truthseekar

quote:Ulrich
-------------------------------------------
What you saw was part two of a two part series hosted by Roger Moore (formerly 007). Apparently part one of that series was aired on TNT television here in America in Sept. 1998, and the second part never aired here in America. Why this is I cannot say, but I would suspect it had something to do with poor ratings.

Regardless, the portion that was aired on TNT has been debunked by several sources. CSICOP has an article on the show here:
-------------------------------------------

Ulrich
this is how officialy the NSA deal with things.

the evidence pops up and thay 1. deniey everything 2. debunc everything.


Thay get rid of the evidence and denie every thing , so it doesn`t suprise me that it was taken of american tv , but not because of bad ratings because people are talking about it hear and people are watching the recording with facination so you americans must have missed what the NSA nidn`t want you to see as it was KGB related and thay are working together now so let them cover it and debunk it , we now what we saw and so does roger moore


so you only no of one base under a mountain back in the 80`s and you never heared anything about what is going on in area 51 in the s4 grounds????tell me more , you honestly never saw anything ??? were you ever on any secret projects???? and if not , what would you no?? have you ever heard of john lear a US air force test pilot ( I think thay called the lear jet after him) and he was in the CIA for 20 yrs, if not , it doesn`t suprise me the NSA has kept you out of there projects.

[ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: truthseekar ]

Nomad

R.L. Fox's book is quite good, but more in its treatment of the NT than the OT, and many of the things Fox takes as a given should be treated with some caution, but not rejected outright.

A better and more even handed treatement of the Biblical accounts found in the OT is given in Understanding the Old Testament by Bernard Anderson and Katheryn Pfisterer Darr. As Anderson is Professor of Old testament Theology Emeritus of Princeton Theological Seminary, and editor of the New Annotated Oxford Bible, his credentials as a scholar are beyond dispute. As for Darr, she is Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible, Boston University of Theology, and her credentials are equally solid. After talking at considerable length about the problems of repetition and contradictions in the Penteteuch they close by saying:

"For all of this, we need not conclude that the Exodus account is fiction. After all, God's actions take place within concrete situations and actual crises. There, we must take the biblical account seriously, albeit critically. The wisest course lies between a naive, unquestioning acceptance of the record as it stands, and an equally dogmatic rejection of the whole tradition as having no credibility."
(B.W. Anderson, K. Pfisterer Darr, Understanding the Old Testament, [Abridged] 4th Edition, [Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998], pg. 63)

It should also be noted that Friedman has no patience for those that claim that the events described in the Old Testament are entirely fictional.

Dogmatic postions taken on all sides that are thought to be proven truths do not help us find that truth. Such sweepting claims should be avoided whenever possible when we are talking about ancient historical events. In our quest to understand what happened in the ancient past, archaeolgy plays an important role, but has its limitations.

...our knowledge of Israel's anestors comes from the biblical story/history itself, written in a time far removed from the events described. It would be helpful if archaeologycould provide external sources that confirm these events. However, we cannot expect archaeology to prove that the biblical story is true just as written. Archaeology is a scientific discipline that seeks to avoid partisan philosophical or theological interests. As a science, it deals with evidence presented in the field, and so far has provided only general and circumstantial information bearing on the ancestral period."
(Ibid. pg. 26)

For further study on the uses and limitations of archaeology, Anderson refers the reader to William G. Dever's Israelite and Judaean History, R. de Voix's On the Right and Wrong Uses of Archaeology, and G.E. Wright's What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do.

Bottom line, excessive faith in archaeology can be just as non-productive as blind faith in one's reading of ancient texts. A more balanced approach is essential in a truly critical approach to such questions.

One final question to truthseeker, but what has convinced you that Moses may have written the first five books of the Bible? The evidence, so far as I can tell, is almost entirely opposed to this view.

