spin

Pussyfooting about the matters you have is not particularly stimulating. You made datings statements about the torah, ie that they were already in existence before the time of Josiah. Saying that this is not dating the torah is not a serious response. You made dating claims and now woooosh, you're saying, "me? making dating claims? No, never!!?"

Your responses in this thread don't show that you are well enough aware of discussion on BC&H (this forum) to make definitive statements about it.

As to your question why something is relevant to me, it is not in itself within the scope of BC&H. Dating of texts is within that scope, textual analysis of biblical texts also, as is the historical background to them.

Perhaps you would care to elucidate on your dating of the finished torah to prior to the reign of Josiah, especially considering the few points I've already raised which appertain to the issue. You might also like to include comment as to the scholarly status quo of the priestly elements (the Priestly source) of the torah being post-exilic.


spin

Nihilus

My apologies. Being new to the forum, I was responding to the 'New Topics' page and failed to qualify what sub-forum I was in. It was my impression that the sub-forums were discussion forums as opposed to debate forums. I will refrain from further posting in this sub-forum in the context of your present debate criteria.

This is the general concensus of 99% of textual scholars, as you're likely already aware. You may disagree with them, prefering to rely upon archaeological criteria.

Then I may lack the seriousness that you desire.

I offered no specific date. This is what I meant.

Again, being new to the forum, I was responding to threads from the 'New Topics' page, having failed to qualify what sub-forum I was in. I will refrain in the future from posting in this particular sub-forum if it incurs this much aggravation.

Then I'll refrain from asking your motivations, insofar as you've suggested that this is not the appropriate forum for such.

No, I'll refrain at this point. My presence here is only causing you aggravation. I'm not even aware of your own stance on the matter, so I have no idea what you're expecting me to debate against. The thread was originated with a question, as opposed to an assertion.

No, I have no such desire. My preference is to discuss rather than argue, and this is not being accomplished here.

spin

As I stated later, the Priestly material, the P source of Wellhausen's analysis, is in fact seen to have been added much later, ie it is the scholarly consensus that the torah was not finished before Josiah's time. You do not seem to know the scholarly consensus in the matter.


There are more shades than black and white.

I saw no intent to discuss anything when you asserted that the torah predated Josiah. Perhaps you forgot your preference.

Discussion is fine in this forum, though bald assertion is discouraged. I never asserted that this forum's scope was debate. You merely assumed it. The rule in this forum though is not to assert views, but to support statements with evidence. The rule is also to work from evidence rather than assertion by weight of authority. Of course, people often go against the norms, especially newer members, and I am only giving my views of the processes that go on here from my own observation.


spin

MarkA

This is an issue because if Josiah invented the first five books of the OT to enhance his political position then the historical content they purport to express is very much reduced to legendary status.

This is an issue because if Josiah invented the first five books of the OT to enhance his political position it would show how political expediency creates national myth and even religious mythology.

This is an issue because some people use the first five books of the OT to sustain a historical/religious and social agenda and belief system that impacts on us today.

Nihilus

This argument can be established without any reference to Josiah.

This argument can be established without any reference to Josiah.

How do these things adversely impact you? If someone believes in unicorns or leprechauns, why should this affect you?

We're pulling from different sets of scholars.

What you've presented seems little more than conjecture.

You're appealing to the authority of Wellhausen.

semiopen

Josiah allegedly could have had Deuteronomy written. Ordinarily this would be considered the last book except maybe for Genesis.

The consensus view has been that the various texts have various ages based on the type of Hebrew. Thus the Song_of_the_sea is considered pretty old.

Ancient Fragments of Moses’ Song of the Sea
by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

This is claimed to be the Song of the Sea, and if the story is accurate puts a hard date on it. That is, it is before the Babylonian Exile.

D.N. Freedman was very conservative. When one starts talking about times earlier than 1oth century that is getting pretty reactionary, but the fact that there may be a physical copy of it from the 7th century is significant.

This indicates that the bible was probably composed from other sources and redacted over a period of many centuries.

My impression is that the Mosaic Egyptian experience in some form was known before the Babylonian exile.

On the other hand, Spin's link makes excellent points about the Elephantine Papyrii, where the consolidation of worship in Jerusalem didn't appear to happen until after the destruction of the Elephantine Temple in the 5th century and that passover in any kind of recognizable context probably wasn't celebrated in the time of Josiah.

spin

Actually no. You're apparently not pulling from any set of recognized scholars here. The usual schlock is that the J and the E flavors had already been wedded, while D was perhaps written as late as the exile. A fairly status quo analysis is provided by Richard Elliott Friedman (Who Wrote the Bible?), though there is a wealth of scholarly literature on the structure of the torah.

Limp attempt to turn the tables. <Yawning smiley here>

Another limp attempt to turn the tables. But at least Wellhausen! You're only 100 years past the use-by date.


spin

Nihilus

I would have been glad to present additional sources if you had requested them, but I've already caused you excessive aggravation thus far by not conforming to your discussion guidelines. You've already summarily rejected the ancient pseudepigraphal sources which I had suggested earlier which were held as authoritative by the ancient Jews.

I would have preferred to learn from you, but you're intent on nailing me to the wall it seems, even when I suggest that I'm not sure on one item or another, pertaining to seemingly irrelevant details about ships or what not. Your intent is not to discuss and learn from one another, but rather to argue and attempt to convince me that your perspective is right and that mine is wrong, while rejecting ancient sources. I had already presented some pseudepigraphal sources, but you weren't willing to remotely consider them. It seems futile, if you're already decided on the matter. You simply don't accept certain sources.

I've already suggested to the moderator that I'll cease posting within this sub-forum. No need to press the issue anymore. Perhaps you can find other posters within this sub-forum who will conform to your personal criteria or narrow source verification. Have a good day.

spin

Don't be melodramatic. I merely pointed out your dating problems.

All I did was complained about your glib response to the OP.

What sources need accepting?

Is running off going to change much?

You too.


spin

Nihilus

And I pointed out the problem with attempting to date ancient texts beyond a certain point in the first place. Scientific methods simply fall short.

Again, my apologies if I came across as glib. But rather honestly, the OP itself seemed rather glib. Or at the least, terse. I'm generally not going to respond with long paragraphs to an OP which is no more than a single sentence in length. Maybe I should, but that hasn't generally been my practice.

Old Testament era pseudepigraphal texts held as authoritative by the ancient Jews:

http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/Index.html

But no, one won't be able to accurately date them, insofar as many are copies of copies not found in the original languages. But it's unlikely that they were all fabricated by authors after Josiah's reign.

Well, I don't see us accomplishing much here. Maybe I can just avoid causing additional irritation if I relocate myself. I just joined the forum, and I'd rather just enjoy myself here and learn some new things through interactive exchange, versus develop arch-enemies in heated debate over what I might consider to be trivial minutiae in the first place. Not that those things won't be important to other people for whatever reason, but maybe I should just stay out of a thread if something is not a vital debate topic to me.