Ray Moscow

Which theory is dying?


I don't think any other literature has been analysed as much as the Bible. This is not surprising since it is the foundational literature for the largest and most powerful religion(s) on earth.

deadman_932

Ah, yes, no one ever offered to debate you on that, eh? You really can't help yourself, can you? The false claims just spill out of you like cheap candy from the battered pinata you've become.

Dean Anderson

I can think of two examples off the top of my head. There are probably others, though.

The Koran and the Epic of Gilgamesh are both considered by scholars to be composed of earlier works redacted together, for the same reason as the Torah is - the text shows evidence of such redaction.

I know that in the case of the Koran, this is strongly opposed by most Muslims who believe it - for religious, rather than textual reasons - to be the work of a single author (God or Mohammed, depending on your point of view). Indeed, study of the Koran is in the same state today as study of the Torah was in centuries past - a few brave scholars are prepared to openly state their conclusions, and they are denounced (or worse) for being heretics.

I know far less about the detail of exactly how and why those are split, though.

deadman_932

Since we're dealing with some things Arabic, The Arabian Nights is an example, as are the Hadiths. Slicing, dicing, tossing some bits aside, modifying others, adding others. Blah, blah, blah. I'm sure I could find many other examples.

Edit: I suppose I could make a case for the Arthurian Cycles if I wanted...Norse Myths, Greek Myths, etc.

Dean Anderson

Yeah - I think the whole "Why do you single the Torah out for special treatment? Why do you feel the need to discredit it so that you can reject God?" argument that Dave was leading up to is a total non-starter.

The Torah clearly isn't being singled out for special treatment here.

Not by us, at least.

Dave Hawkins

On this thread, DM. On this thread.

Cege

Since archaelogical evidence is lacking to establish even the events recorded in the book of Exodus, I really doubt there's any to establish that Genesis accounts were written down contemporaneously.

gregor

Dave might seek to paste together some shred of credibility if he were to say something like, "yeah, I mis-read the Wellhausen critique from an Amazon blurb. Sorry for the misleading posts about it since then. It's tough to admit when you're caught in a mistake."

-Jay-

The dead cat in question is the supposed presupposition of the DH that there was no writing in Israel at Moses' time.

It's not dead by virtue of Dean clearing it off. It's dead by virtue of not being relevant to the modern formulation of the DH.

Watching you move the goalposts around is interesting. Suggesting that Dean explain the origins of the individual documents is a tacit admission on your part that the modern formulation of the DH makes sense.

Understanding the origins of the original documents is peripheral to the issue of the validity of the modern formulation of the DH - the modern formulation of the DH presumes there were sources, but doesn't strictly need to know where those came from. The modern formulation of the DH must be largely, if not totally, silent on the history of the source documents before they were written down in the form that they took in the earliest exemplars that we have of the Pentateuch. The sources could've been oral. They could've been on scrolls. They could have been shaved into the fur on the side of a dog, for all that it matters. The point is that once they were written down, their essential form was set, and that's the form that the modern formulation of the DH works with.

Extrapolating this, eventually the thread will get to a point where you're asking someone to produce the original autographs of the Torah scrolls.

regards,

NinJay

Dave Hawkins

I didn't make a mistake about any Amazon blurbs. You might want to actually read my posts before spouting off like this.