Nomad

[ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Fairfield Porter

Turtonm: Archer may be too conservative for your taste and mine too perhaps, but for you to outright dismiss him simply because of his position makes me doubt your objectivity as well. He is no more guilty of working from a conservative Christian framework than others are of working from a liberal secular framework, each side allowing for their presuppositions to shape the way the historical picture is made. When secular academicians wish to claim exclusivity for themselves in the marketplace of ideas, they are robbing themselves and others in a democratic country. I am well aware that the JEDP theory is widely accepted in most circles (not to mention more palatable to the increasingly secular academy), but to call it fact is simply rhetoric. There is a place for evangelical scholars, whether you like it or not, as they are on the rise in every field.

Nomad

Hello Fairfield, and welcome to the Boards. I take it you are a Christian. It is always good to have another theist in the forum.

I also accept that the Ten Plagues were aimed at specific Egyptian deities, allowing the Hebrews to demonstrate the superiority of YHWH over these lesser gods. At the same time, this view can be said to be widely held in the scholarly community where the JEPD theory still holds a dominant position, so I do not see how it can be used as an argument in support of Mosaic authorship of the Torah.

I think this is over reaching a bit. First, one cannot ignore the reality of oral tradition in the transmission of ancient beliefs and stories. Given the fact that much of ancient history was first recounted in this fashion, it is not a stretch to accept that the Israelites preserved their stories for future generations, even for hundreds of years.

Second, given the clear and ongoing contact between Israel, and Judah with Egypt, knowledge of their customs and beliefs cannot be easily dismissed. After all, King Jeroboam fled into exile into Egypt, and was Jerimiah and many other Israelites were forcibly deported. We must expect that during that exile, the Jews learned about the customs and history of their allies/captors, and would have brought it back with them.

I do not think that questioning Mosaic authorship should be equated with a belief that the accounts are fictional. Personally, I accept the historicity of the Exodus stories in their entirety. What I do question is our ability to demonstrate too much from those accounts. I also believe that the knowledge of Egyptian theology would have been known in Judah even into the period after the exile (c. 6th Century BC).

Again I think we may be mixing up two or more arguments here. I agree that there is a general unity to the covenant portions of the Bible, but there are also duplications, repetitions and the like found within the texts. I think we can argue that many of the laws do show a unity as well, but some clearly must come from a later time. The laws that require a Temple, for example, make little sense in the pre-Solomon Temple days where such a building would not have existed. We also know that there were periods in which multiple temple and worship sites arose in Israel, as well as Samaria and Judah. The laws against these places, and a demand that one and only one centre of worship be permitted can hardly be attributed to Moses.

Richard Elliot Friedman offers some of the clearest examples of parallel stories contained within the text of the Penteteuch, not only the two Creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2, but also others like the story of the Flood.

From the J Source:

Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7, 10, 12, 16b-20, 22-2; 8:2b, 3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22)

From the E Source:
Genesis 6:9-22; 7:6, 8-9, 11, 13-16a, 21, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19)

(R.E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, [HarperCollins Publishers: New York, NY: 1997], pg. 54-59)

I know that it looks confusing in this presentation, but by reading the passages listed as seperate stories, one can see two distinct stories that talk about the same events from two very different points of view. It is very striking, and examples like this helped me to see the Books of Moses in an entirely new light.

Many other such stories can be found throughout the Old Testament (not just the Penteteuch), and I accept that the best theory that explains these differing accounts is the JEPD theory. At the same time, I am open to counter arguments that can account for the evidence. I would appreciate seeing more on this from you.

Thank you for this presentation Fairfield. It certainly helps to show the links between two similar structures, one dating from the 2nd millenium BC, and the second from Deuteronomy. I also agree that Deuteronomy is a unity written by one author. The problem is that the structure and style of this book is quite different from that of the other 5 books of the Penteteuch, and itself contains verses that could not have been written by Moses (the most famous recounting Moses death, burial and succession as given in Deuteronomy 34.

