RGD

I didn't know they actually were presumed authors - I just thought they were the Biblical equivalent of arm-candy.

Celsus

Hehehe... Hello scigirl *waves*

See why this thread should have stayed in BC&H? Esther was written not around the 5th century under the Persians, but about the 1st century BCE, and its authority was disputed well into the 1st century CE. Ruth was not written around the 11th century (pre-David), but was a 4th-2nd century anti-racist protest against exclusive nationalism that was formenting in Yehud/Judea. Both are very far removed from their protagonists. Incidentally, Harold Bloom tried to argue that "J", one of the purported sources for the first 5 books of the Bible was a woman. I believe he's retracted since, unfortunately. We don't actually know the genders of any of the writers, though it would be safe to say that they were mostly if not all men.

Joel

RGD

Thanks for the info! I'll have to look at Robert Alter and see if he has anything to contribute.

And don't worry about this little diversion - I'm sure TBT will be back to drag this thread into a rehash of why the Bible isn't a science text.

RBH

RGD wroteI was having a pretty good evening right up until I read that.

RBH

Celsus

Meh. Job's date is completely unknown, but it is not the oldest book of the Bible. If it were written c. 1500 BCE, it would predate the Ugaritic corpus (14th century) from Ras-Shamra, and that would be a surprise indeed, since its imagery is very obviously a late development on the Ugaritic myths (lotan --> Leviathan, etc.). None of the biblical corpus precedes the Iron II.

The Pentateuch was conservatively dated according to 4 "sources", J, E, D, and P, with J dating to about the 9th century at the earliest. Putting J in the Iron Age I or early II has numerous difficulties, not least of which that the language it was written in hadn't appeared yet, nor had the nation it was about to establish. So of course, it is disputed: John Van Seters has dated J to the Babylonian Exile (6th century), while several others dates it just before that (7th). E is completely disregarded these days, except by R.E. Friedman (and one banned member of this board), and D is usually dated to the Josianic reform (c. 620 BCE), though of course there's disagreement there too. P is generally regarded as post-exilic, around the construction of the Second Temple (Ezra/Nehemiah, 5th-4th century) at the earliest, but suggestions have been made to place it with the Maccabeans (3rd-2nd century). Most people who recognise the continuity between Deuteronomy and Joshua-Kings will give D an exilic date at the earliest, noting the similarity in language with Jeremiah and Isaiah. The thing is, even the conservatives arguing for early dates are still much later than they need to be for the fundamentalists. [Willowtree type argument]The only people who believe the biblical books were written around the time of their events are the fundamentalists. All the other biblical scholars pay no attention to that nonsense.[/Willowtree type argument]

[/BC&H mode]

Joel

Iam

I agree.
I presume that who-ever wrote it had some form of 'vision' that they transcribed.
Which, despite the inaccuracies, makes he / she unbelievably 'inspired'.... by anybody's standards.

Howard

I still think this guy is either putting us on or is a t-word.

And this mess belongs elsewhere.

Stella

*yawn*

Correction: The only cosmology you'll ever need.

Oolon Colluphid

How true...


(Edited: clarification)

RGD

Sorry about that. But the thread got booted out of BC&H for being too much about science. I don't think it's going to ping-pong back and forth.