Who Wrote the Pentateuch? A Brief Description of the Documentary Hyopthesis. (church, Jerusalem)

[miticoman]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Thanks, I think!

What "cult" do you think I'm in, by the way? Are you referring to that party in Dunwich where we tried to resurrect the Old Ones? Man, that was a long time ago, and it didn't really work out for us.

Originally Posted by miticoman
To Whoppers


totally agree with you, even more the past Pope did consider the Israelites as mayor brothers in the spiritual sense...the bible comes from your cult

l meant ........yours

do you really tried to revive a guy? damn and I thought that the Jesuits's levitations were fairy tales

[LargeKingCat]

Well, regarding Arequipa, I tend to find him on every board that interests me, and I have him on my friend's list, and so either we have the same interests, or it is coincidence and amazing that the man has not told me to stop following him around the boards and commenting on all of his posts.
That being said I think he has great insights and makes this forum very interesting.
I am not jewish, I am not Christian either, I fact I am a non-theist and I find religion and philosphy fascinating, especially the how and why of it.
That being said, I can see (from the outside, looking in at the whole picture) how the documentary hypothesis could seem threatening to some followers. It says Moses did not write this, it was all a much later writing (possibly with changes and embellishments) and it recounts stories of Moses and the early tribes mythology. Solid proof is in the archeological record. NOW if we were to find some stone carving or cave painting from the supposed time of Moses then we would know. But herein is a problem: according to a Biblical timeline, the era of Moses 1500 or so years BCE we have no writings that correspond to that time, in fact the OLDEST we have is 150 BCE And yet we have sumerian writings from 5000 BCE and cave Paintings on walls in France 40,000 BCE (that in and of itself disporves totally the Biblical timeline of a creation about 4000 yrs BCE)
When we see the evidence we can alter the hypothesis/theory, until then, scientifically, it remains.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by miticoman

Bravo with these words, you increased the value of your post.
I noticed that you're the only Christian who has ventured into this discussion.

. I confess that I am very curious too, but it is not easy ..l guess that they will take me not seriously or perhaps they do not consider me able to understand, anyway I'll try it


Why the divine entity created humanity and then left it alone, with the only comfort of some texts almost incomprehensible

thanks in advance for your attention

Deism? Might be a good idea to start a thread on Deism or 'why doesn't God simply explain it all clearly?'

Flipflop (quoting Arq:Inerrancy is long gone as an argument, accurate historicity is out of the window and inspiration from God at least is looking far less likely than several writers with an agenda of their own.What we have to do is not argue about whether it is was written by men at a relatively late late, but by what men, how late and what was in their minds when they wrote or rewrote it.)

"Arequipa, this may be a forgone conclusion to you, but I'm nowhere near ready for that conclusion."

I am of course stating the way I see it and that is just my own view and I have to accept - and respect -that others will have different views. It is good for me to be reminded that it isn't just doing mind- archaeology (which is how I approach it) but too often approaches digging up people's ancestors. I tend to forget that sometimes.

Originally Posted by LargeKingCat

Well, regarding Arequipa,

I fell like the relatives have got together to discuss what's wrong with that Arq. fellow.

I tend to find him on every board that interests me, and I have him on my friend's list, and so either we have the same interests, or it is coincidence and amazing that the man has not told me to stop following him around the boards and commenting on all of his posts.

I much prefer that to one of those threads that sinks like a stone or a post that is the last one on a greyed thread that gradually sinks down the Hit Parade...on the previous board i thought of changing my name to 'The terminator'.

NOW if we were to find some stone carving or cave painting from the supposed time of Moses then we would know. But herein is a problem: according to a Biblical timeline, the era of Moses 1500 or so years BCE we have no writings that correspond to that time, in fact the OLDEST we have is 150 BCE And yet we have sumerian writings from 5000 BCE and cave Paintings on walls in France 40,000 BCE (that in and of itself disproves totally the Biblical timeline of a creation about 4000 yrs BCE)
When we see the evidence we can alter the hypothesis/theory, until then, scientifically, it remains.

Negative evidence is always tricky, but the fact is that we have nothing sound earlier than the Merneptah stele. Mickiel mentioned a couple of silver torah scrolls from 600BC I recall. Before that, the archaeology seems more to argue against the OT story than for it.