An even more compelling case against Mosaic authorship is offered by Friedman when he compares a number of passages in Deuteronomy with those found in the Book of Jeremiah, none of which can find parallels anywhere else in the Bible. Consider the following verses:

Deut 28:1 Jer 17:24
Deut 10:16 Jer 4:4
Deut 4:19: 17:3 Jer 8:2: 19:13
Deut 4:29; 10:12, 11:13, 13:4 Jer 32:41

Friedman uses this and other evidence to argue that the author of Deuteronomy and Jerimiah were the same person, specifically arguing for Baruch, Jerimah's own scribe (see Who Wrote the Bible?, ch. 6, pg. 117-135). He states categorically that "[T]he book that the priest ilkiah said he found in the Temple in 622BC was Deuteronomy." (Ibid. pg. 101) and then spends considerable time and effort offering proofs for his case.

As a few more examples, Samuel shows no interest in Deuteronomy's prohibition against worship and sacrifice away from the Temple, or a single place like the tabernacle (Deut. 12). In fact, he annoints Saul and David away from such a place (which did not yet exist in any event) and offers sacrifices all over Israel. Saul, David and even Solomon himself do the same, and there is no criticism found in the Bible for this "failure" to observe this particular Mosaic law.

I think we can stipulate these arguments, and still be left with very real questions as to who wrote the Penteteuch.

Thank you again Fairfield. You have obviously done a great deal of work on this subject, and researched it deeply. At the same time, I would like to know if you would be willing to address the questions raised by Friedman and others that seem best answered by the JEPD theory. If you can offer additional insights into the argument, and show how this theory is lacking, I would be very grateful.

At the same time, I do find the arguments for JEPD to be compelling, and would require a fair bit of convincing. I hope that you do not mind my thoughts, challenges and questions to your thesis. I have found that such challenges have helped me to clarify my own thoughts in the past, even if no one involved ends up changing their minds on the matter.

Peace,

Nomad

Marduk

Nomad, your reply made me wonder, is there any evidense that Jews carried out the Passover Ritual before the Babylonian Exile?
I think if not it would show that the Moses books were clearly written long after the time the Exodus was supposed to have happened.

Fairfield Porter

Nomad: I think you have raised some legitimate criticisms against my argument, whether or not they are decisive. Yet there is no way to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch by (external) inductive means. I can only supplement in one way or another what has already been attested in Scripture. What I attempted to do was say more or less, A, B, and C make a strong testimony to Mosaic authorship. I think I was successful in that way. However, that does not save my thesis from attack by my evidence being assumed within alternative theories.

I would of course be willing to read and address Friedman’s book. But I really do not have time right now. I wrote this paper around three years ago. When I moved to Chicago I left all of my theology and biblical studies books in Tennessee. So I do not really have access to a good library, unless Moody is good. I don’t know. I am taking 18 hours of graphic design and art history this fall and painting for on-coming art shows. When not doing that, I have a girlfriend in law school and other friends to see in the city. Perhaps we can do a scaled down version of this JEDP thing. Thanks for the thoughtful criticism.

Nomad

The Passover and Exodus traditions are definitely seen as predating the post-exile period and Second Temple Judaism of the 5th and 6th Centuries BC.

Our first evidence comes from the J and E sources themselves, generally dated to the period of the two kingdoms (848-722 for J, and 922-722 for E). Since much of the material in the two sources if very similar, yet neither copied from the other during its composition, it is also accepted that older written and oral traditions predate both of these works. Thus, where we encounter such stories we can be pretty safe in assuming that they date back to David and Solomon’s Empire if not earlier. Anderson and Friedman accept that the Passover and Exodus traditions do go back to an historical Moses, albeit with considerable legendary development. In their view (and that of many other scholars cited by both), this “root experience” for the people of Israel was so important that the tradition was expanded by both the “D” (Deuteronomic c. 650 and later) and “P” (Priestly c. 550 and later) sources, giving us the final presentation found in what we know today as the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. For these scholars, the Passover and Exodus were the events that led to the eventual foundation of the people of Israel, hence the designation of “root experience”.

A table on page 67 of Understanding the Old Testament summarizes how scholars see presentation of the story from all four sources:

Exodus 11:1-8; 12:21-23, 29-39 Old Epic Tradition (c. 900BC)
Exodus 12:24-27a; 13:1-16 Deuteronomic style (c. 650BC or later)
Exodus 11:9-10; 12:1-20, 28; 12:40-51 Priestly source (c. 550BC or later)

Again I would like to stress that in this presentation (which I think Friedman would also accept), the assumption is that even the Old Epic Tradition is pre-dated by earlier sources, placing the celebration of the Passover and Exodus well into the 10th Century and earlier. To quote from Professor Anderson:

"In the study of biblical traditions, it is axiomatic that the date of a writing is no sure index of the age of the traditions it records. (emphasis in original). This is also true for the Old Epic (J and E) tradition. Though presumably written down in the period of the monarch (after David, about 1000 BCE) some Old Epic material in the book of Exodus goes back to the time of Moses..."
(B.W. Anderson, K. Pfisterer Darr, Understanding the Old Testament, pg. 82)

I hope that this is sufficient information to answer your question marduk, although if you (or others) have additional questions, I will do my best to find the answers for you. If there is a general interest in exploring the theories and supporting evidence behind the JEPD document hypothesis, I would be happy to go through it. I am finding the subject to personally very fascinating.

Peace,

Nomad

P.S. To Fairfield. No worries on the time constraints. If and when you are ready to discuss JEPD, I would be happy to join in.

Apikorus

Friedman and Anderson/Darr are both outstanding general introductions to Hebrew Bible source criticism, but they're each somewhat stale in presentation in that they recapitulate the classical Wellhausen scheme. Of course a notable exception is Friedman's tilt toward Kaufmann in positing a preexilic P, a position curiously supported by many Jewish scholars (e.g. Friedman, Milgrom, Knohl, Haran, et al.). Nomad, you might want to check out the 1997 edition of WWTB, as Friedman has changed his views regarding the authorship of Deuteronomy.

For a somewhat more up-to-date approach to the Pentateuch, I'd recommend Joseph Blenkinsopp's "The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible". Blenkinsopp gives more weight to some interesting minority views, such as those of John van Seters, who has strongly argued for a postexilic Yahwist. I myself generally accept a JEDP chronology, though with many corrections to the classic Wellhausen source analysis.

The nature of the PesaH ritual is complex and, as Nomad properly emphasizes, it should be viewed as an evolved tradition. Those who trace the tradition back to a historical Moses are rather credulous of the Bible, since the figure of Moses is clearly legendary and his historicity at present simply is beyond investigation. Suffice it to say that most scholars agree that there is hardly a shred of material evidence for an Israelite exodus of any considerable size in the 13th c. BCE (and certainly not in the 15th c. BCE). All reconstructions of the historical Moses (e.g. a prince in Pharaoh's court, a priest of Akhenaten, etc.) are so speculative as to be virtually worthless. In fact, if you read the current scholarly literature (rather than popularized accounts, where authors sometimes wax credulous to connect with their readers), you'll find essentially no discussion of the "historical Moses".

Initially PesaH was, almost certainly, a purely apotropaic ritual. In Exod 12:21-23, which I accept as early (ca. 9th c. BCE), the ritual is associated with events in Egypt, so it seems likely that the exodus tradition is indeed an early one. But the association of PesaH with Unleavened Bread (Hag hamatzot) is probably Deuteronomic. Interestingly, there is no mention of PesaH at all in another important early source, the Covenant Code (Exod 20:24-23:33). In particular, Unleavened Bread is mentioned in Exod 23:15 as the first of the three pilgrimage festivals, in which Israelites would visit local shrines, and it is therein associated with the exodus from Egypt. But pesaH is not mentioned at all. The reworking of pesaH from a purely local apotropaic ritual to a full-fledged pilgrimage festival (Hag) was the work of the Deuteronomist(s) (see Deut 16), who also demoted Unleavened Bread to a local observance. See B. Levinson, "Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation".

