Judaism: Book of Exodus neither written by Moses nor dictated by him

[Shad]

again, you must not have read why I made the references. I smell confirmation bias...
That's three misses in a row. Care to go for 4?

What you are smelling is a B/A in archaeology, knowledge of, practical experience in the field and the consensus within it.

You attempted to create a grey area by claiming a disagreement while ignorant of what the disagreement was. You are ignorant of their actually position but this didn't stop your attempts. You ignore archaeology since it renders your view nonsensical.

 

[rosends]

What you are smelling is a B/A in archaeology, knowledge of, practical experience in the field and the consensus within it.

Gawrsh...an actual BA in archaeology...that's so impressive. Sadly, no experience in critical reading. Those of us with multiple MA's have learned to pay attention to the text. And by multiple, I don't mean 2...

Before you dig any deeper, you might want to read what I actually wrote instead of deciding what you think I was saying because you think you know where I stand.

 

[Shad]

Gawrsh...an actual BA in archaeology...that's so impressive. Sadly, no experience in critical reading. Those of us with multiple MA's have learned to pay attention to the text. And by multiple, I don't mean 2...

Before you dig any deeper, you might want to read what I actually wrote instead of deciding what you think I was saying because you think you know where I stand.

Yes it is considering it makes me an expert in the field. I am working on my PhD in the relevant field I am talking about. A MA in another field does not mean you are capable of understanding let along talking on equal footing with someone educated in archaeology. Congratulation on your MA in a field which has nothing to do with archaeology /clap. Maybe I should as a person with a PhD in physics about my physical health since PhD means someone is capable in everything rather than only the field they have the PhD in...

I read what you post. First you attempt to ignore external evidence since it refuted your views. Secondly you cite people without any knowledge of their views of the Exodus as some sort of disagreement over the conclusion when in fact the conclusion is agreed upon namely the story is fiction itself. You cite someone that has never worked on sites for the period in question while assuming she has proven her own claims based on a complete lack of evidence for her views.

 

[rosends]

Yes it is considering it makes me an expert in the field. I am working on my PhD in the relevant field I am talking about. A MA in another field does not mean you are capable of understanding let along talking on equal footing with someone educated in archaeology. Congratulation on your MA in a field which has nothing to do with archaeology /clap. Maybe I should as a person with a PhD in physicals about my physical health since PhD means someone is capable in everything rather than only the field they have the PhD in...

That's about as useful as having a BA in a field of archaeology when the conversation is about literary analysis. Now run along junior and let the people who have skill in a relevant field have a conversation.

 

[Shad]

That's about as useful as having a BA in a field of archaeology when the conversation is about literary analysis. Now run along junior and let the people who have skill in a relevant field have a conversation.

Your field is irrelevant as a textual analysis if claiming the story is written by the claimed author in the text when the author is fictional. So keep going with your analysis of fiction which only produces false conclusions while ignoring the conclusion that has evidence. Your internalizing of the text is a useless exercise.

 

[rosends]

Your field is irrelevant as a textual analysis if claiming the story is written by the claimed author in the text when the author is fictional. So keep going with your analysis of fiction which only produces false conclusions while ignoring the conclusion that has evidence. Your internalizing of the text is a useless exercise.

Your assumption that the argument hinges on the externally validated existence of the author is irrelevant to a discussion about the internal consistency of the text as a valid determinant of the particular character of the author/narrator. Go regurgitate what some professor taught you. It doesn't smack of actual thought but it plays well, no doubt, in class.

 

[Shad]

Your assumption that the argument hinges on the externally validated existence of the author is irrelevant to a discussion about the internal consistency of the text as a valid determinant of the particular character of the author/narrator. Go regurgitate what some professor taught you. It doesn't smack of actual thought but it plays well, no doubt, in class.

Hilarious. So the DH is wrong, archaeology is wrong and well anything that proves your Orthodox views is wrong. Perhaps it is your fundamentalist views that are wrong. If external evidence proves the author is a fiction no amount of internalizing the text will produce a true conclusion that Moses was the author. More so you think that having knownledge of my field and career path is just repeating nonsense when you only cite Orthodox Rabbis which just provide confirmation bias so you can keep your ideology intact. It has worked for decades so go ahead and reject academy all you want. It only makes you look like a fanatic. It is not better than being anti-science, anti-history and anti-intellectual. '

Try that line before you provide your confirmation bias by Rabbis.... Maybe it will work on other anti-intellectuals such as yourself

 

[rosends]

Hilarious. So the DH is wrong, archaeology is wrong and well anything that proves your Orthodox views is wrong. Perhaps it is your fundamentalist views that are wrong. If external evidence proves the author is a fiction no amount of internalizing the text will produce a true conclusion that Moses was the author. More so you think that having known of my field and career path is just repeating nonsense when you only cite Orthodox Rabbis which just provide confirmation bias so you can keep your ideology intact. It has worked for decades so go ahead and reject academy all you want. It only makes you look like a fanatic. It is not better than being anti-science, anti-history and anti-intellectual. '

Try that line before you provide your confirmation bias by Rabbis.... Maybe it will work on other anti-intellectuals such as yourself

Actually, the DH is wrong because it fails as a literary analysis, Nothing to do with archaeology. You do realize that it is a literary theory, right?
Perhaps you are in the wrong thread, trying to prove something that is irrelevant to someone who could care less about your field because it is irrelevant and you keep posting as some sort of gasp for relevance. It makes you look pathetic. Maybe that plays on campus, but not in the real world.

 

[Shad]

Actually, the DH is wrong because it fails as a literary analysis, Nothing to do with archaeology. You do realize that it is a literary theory, right?
Perhaps you are in the wrong thread, trying to prove something that is irrelevant to someone who could care less about your field because it is irrelevant and you keep posting as some sort of gasp for relevance. It makes you look pathetic. Maybe that plays on campus, but not in the real world.

Yes I do know its a literal theory....

DH is and has been the basis of Biblical scholarship for over a century. It has yet to be refuted. Again providing evidence of your fundamentalist ideology is more important than academic knowledge. Again proving you will reject anything that does not conform to your religious views.

Evidence proving the story is a fiction is relevant. You only dismiss it since it refutes your religious views. Again your ideology is more important than academia. Aren Maier made this statement at Caltech to identify people like yourself and your rejection of education, science and history. He pointed out how inconsequential people like you are.

 

[rosends]

DH is and has been the basis of Biblical scholarship for over a centuries. It has yet to be refuted. Again providing evidence of your fundamentalist ideology is more important than academic knowledge. Again proving you will reject anything that does not conform to your religious views.

It has actually been refuted over and over. That you haven't read this smacks of serious deficiency. Maybe you should stick with archaeology as literary and critical analysis is clearly beyond you. You might want to find some spare time and read up on the literary failings of the DH before you spout off about something you don't know. Or just stick with digs. They seem to fulfill you.

 

[Shad]

It has actually been refuted over and over. That you haven't read this smacks of serious deficiency. Maybe you should stick with archaeology as literary and critical analysis is clearly beyond you. You might want to find some spare time and read up on the literary failings of the DH before you spout off about something you don't know. Or just stick with digs. They seem to fulfill you.

No it has not since it is still taught at every secular university on the planet. It has been modified over time while it's opponents have yet to produce any credible refutation accepted by the majority Only religious motivated schools ignore it since, again, ideology is more important than anything else. Which happens to be your only sources used correctly.

 

[rosends]

No it has not since it is still taught at every secular university on the planet. Only religious motivates schools ignore it since, again, ideology is more important than anything else. Which happens to be your only sources used correctly.

"Only religious motivates schools" I'm not sure what you mean by this but you seem to think that the refutation of the DH is limited to particular people or groups. This just means you have not read anything about the literary failings of the DH. You are assuming that anyone who disagrees does so on religious grounds. You are wrong. The DH fails because of the literary claims and assumptions in makes and conclusions it draws which aren't supported by literary theory or practice. Please...save us all a lot of time and simply bow out and stick with your precious rocks.

And BTW, I love that dogmatic "no it has not". It just smacks of blinders. And the proof? That the DH is taught? All sorts of debunked theories are taught as part of a well rounded education. Being taught doesn't confer the status of being correct.

 

[Shad]

"Only religious motivates schools" I'm not sure what you mean by this but you seem to think that the refutation of the DH is limited to particular people or groups. This just means you have not read anything about the literary failings of the DH. You are assuming that anyone who disagrees does so on religious grounds. You are wrong. The DH fails because of the literary claims and assumptions in makes and conclusions it draws which aren't supported by literary theory or practice. Please...save us all a lot of time and simply bow out and stick with your precious rocks.

And BTW, I love that dogmatic "no it has not". It just smacks of blinders. And the proof? That the DH is taught? All sorts of debunked theories are taught as part of a well rounded education. Being taught doesn't confer the status of being correct.

Considering more attempt refutation have used this basis it is not an unfair point to make. Even Whybray couldn't avoid tripping over apologetics and he has the most reasonable criticism of it.

DH is based on literary theories and practices as it has it's modification have been for over a century. The anachronism, the focus on the North in sections, the post-captivity interpolations and contradictions. So please provide more evidence proving you have no idea what you are talking about. It is amusing to say the least.

I am fine sticking with rocks since these rocks produce evidence you require to even conclude anything in your book is true. These rocks are history while your text is nothing more than another other text which can not provide evidence of it's own claims. These rocks provide evidence of the life-style of the people in your book.

Keep in mind I do not take a hard stance for DH. I cross-reference between what these "rocks" provide and what any text covering a time period contains along with external texts of neighboring areas. You hold to your text far too much while showing an improper reliance of texts for history. This is the difference between literature and history which is the point of the OP.

Have you read Biden's modified DH model?

 

[rosends]

Considering more attempt refutation have used this basis it is not an unfair point to make. Even Whybray couldn't avoid tripping over apologetics and he has the most reasonable criticism of it.

DH is based on literary theories and practices as it has it's modification have been for over a century. The anachronism, the focus on the North in sections, the post-captivity interpolations.

I am fine sticking with rocks since these rocks produce evidence you require to even conclude anything in your book is true.

Again, you make a huge mistake. No one is looking for rocks to prove anything is true. The question is whether literary analysis, which you have dismissed (so I find it funny that you think to cite it now) can prove it is untrue. The refutations started a long time ago and have continued. You dismiss Whybray because he engages in apologetics and this frees you up to ignore the sections which are literarily sound. That's ever so convenient. Of course, there are plenty of others but you would dismiss them regardless of their logic, because of their background. So Cassuto must be wrong because of his theological position. And, of course, because he isn't an archaeologist the way Wellhausen and Graf were.

 

[Shad]

Again, you make a huge mistake. No one is looking for rocks to prove anything is true. The question is whether literary analysis, which you have dismissed (so I find it funny that you think to cite it now) can prove it is untrue. The refutations started a long time ago and have continued. You dismiss Whybray because he engages in apologetics and this frees you up to ignore the sections which are literarily sound. That's ever so convenient. Of course, there are plenty of others but you would dismiss them regardless of their logic, because of their background. So Cassuto must be wrong because of his theological position. And, of course, because he isn't an archaeologist the way Wellhausen and Graf were.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that external evidence and literary analysis have already proven it is not true. Like I said you are doing a useless exercise either due to ignorance of modern evidence or by ideological motivation. Holding to the idea that Moses wrote the text is a position of absoluteness of religion and has no place in history.

Cassuto's arguments for his position are outdated. The very archaeologist evidence he uses against the argument also refute his own argued counter-view. It also counters his Y vs E god names. This is not his fault since he was dead well beyond the time archaeology broke out of the min/max division of his era. These views are long passed to the point that people treat the Bible as a text to use as a reference with historical analysis rather than the previous tradition and religious views of the past. For example while the Bible is horrible for it's records of the Exodus narrative, it's descriptions of the Philistine and it's people are very accurate. It matches the record archaeology has produced. However you still hold a max view which again has no place in modern history only in religions.

Lets not pretend Cassuto's views are acceptable to Jewish scholars while being objectionable with Christian scholars of his time. If you can not see the obvious religious motivation in this you are blind.

