Firedragon-2
Member
Poor scholarship? Why? Dont you think the four schools of thought are utterly different in reading? Even in theological points of view?
But I would like to hear your scholarship on this.
-
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!
Documentary Hypothesis
- Thread starter Firedragon-2
- Start date
Poor scholarship? Why? Dont you think the four schools of thought are utterly different in reading? Even in theological points of view?
But I would like to hear your scholarship on this.
Firedragon-2
Member
Hmm. let me ask you something brother. Do you think Isaac ibn Yashush was an atheist?
Atheists have their own ideology, but scholarship cant be just put aside like that blaming on atheism. And you are wrong. This was not atheistic scholarship, it was just people. Mostly Christian and Jewish. Also, just because one is an atheist, you cant blame it on atheism. I know all of us maybe bias, but you cant make presumptions and base your scholarship on that? You have to have reasoning.
There is a lot of issues in the pentateuch when it comes to the assumption that it was was the Torah written by Moses, even Jews were analysing it.
I can consider that none of it was written by Moses, which is what the Documentary Hypothesis details in its analysis of the texts.
Well, the question isn't whether the texts were written by a single person. They clearly were not. The issue is whether there were several distinct documents that were then merged, whether there were 'fragments' that then were merged, or whether there was a 'core' document that was then supplemented by other fragments.
There is also the question of whether the Yahwist and Elohist portions were original works or compilations of earlier works. I also find it interesting to look at the surrounding Canaanites and other cultures as a guide to why various prohibitions were made (as a way of signaling national identity).
The other thing that is clear is that most of the writing and compilation was done late: well after 700BC and possibly as late as the Hellenistic period (although the earlier Persian period seems more likely).
Wikipedia has a nice overview.
Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia
There is also the question of whether the Yahwist and Elohist portions were original works or compilations of earlier works. I also find it interesting to look at the surrounding Canaanites and other cultures as a guide to why various prohibitions were made (as a way of signaling national identity).
The other thing that is clear is that most of the writing and compilation was done late: well after 700BC and possibly as late as the Hellenistic period (although the earlier Persian period seems more likely).
Wikipedia has a nice overview.
Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia
Earthling
David Henson
There's nothing unreasonable about that being conjectural.
Earthling
David Henson
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you explain to me what the "four schools of thought are? Typically I think theology is nonsense. Something that sounds as pretentious as "four schools of thought" to explain the Bible is not likely to impress me.
Because you are not a trained scholar, and you don't see it, therefore it's nonsense? All of your arguments boil down to this. You can't see it, you can't comprehend it, it doesn't fit how you believe, therefore everyone else is stupid.
I think the answer is quite obvious as to the reason for all of this. And you will never see it because it entails a critical and honest self-examination, which starts with an act of the will, humbling itself in saying, "I don't know. Teach me." The truth is never found through fear, but through a humble openness to truth and knowledge. Anything short of that, is a refusal of faith.
Last edited:
Earthling
David Henson
You can consider . . . meaning . . . conjecture.
Earthling
David Henson
Tell me what the documentary theory is.
Earthling
David Henson
Never heard of him.
So what?! Are you not aware of the Jewish and Christian propensity for apostasy? All you have to do is read the Bible. I mean, that's like saying to me, you know, Judas was an apostle so he must have had the right idea, or the Pope supports pederasty and child molestation so there must be something to it. It's stupid. Why do I have to keep saying the word stupid?! Huh?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Earthling
David Henson
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please? (I'm guessing there is no way you will do that.)
Earthling
David Henson
Is it when you look in the mirror? Just askin.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Only if one of you are standing beside me.
Edit to add. When I say people are stupid I can hardly escape the fact that I'm a person. I can be as stupid as the next person. In these cases I'm referring to the ideas that are presented. I can't understand how people can entertain them.
Last edited by a moderator:
'Arguing from ignorance' is not evidence. Objective verifiable evidence for aliens, unicorns, Chinese dragons, or Bigfoot, and therefore I have no reason to believe they are real.
I do not say that I am absolutely certain such documents exist, but the evidence at present says no, Also abundant evidence that the Pentateuch is an edited and redacted compilation from different sources, and not the same author confirms the present academic view of the history and origins of the Pentateuch.
The present models of origins compile aspects of the documentary, fragmentary, and supplimentary models as the archaeological text research knowledge increase.
Most scholars today do not accept the documentary hypothesis as a model for the explanation of the origin of the Pentateuch. They actually support an editing, redacting, and compiling process from different sources after ~1000 to 700 BCE.
Last edited:
Basic reading of the texts as well as attention to word usage and perspective is quite enough to demonstrate this. Even watching when YHVH is used as opposed to Elohim is enough to show that something strange is going on. But putting the texts into a cultural and historic context is demonstrative here.
This is the exact same technique used for *any* other historical document, ancient or modern. It is quite reliable when done by an expert.
This sentence makes no sense.
A hypothesis supported by evidence is not a conjecture, no matter how desperately you want it to be.
I asked a simple question, given the textual, archaeological and genetic evidence I have presented, why should I not accept the conclusion that the early parts of the Pentateuch were compiled in the 7th century?
Earthling
David Henson
Because you weren't there. Producing a well thought out paper and lists of scholars that speculate on the subject doesn't change it from being conjecture. You say something like Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. We don't know who wrote it or when exactly . . . is conjecture. So a hypothesis supported by evidence is more often than not, conjectural.
At one point higher critics took the same position on Egyptian slaves. It couldn't have been. No evidence for it. Then they found evidence for it.
Earthling
David Henson
Your consideration is conjectural. Speculation, surmise, opinion, guess, infer, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, suppose.
Got it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is unlikely that they do exist because they have not been found. Add that to the mythical parts of the Exodus story and that places a huge burden of proof upon those that believe they were historical in any way at all.