Nomad

Your praise for these scholars is curious, given that they accept Moses as being historical, and that the Passover dates back to him.

I own the 1997 copy, and this is where I got the information that Friedman credits Baruch as the Deuteronomic author. Personally I find his theory interesting, but speculative of course.

As with almost every issue in scholarship, there are disputes over dates, authorship and the like. As I see no good arguments for placing the J and E sources to post 722BC, and a number of good ones for datin them both to the age of the two kingdoms, I would like to see some arguments in favour of a strictly post exile dating for the J source.

I have some essays from Blenkinsopp, and will read through them again. I will also take a look for his book. Thank you for the recommendation. I have heard that it is very good.

I see this as a reverse of the error being committed in Fairfield's post. We do not have to accept the legendary material about Moses in order to accept his historicity any more than one must accept the NT accounts of Jesus in order to accept His historicity. We also do not have to accept an Exodus of considerable size in order to agree that a flight out of Egypt did occur c. 13th Century.

Again, this is not relevant to the question of historicity of the man.

Well, Anderson, Darr and Friedman are all scholars, and they accept the historical Moses and talk about him a good deal. Perhaps you have simply chosen to read more sceptical scholarship, and this is fine. At the same time, do not make the error of thinking that they represent the only credible scholarly opinion on the matter.

I don't have too much problem with what you have said here. Again, this was not the question, however, and on that basic question we appear to agree, the Passover is very early, and dates back to the time of Moses in Egypt. It certainly was not invented in the post exile period of c.587BC.

Thanks again for your thoughts Apikorus.

Nomad

Apikorus

Nomad, I think the comparison between Jesus and Moses is a rather poor one. I am far more confident in the existence of an historical Jesus than an historical Moses. In the first place, we have more or less contemporary (1st c. CE) extrabiblical reference to Jesus in Josephus. The terminus a quo of Christian beliefs is cleanly identified in the mid-1st century CE. The gospel accounts, while likely highly inflated, were written within two generations of Jesus' death.

The case for a historical Moses is far more problematic. We have no early written sources. At best we have the JE accounts in Exodus which were written at least 400 years after the events they purport to describe. Moses' great speech in Deuteronomy was ghost written in the 7th c. BCE (though the Song of Moses in Deut 32 may be much older). We have only the vaguest understanding of Israelite origins, hardly a shred of material evidence for the exodus, etc. Now of course all this does not mean that there was no historical Moses, or that the biblical Moses was not modeled after one or more historical figures. It just means that we can't hope to say much about what Moses said or did. Historical Jesus scholars tend to believe that there are some rather solid facts upon which to build their (often radically divergent) scholarly reconstructions: that Jesus lived ca. 4 BCE - 33 CE, that he was a Jew, that he preached about the kingdom of heaven, that he went to Jerusalem, that he was crucified, that his followers believed him to have been resurrected. We can say nothing of the sort about Moses. What I said about the scholarly literature is quite correct: there is no real scholarly dialog about the historical Moses. (Though there is a vigorous dialog regarding Israelite origins.)

When scholars like Friedman and Anderson say that certain traditions may go back "to Moses" they are basically saying that they are untraceably old. They are not offering any reconstructions of a historical Moses. Again, Moses' historicity lies beyond the scope of historical inquiry at present.

What does it mean for a figure to be historical? I think it must mean that one has some reasonably secure data regarding his life, such as when he lived and died, his physical characteristics, what he believed and/or did, etc. Sources must be examined critically, particularly if they are isolated ones. Gilgamesh describes the character of Enkidu in great detail, but few would maintain that there was an historical Enkidu. Scholars of ancient folklore are justifiably skeptical when it comes to foundation and savior legends. It seems to me that the case for a historical Moses is perhaps a bit stronger than that for a historical Romulus and Remus, but no better than for Odysseus and Achilles.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]