[LargeKingCat]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I much prefer that to one of those threads that sinks like a stone or a post that is the last one on a greyed thread that gradually sinks down the Hit Parade...on the previous board i thought of changing my name to 'The terminator'.Negative evidence is always tricky, but the fact is that we have nothing sound earlier than the Merneptah stele. Mickiel mentioned a couple of silver torah scrolls from 600BC I recall. Before that, the archaeology seems more to argue against the OT story than for it.

I have a few of those.......seems like I am the last one to post....which is either King Cat solved the issue so move on but more likely AH kingcat is here time to leave

I wanted to point out that even though I do not agree with everything you always say 100% I still appreciate everything you say 100%
There is not right or wrong in philosophy, only beliefs.

As mentioned on the other thread, I have often held Moses to be a mythic character, as such, he could not have written the books once ascrbed to him, however, legends, myths can be attributed by storytellers witin the oral tradition, which is why I am thinking more likely that the J writer and others were the actual recorders of the oral tales as such.
At any point that the Jewish tribes would have had contact with Egyptians, then they would have seen and adopted the use of writing, although we have zero hard and clear facts on literacy within the tribes of Isreal at that time. Which makes this even harder to solve.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by LargeKingCat

I have a few of those.......seems like I am the last one to post....which is either King Cat solved the issue so move on but more likely AH kingcat is here time to leave.

I wanted to point out that even though I do not agree with everything you always say 100% I still appreciate everything you say 100%
There is not right or wrong in philosophy, only beliefs.

There are rights and wrongs in that one must use sound logic, but of course, even with the soundest, with philosophy, one can rarely get further than a convincing and logicaly sound hypothesis.

Science is the only method of getting the verification, which is why I regard this Bible - fillieting as science -oriented rather than philosophy. I do believe .. that, using methods allied to the Sci.Meth.in Bible- text Higher and redaction criticism one can come to sound and valid evidence- based conclusions and of course the hard evidence of history and archaeology is invaluable in that process.

It isn't conclusive but I think that it can come up with some very feasible answers to the questions that arise, and that's as much as can be asked.

I don't much like the sort of argument that goes' well, nobody can be 100% sure so there is no reason for me to accept any of your arguments.' Especially when what they really mean is 'I believe something quite different - so you must be are wrong and so to hell with your evidence'.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by miticoman

l meant ........yours

do you really tried to revive a guy? damn and I thought that the Jesuits's levitations were fairy tales

I was making a joke about H.P. Lovecraft, and the cultist characters that try to revive Cthullu and all that stuff.

I still don't know what cult you think I'm in..

Originally Posted by LargeKingCat

At any point that the Jewish tribes would have had contact with Egyptians, then they would have seen and adopted the use of writing, although we have zero hard and clear facts on literacy within the tribes of Isreal at that time. Which makes this even harder to solve.

That's one of the next steps in my little path - the level of literacy in the ANE, and the idea of authorship in the ANE - you're correct, these are extremely important.

Now I just have to find the time to do it, and actually provide some reliable information that one can work off.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

There are rights and wrongs in that one must use sound logic, but of course, even with the soundest, with philosophy, one can rarely get further than a convincing and logicaly sound hypothesis.

That sums it up well - especially when dealing with things that happened thousands of years ago and now have passed into the realm of Tradition. There are certain things that one can reliably and accurately say about things (we know this or that happened around this time), but the exact details may forever elude us (how or why this or that happened around that time).

Thus, the Documentary Hypothesis. As you point out in your post, however - it does seem safer than making absolute statements that pretend to certainty. Even the Bible itself questions certainty, at times, and brings into question the idea that any mortal could know anything about the divine.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by peter-1

The interesting thing about the history of mankind is that we know with disease, war, social and individual survival... reality suggests that at least 90% of mankind would be better off not having ever been born.....unless there is more to life then what the dumb posters in this thread are suggesting.......

dumb of course in the luxury of just sitting there, well fed, typing out ideas as though they are kings. Kings of what though?

kings of comfort , non threat , non realism in their blood pumping reality.....casting out thoughts about god, creation as though yes this is my ant- head guess....

well then my dumb friends....since we know, by history that at least 90% of human existence would without question be a straw that no man would choose vrs dust in the wind with all your pompous no god, I want proof crap

....why not recommend humanity's destruction...why? why then once complete not self destruct thyself ? why?

logically , for the sake of humanity if their is any value in your so called morality...you all should strive towards the destruction of humanity and then once complete, yourselves. What say you callous thinkers in this thread?


( I think I understand women a little better now.....wimps in a city...all talk ...flakes.

