Gundulf

Fair enough; I meant, by analogy, that at some point Lincoln wrote down his address - the one we have - how do we know that what we have is the same as his first draft? Or the one he rehearsed? And what does it matter, exactly? How do we know that this is the same as the 'first' edition of his draft?

That is, I am still not following what you mean by the 'first' story. The 'first' story - I think almost everyone agrees (fundamentalist, evangelical, liberal, atheist) that the story was in oral form long before it was written. So no, I don't think that ANYONE would argue that the form we have in the Hebrew copies extant today is identical to the 'first' story.

Whether or not someone believes in the JEDP hypothesis, as Moses as a redactor, or another similar formation of Genesis, I am not aware of ANYONE who believes that what Moses wrote down, or what J&E wrote down, was word for word exactly the same as the story they had - either from oral tradition or perhaps from an extant written account.

Point being?

Chris Weimer

You'd be surprised what some people believe.

To address your earlier statements, simply put, when is Genesis...Genesis?

Gundulf

Thanks for this - interesting enough. Of course, those who argue Mosaic authorship concur that later updates, redactions, and the like were common; they aren't blind to the anachronistic words, place names, and language. (Or such otherwise bizarre statements as "Moses was the most humble man in the world" coming from Moses' mouth).

As for Moses maybe not existing...? You'll have to point me in the right direction to study the archaeology referred to - just off the cuff, though, I'm curious--is it typically otherwise likely to find archaeological evidence of wandering nomads, in contrast to stable, localized civilizations? Also, why specifically is it believed that there was never a conquest? I assume there is more than just because it is only recorded by the victors?

Any chance you might share more of the details of the discussions in archaeology with me, and/or point me in the right direction for further study?

-------
edit:

After writing this, I glanced over Wikipedia's articles on Joshua and the Exodus (Joshua, The Exodus). If I can trust what is there, I could agree that there is plenty of debate on the dating of the conquest, and lots of debate on the exact details of the events, little evidence of a wandering for 40 years in Sinai, etc. But the articles hardly give the impression that the ideas of the Exodus and the Conquest are entirely fiction. It references appeals from Canaan to Egypt requesting assistance from the invading 'Hapiru', various archaeological evidence that supports the conquest (albeit disputed on the exact time, though well before David/Solomon), etc. The conclusion of the article is that the details and timeline of the conquest, as determined by archaeology etc., differ significantly than is described in the Bible. But it hardly gives the impression that the exodus and conquest was a fiction...?

Gundulf

Well said - that's my question to Johnny... When is this 'first' story of Adam & Eve he's referring to, so we can answer whether or not it is different than what we have today?

Chris Weimer

A controversial but still "in the middle" of two sides of the issue of Israel archaeology is Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed. For a solid introduction and text reproduction to the JEDP theory (which severly undermines Mosaic authorship), try Friedman's The Bible with Sources Unveiled and Who Wrote the Bible.

Edit: Wikipedia is not a great source for historical information.

Majestyk

This Article seemed relevant to this discussion. It proposes the location of Eden and the prior cultural myth which seems to have inspired the Genesis Adam & Eve fable.

The bottom line is a proposal that the "Knowledge" which forced A&E from the garden was Agriculture.

Doug Shaver

I see. Tradition says so, therefore it is certainly true.

I could argue with that logic, but it would clearly be a waste of both my time and yours.

Johnny Skeptic

Does inerrancy assume that none of the texts have been tampered with by people who God did not inspire to write the Bible? If so, what evidence do you have that none of the texts have been tampered with by people who God did not inspire to write the Bible? Today, it would certainly be a simple matter for some skeptics to change parts of the Bible significantly, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people at least some of the time. That proves that God has not chosen to defend the integrity of the texts. In addition, the book of Revelation warns against tampering with the texts. If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings.

I do not see why God would be interested in providing Christians with inerrant texts since he refused to provide any texts at all, whether innerant or errant, to the hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message.

Doug Shaver

I see nothing bizarre about the idea on its face.

What is bizarre, in light of all currently available evidence, is the idea that we skeptics are being unreasonable in thinking that he did not write, or otherwise contribute to the writing of, those books.

ksen

I don't think I've ever said that thinking Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch was unreasonable.

Just because I think he was the author doesn't mean I can't see why others would think differently. :huh: