible to make the past present, the only possibility is a reconstruction.
In his analysis of the documentary theory Peter Ellis presents a color chart denoting each source through the Pentateuch. That's not to say the Yahwist material originated with the this writer but his interpretation in light of his own time of the already existing traditions.
What I am able to gather from the article is that there is a tendency for critics to come up with the argument that there is a lack of other texts which have been developed by documentary operations. Specifically one complaint mentioned is that "There are no ancient parallels to the Torah," implying there is no way to verify the documentary hypothesis. Then it says that these claims do not have any perch. It also says that other documents have been found to have undergone a similar process.
"...Much of the criticism of the Documentary Hypothesis comes from people who are not actively involved in the research. So the argument that there are no ancient Near Eastern literary parallels was easy for them. They could just say there are no parallels—without having to produce anything. But the authors of this book were willing to do the research, and they showed that there are in fact parallels...."
It sounds interesting if a little beyond me.
"...Much of the criticism of the Documentary Hypothesis comes from people who are not actively involved in the research. So the argument that there are no ancient Near Eastern literary parallels was easy for them. They could just say there are no parallels—without having to produce anything. But the authors of this book were willing to do the research, and they showed that there are in fact parallels...."
It sounds interesting if a little beyond me.
I realize it is not 'fact.' I gave the reference to show how convinced the author was of the Documentary Hypothesis. Though theories are not proven, they are falsified beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe the Documentary Hypothesis is a theory falsified beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is likely that yes, there were of course already existing traditions, but that does not detract from the Documentary Hypothesis. The evidence concludes that some of the existing traditions are from Canaanite/Ugarit and Babylonian sources.
Last edited:
Magus
Active Member
Have you ever read the Book of Genesis, no way that was written by one author, it's obviously multiple books, but the flaw with the documentary hypothesis are the ridiculous dates and use of terms like 'Post-Exilic' and 'Pre-Exilic'.
( 1 Chronicles is interpolated in Genesis , as the 'Book of Generations' ).
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.
1 Chronicles 1:9
And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
Genesis 10:7
And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
Genesis 25:3
And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan
Genesis 10:26
And Joktan begat Sheba ... and Havilah
Schizophrenic author?
( 1 Chronicles is interpolated in Genesis , as the 'Book of Generations' ).
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.
1 Chronicles 1:9
And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
Genesis 10:7
And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
Genesis 25:3
And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan
Genesis 10:26
And Joktan begat Sheba ... and Havilah
Schizophrenic author?
I think the traditions of Israel are an adaption of the form of other traditions, but not the content, such as the Gen creation myth and that of Babylonian creation myth.
From the Deuteronomist tradition,
Yahwist tradition
Yahwist tradition.
The ancient oral traditions, from both northern and southern kingdoms, were written before the Exile. These were gathered, compiled by the final redactor during the Babylonian Exile and the Pentateuch received its final form. Genesis was an afterthought, its purpose to show the origin of and God's purpose for the people Israel.
Magus
Active Member
I have being studying the Babylonian exile for quite some time and it doesn't make any sense at all, specially the way it's described in Ezra , but studying Herodotus, they was no Babylonian Exile but a Persian exile.
Darius I - Human trafficking ( Herodotus 3:97 ), 100 Iberian ( Hebrew) boys
were sent to Darius I as gifts, these were made into colonists in Palestine and Elephantine.
The Old Testament anachronistically refers to this Persian period throughout Genesis, Kings and Isaiah ( directly referring to Cyrus) and the forged Decree supposed to have written by Cyrus in Ezra 1:2 , this was the Covenant with Abraham whom already possessed the Torah/Commandments
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws ( Torah ) .
Who then was writing this?
-
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Herodotus has a reputation of being unreliable.
Because of the Persian conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great. But the southern kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians which began the Exile. It is Cyrus who allowed the Jews to go home.
From the 'J' tradition.
Magus
Active Member
Historical fiction, the Bible does distinguish 'Jews' and 'Hebrews', the captives are known as Hebrews, which derives from Ἰβηρία ( Iberia ) an endonym of Colchis .
-Herodian History
The tribes living in the southern Colchis Tibareni, Mossynoeci, Macrones, Moschi, and Marres were incorporated into the 19th Satrapy of Persia, while the northern tribes submitted “voluntarily” and had to send to the Persian court 100 girls and 100 boys every five years.
Herodotus does not back up the historical fiction in the book of Ezra, are you aware, that Ezra was split into 2 books 'Ezra-Nehemiah' and it's not even written in chronological order
Ezra 1. Edict of Cyrus; Sheshbazzar brings the temple treasure.
1 Esdras 4:47-56; 62-5:6. Darius approves Zerubabel to return.
Ezra 2:1-4:5. Zerubabel returns and begins the work opposed by adversaries.
Ezra 5-6. A letter is sent to Darius and the decree of Cyrus found; the temple is built and dedicated on the 3rd of the twelfth month in the sixth year of Darius.
Ezra 4:6. An objection is raised in the time of Xerxes.
Ezra 7-8. In the 7th year of Artaxerxes, Ezra comes to Jerusalem with a letter of authority from the king and men gathered on route.
Nehemiah 7:70-8. In the seventh month Ezra read the law and introduced the festival of booths.
Ezra 9-10. Ezra stops mixed marriages.
Nehemiah 9-10. Mixing ceases on the 24th; the author gives Ezra a long composed speech; a covenant is sealed by Nehemiah and others; spearation is again confirmed and a pledge to give a third of a shekel followed by an added justification of it.
Ezra 4:6-23. Adversaries demand a letter to Artaxerxes and he stops any further work on the walls until the time of Darius.
Nehemiah 1-7:69. In the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah comes as governor and repairs the walls of Jerusalem against opposition; he implements social and economic reform.
Nehemiah 11-13. Lists of people are followed by a retrospective look by Nehemiah at his second tour of duty during which the walls were dedicated, apparently in the reign of Darius II.
Religious history is history recounted for a moral or doctrinal purpose. Unlike the profane historian (Herodotus) the religious historian does not compose his history merely to leave a record of past events. He writes in order to instruct or inspire his readers. For him history is but a means not an end. And he takes liberties with the events of the past which would not be justified if he purposed merely to leave a record of the past. From material at his disposal he chooses what will serve his purpose, and omits what will not. He recounts historical events with a freedom and elaboration that would never be considered proper in a modern historian. His history is more incomplete than false. Josue, Judges, Samuel, Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Esdras and Nehemias, 1 Machabees are religious histories written after this manner.
What is presented in the Prophets is a continuous dialogue between God and His people, this is the background for the inspired message of the Prophets.
It is foolishness to critique religious history with the same criteria as profane history.
Magus
Active Member
It seems the Torah, Samuel and Kings are a dialogue between a God(s) and Hebrews, but the prophetic books, just as Jeremiah, Ezra, Isaiah are rather different, in which they focus on Persian politics and they identify King Cyrus as a Messiah, Shepherd or a God-man , the Book of Esther, which are based on historical figures found in Herodotus, Mardonius (Marduk) and Artazostre (Ester) and Atossa ( Hutaosā) (Hadassah that is Esther 2:7 )
Were the Persian behind the authorship of the Old Testament, Ezra did come to Jerusalem, with the authority of Persia to scribe the Law of Moses ( Torah Mesha) ( or is that Ahura Mazda)
are these Jews or Zoroastrians.
If the OT is a type of history, that Who's history is it ? Canaanite history or Persian history or who is the target audience.