Dear dear. Oh deary me.

Originally Posted by whoppers

...
That's one of the next steps in my little path - the level of literacy in the ANE, and the idea of authorship in the ANE - you're correct, these are extremely important.

Now I just have to find the time to do it, and actually provide some reliable information that one can work off...

It might be off topic (but worth a separate thread) but I think the origins of Hebrew as one of the Canaanite scripts might be very revealing, as well as the etymological if not linguistic, links with places like Ugarit and Mari, at one time held up as proof that Abraham came from Ur (looks a bit silly now, but caused some thought when it was first suggested).

I think that there may also be a connection with the Hyksos kings (including Jacob ) of the 2nd intermediate. That was not an invasion, though it was a political and cultural change, much of which remained even after the Hyksos rule was ejected and pushed back into Canaan. Notably the Egyptians themselves do reveal that they adopted from the Hyksos the very effective chariot... well, I am intrigued by the idea that the Canaanites took over the Egyptian governership in the delta during a time of political weakness and even overran the whole country for a while.

It was a Canaanite empire that conquered Egypt and that is an interesting hypothesis. It could also even be a possible historical germ on truth in the Exodus story after all.

[whoppers]

A Tiny Excursus to Wrangle Over: "As it is until this day"

The Date of Deuteronomy
Though the features of Deuteronomy will probably be dealt with in a bit more detail later, there is one feature about it that helps to inform the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or Torah. That feature is it's first-person style ("I said to the people", "I went up the hill", etc. as opposed to "he went up the hill", "he said to the people") - and the verses that attribute it (or part of it) to a speech made by Moses.

Traditional dating would then place the composition of Deuteronomy contemporaneous with when Moses is said to have lived. Without yet going into the different editions the "book" went through, it might be useful to examine the following passage.

The Curse
After a section on the horrible things that wil happen to the people - collectively - if they do not follow the instructions of the book (this follows the Suzeraign/Vassal Treaty structure of at least one edition of the work, in which the stipulations of the treaty are laid out, and then the punishments laid out if the treaty is broken - these latter sections make for the most entertaining reading, sometimes!), there follows a strange passage which describes such an uprooting. Here is the end of it:

To the anger of YHWH flared up against that land,
to bring upon it all the curse that is written in this document.
So YHWH uprooted them from their soil
in anger, wrath, and great fury,
and he cast them into another land, as (is) this day.

The hidden things are for YHWH our God,
but the revealed-things are for us and for our children, for the ages,
to observe all the words of this Instruction.
(Deuteronomy 29:26-28, SB)

I have put in bold the line that should grab one's attention. The passage refers to a time in which the Israelites DID break the covenant; a time in which they WERE uprooted and exiled; a time in which they were cast into another land, and that time is contemporary with the writer - as demonstrated by the words "as (is) this day", or "as is now the case" (NRSV), "as is still the case" (NJPS).

The next chapter of Deuteronomy proceeds to speak of the possibility of a "return" from this "uprooting", this exile that "is now the case", a hope for a reconciliation with God and the Land.

This phrase (and the following chapter) strongly supports the idea that at least this part of Deuteronomy was composed during the Exile. I would argue against a post-Exilic composition for this section, simply because there would be no need for the hopeful return language - with that said, there are also compelling arguments for the other side of the coin. Another indication is that the Hebrew of this passage is definitely a later form of the language than we would expect to find during "Moses" time - we can compare the various stages of Biblical Hebrew with inscriptional evidence from archaeological sources and determine the features that make them different. Sometimes, it's a lingusitic difference even farther than what separates us (with our modern English) from Shakespeare (with his older, more peculiar - but instantly recognizable - English).


"As is still the case today" and Dating Methods of the Pentateuch
When one encounters such language, it's a good indication that whoever wrote the passage was writing during the time in which he alludes to when he uses the formulaic phrase: "as is still the case today", etc.
Examples of this abound in the Pentateuch, luckily, so they help us determine when the author was writing. For example, from the following passage we can determine that whoever was writing it, was writing it AFTER the "Conquest of Canaan":

Avram [Abram] went, as YHWH had spoken to him, and Lot went with him.
And Avram was five years and seventy years old when he went out of Harran.
Avram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother's son, all their property that they had gained, and the persons whom they had made-their-own in Harran,
and they went out to go to the land of Canaan.

When they came to the land of Canaan,
Avram passed through the land, as far as the Place of Shekhem,
as far as the Oak of Moreh.