 

[rosends]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that external evidence and literary analysis have already proven it is not true. Like I said you are doing a useless exercise either due to ignorance of modern evidence or by ideological motivation. Holding to the idea that Moses wrote the text is a position of absoluteness of religion and has no place in history.

You seem to ignore that there have been a bunch of refutations of the DH and that literary analysis has shown that the DH cannot be relied on to dispute the single author. You are engaging in the useless exercise because you need to justify your tuition dollars as being relevant. Holding on to the idea that archaeology is useful in a literary analysis is a position that has no place in academia, or anywhere else.

I'm off to sleep. This has been a fun sidebar to real life. You should try and focus on what the actual conversation is once in a while. It will do you good.

 

[Shad]

You seem to ignore that there have been a bunch of refutations of the DH and that literary analysis has shown that the DH cannot be relied on to dispute the single author. You are engaging in the useless exercise because you need to justify your tuition dollars as being relevant. Holding on to the idea that archaeology is useful in a literary analysis is a position that has no place in academia, or anywhere else.

I'm off to sleep. This has been a fun sidebar to real life. You should try and focus on what the actual conversation is once in a while. It will do you good.

Nonsense it has refuted a single author, no credible academic position have made a case for a single author.

Hilarious you think archaeology, which a field of history, has no place in analysis a text made during a time which is now within the field's timeline and scope.... Again you show how anti-intellectual you are. You also just opposed your own citation of Cassuto who used, /drum roll, archaeological evidence in his own book attempting to refute DH. Perhaps you should read his book before you cite it so you do not contradict your supposed support. Heck without archaeology you can not even determine if the Temple Mount was the place of the Temple. It just be cleverly named hill with a old retaining wall. Amazing.... just wow.... I never encountered someone with such a blatant disregard for history all while contradict themselves by citing, /drum roll, archaeologist which are by definition historians.

Keep defending your ideology, you do fundamentalist justice.

 

[rosends]

Nonsense it has refuted a single author, no credible academic position have made a case for a single author.

Hilarious you think archaeology, which a field of history, has no place in analysis a text made during a time which is now within the field's timeline and scope.... Again you show how anti-intellectual you are. You also just opposed your own citation of Cassuto who used, /drum roll, archaeological evidence in his own book attempting to refute DH. Perhaps you should read his book before you cite it so you do not contradict your supposed support. Heck without archaeology you can not even determine if the Temple Mount was the place of the Temple. It just be cleverly named hill with a old retaining wall. Amazing.... just wow.... I never encountered someone with such a blatant disregard for history all while contradict themselves by citing, /drum roll, archaeologist which are by definition historians.

Keep defending your ideology, you do fundamentalist justice.

That you think that Cassuto's "use" of archaeology drove his argument shows your ignorance of his work and your willingness to ignore his literary bent. I have the book open. On what page does he "use" archaeology? I have a 2005 edition, 117 pages long. The word "archaeology" doesn't appear at all in the text of the lectures or the notes. He does approach it in his commentary on Genesis, but he does so to support his understanding. If you dismiss his "use" of archaeology because it disagrees with you then you are left with his literary analysis (which you cannot counter, being out of your depth). If you accept it then you have a problem because then archaeology "proves" you are wrong. But anyway, based on what you have said, that point is moot. Was Cassuto an archaeologist? No, so you reject him outright anyway...

Your single minded adherence to some vain belief that archaeology can definitively prove or disprove every historical claim is another example of the blinders you choose to wear. Your are a fundamentalist of the worst kind -- arrogant in both your attitude towards your field and to the place of your field in a broader intellectual construct. It is just plain sad to watch you try to spin everything to conform to some limited world view instead of seeing that there are fields that simply aren't part of your purview. You are a joke.

 

[RabbiO]

There comes a point when it should become as apparent to the parties as it is to those sitting in the bleachers that true dialogue is not only not happening, it is almost certain that it is never going to happen.

Under those circumstances, it seems to me, a whole lot of time and energy could be saved by the parties each saying to the other - "You're an idiot." - and then moving on with their respective lives.

 

[metis]

I wrote the entire Torah.

There, that settles it once and for all.