Now the Canaanite was then in the land.
(Genesis 12:4-6, SB)

There would be no need for such a sentence, unless one is reminding his listeners that this story happened - you know, back when "the Canaanite was still in the land". Back then. Before the Conquest. Such phrases help us to get a slightly better picture of when the particular passage (at least) was written, or edited.

These indications were noticed by older commentators and while some suggested that one should remain silent about the matter (Ibn Ezra), others were not so silent about it (Spinoza) and had no problem using them as Dating criteria.


Moses as Author of the Torah, and the Dating Method
I would be interested to hear opinions on the passage in Deuteronomy and what it means for the date of the passage, and consequently whether this allows us to attribute the passage to Moses, and then by extension to the entire "book". Bear in mind the previous posts of the different meanings of "torah" and the references to "the Torah of Moses". I would also like to see some other examples of the dating method I very briefly outlined above - if anyone has some and would like to talk about them.

[peter-1]

Originally Posted by whoppers

A Tiny Excursus to Wrangle Over: "As it is until this day"

The Date of Deuteronomy
Though the features of Deuteronomy will probably be dealt with in a bit more detail later, there is one feature about it that helps to inform the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or Torah. That feature is it's first-person style ("I said to the people", "I went up the hill", etc. as opposed to "he went up the hill", "he said to the people") - and the verses that attribute it (or part of it) to a speech made by Moses.

Traditional dating would then place the composition of Deuteronomy contemporaneous with when Moses is said to have lived. Without yet going into the different editions the "book" went through, it might be useful to examine the following passage.

The Curse
After a section on the horrible things that wil happen to the people - collectively - if they do not follow the instructions of the book (this follows the Suzeraign/Vassal Treaty structure of at least one edition of the work, in which the stipulations of the treaty are laid out, and then the punishments laid out if the treaty is broken - these latter sections make for the most entertaining reading, sometimes!), there follows a strange passage which describes such an uprooting. Here is the end of it:

To the anger of YHWH flared up against that land,
to bring upon it all the curse that is written in this document.
So YHWH uprooted them from their soil
in anger, wrath, and great fury,
and he cast them into another land, as (is) this day.

The hidden things are for YHWH our God,
but the revealed-things are for us and for our children, for the ages,
to observe all the words of this Instruction.
(Deuteronomy 29:26-28, SB)

I have put in bold the line that should grab one's attention. The passage refers to a time in which the Israelites DID break the covenant; a time in which they WERE uprooted and exiled; a time in which they were cast into another land, and that time is contemporary with the writer - as demonstrated by the words "as (is) this day", or "as is now the case" (NRSV), "as is still the case" (NJPS).

The next chapter of Deuteronomy proceeds to speak of the possibility of a "return" from this "uprooting", this exile that "is now the case", a hope for a reconciliation with God and the Land.

This phrase (and the following chapter) strongly supports the idea that at least this part of Deuteronomy was composed during the Exile. I would argue against a post-Exilic composition for this section, simply because there would be no need for the hopeful return language - with that said, there are also compelling arguments for the other side of the coin. Another indication is that the Hebrew of this passage is definitely a later form of the language than we would expect to find during "Moses" time - we can compare the various stages of Biblical Hebrew with inscriptional evidence from archaeological sources and determine the features that make them different. Sometimes, it's a lingusitic difference even farther than what separates us (with our modern English) from Shakespeare (with his older, more peculiar - but instantly recognizable - English).


"As is still the case today" and Dating Methods of the Pentateuch
When one encounters such language, it's a good indication that whoever wrote the passage was writing during the time in which he alludes to when he uses the formulaic phrase: "as is still the case today", etc.
Examples of this abound in the Pentateuch, luckily, so they help us determine when the author was writing. For example, from the following passage we can determine that whoever was writing it, was writing it AFTER the "Conquest of Canaan":

Avram [Abram] went, as YHWH had spoken to him, and Lot went with him.
And Avram was five years and seventy years old when he went out of Harran.
Avram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother's son, all their property that they had gained, and the persons whom they had made-their-own in Harran,
and they went out to go to the land of Canaan.

When they came to the land of Canaan,
Avram passed through the land, as far as the Place of Shekhem,
as far as the Oak of Moreh.

Now the Canaanite was then in the land.
(Genesis 12:4-6, SB)

There would be no need for such a sentence, unless one is reminding his listeners that this story happened - you know, back when "the Canaanite was still in the land". Back then. Before the Conquest. Such phrases help us to get a slightly better picture of when the particular passage (at least) was written, or edited.

These indications were noticed by older commentators and while some suggested that one should remain silent about the matter (Ibn Ezra), others were not so silent about it (Spinoza) and had no problem using them as Dating criteria.


Moses as Author of the Torah, and the Dating Method
I would be interested to hear opinions on the passage in Deuteronomy and what it means for the date of the passage, and consequently whether this allows us to attribute the passage to Moses, and then by extension to the entire "book". Bear in mind the previous posts of the different meanings of "torah" and the references to "the Torah of Moses". I would also like to see some other examples of the dating method I very briefly outlined above - if anyone has some and would like to talk about them.

Well I disagree because most Christians have been taught in Sunday school that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. These books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are often referred to as the Pentateuch or Torah. However, outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books, that they are a compilation of works by numerous writers over an extended period of time.

Further, religious studies courses at most universities teach that the Pentateuch is a composite work consisting of four literary strands. The four strands have been assigned the letters J, E, D, and P; each representing a different document or source that was woven into the fabric of the Bible. This set of assumptions has gone by a number of names including the documentary theory and the Graf-Wellhausen theory. According to this view, the letter "J" stands for the Yahwist ("J" from the German Jahweh) narrative, coming from the period of the early Jewish monarchy, about 950 B.C. "E" stands for the Elohist narrative from the region of the Northern Kingdom dating from about 750 B.C. "D" is best represented by the book of Deuteronomy and is said to have originated in the Southern Kingdom about 650 B.C. or later. And finally, "P" is the priestly document that comes from the period after the fall of Israel in 587 B.C. According to the theory, the Pentateuch reached its current form around the time of Ezra or about 400 B.C.

Notwithstanding my view with respects to.. "why is the issue of Mosaic authority an important one? Those who accept the documentary or Graf-Wellhausen theory argue that the content of these books should be seen as a mixture of credible historical events and religious poetry sparked by man's religious imagination. For example, regarding Moses and God on Mount Sinai, one author of an Old Testament survey writes that, "It would be foolish, for instance, to rationalize the burning bush, as though this vision were something that could have been seen with the objective eye of a camera."{1} Holders of this view reject the notion of supernatural revelation and regard much of the Pentateuch as folklore and Hebrew storytelling.

On the other hand, the conservative view holds to Mosaic authorship and treats the books as a literary unit. This does not mean that Moses didn't use other documents to write his books. He obviously did. But since other Old Testament authors affirm Mosaic authorship, as do numerous New Testament writers and the early church fathers, the veracity of the Bible as a whole begins to crumble if Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch. Thankyou for reading

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Dear dear. Oh deary me.

Exactly.
I don't have the patience for posts that are non-participatory and add nothing except vitriolic preaching. I guess I have to use that button again, as much as I hate to do it.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It might be off topic (but worth a separate thread) but I think the origins of Hebrew as one of the Canaanite scripts might be very revealing, as well as the etymological if not linguistic, links with places like Ugarit and Mari, at one time held up as proof that Abraham came from Ur (looks a bit silly now, but caused some thought when it was first suggested).

I think we can discuss that, as it directly relates to the question of whether Biblical Hebrew was even being written during the purported time of Moses - and thus if affects the question concerning Moses' authorship of the Torah.

As far as the narrative goes, I prefer Cyrus Gordon's suggestion that it was the Northern Ur(fa) that is related to Abram, rather than the southern Ur. After all, the "Chaldees" (of "Ur of the Chaldees") were associated with the North, more than the very Southern tip of Mesopotamia. That word, "Chaldees" or "Chaldeans", is anachronistic itself for the time in which Abram supposedly was moving around - another helpful hint for dating.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I think that there may also be a connection with the Hyksos kings (including Jacob ) of the 2nd intermediate. That was not an invasion, though it was a political and cultural change, much of which remained even after the Hyksos rule was ejected and pushed back into Canaan. Notably the Egyptians themselves do reveal that they adopted from the Hyksos the very effective chariot... well, I am intrigued by the idea that the Canaanites took over the Egyptian governership in the delta during a time of political weakness and even overran the whole country for a while.

It was a Canaanite empire that conquered Egypt and that is an interesting hypothesis. It could also even be a possible historical germ on truth in the Exodus story after all.

It's cetainly possible, though the exact nature of the Hyksos might have to be elaborated. Were they really from Canaan, or just Semitic?