Maxmixer3000

Hi all!
Just a quick question...

Is the Documentary Theory- still valid?

I think that at one point or another it was being questioned, but at this point in time I am not sure.
Of course, I was having a discussing with an Orthodox Jew- he adamantly stated that the D.T. had been discredited by various archaeologists and historians.
He also stated that Deuteronomy was part of the original 5 books of Moses, as opposed to have been "found" in the temple during the reign of King Josiah.

Can you anyone help me out on that- or point/ direct me towards some literature about that, that is fairly modern????

Thanks so much!
Maxine

Amaleq13

You might be interested in this thread. Specifically, the link provided in the OP.

Maxmixer3000

Thanks so much!!!

That was pretty much what I was looking for!

That the traditional J, E, P & D sources are not as 'accurate' as people once thought, but multiple scholarship is still widely belived (and, indeed, seems the only logical explanation).

However, does anyone know why the deuteronomic source is now no longer attributed to the time of Josiah???

I will check out that book by Joseph Blenkinsopp though!!

Thanks again!
Maxine

CX

Says who? Doesn't Finkelstein suggest just that?

Maxmixer3000

Yes Friedman does, however after reading the posts in the link that Amaleq gave me this quote in particular stood out.


"With his methodology exposed, what is left with his claims? What can one conclude of claims such as, "The Levites, Israel's priestly tribe, seem to be more likely group in which to look for the author of Deuteronomy than the royal courtiers." (p.120) How do we know the Levites existed, and were not fictive creations of a later set of priests, such as Ezra, the Maccabees, or the like? If we consider Sandmel's conclusions about the midrashic nature of the Pentateuch, how would we be able to conclude that the priests justifying the Levites' claims were in fact Levites? Friedman ignores all these problems and moves quickly into narrowing the field till he has Jeremiah and Baruch nailed as the authors of D. But again he ignores scholarship that has been pushing the book Jeremiah itself to much later dates, such that Baruch and Jeremiah can hardly be believable candidates."


This is from Celsus' post on the Elba forum. I can only assume that the quote he uses is from Friedman's book "Who Wrote the Bible."

Now Friedman does not give (at least in this quote) an approximate date, but he certainly seems to say that priests wrote it. Which is entirely correct according to the original theory, that King Josiah, along with the help of the High Priest wrote Deuteronomy.

Yet, looking at Celsus' last sentence of that paragraph it seems clear to me that there is a new theory out there that Celsus, at least, belives gives better evidence for a different author.
Who then? Is it just attributed to a later date with no author, and where is the proof (or at least a theory) about that.

(By the way CX, did you mean Friedman, or Finklestein??? And by any chance would this be the same Finklestein that is an archaeologist at the University of Tel Aviv?)

Just wondering 'bout that!!
Thanks,
Maxine

Celsus

Finkelstein is an archaeologist, not a biblical scholar. Much as I like his approach in archaeology, he really should keep his mouth shut when it comes to biblical criticism (or actually, I wish people would stop mentioning him as if he were a valid authority).

Maxmixer, I'm glad you found the thread helpful. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Joel

spin

The Deuteronomy Josiah tradition is based on a number of assumptions:

1) that Moses wrote most of the torah,
2) that most of the torah existed at the time of Josiah,
3) much of Deuteronomy is found in the rest of the torah,
4) Deuteronomy was seen as a retelling of what came before it,
5) it must therefore have been the book found in Josiah's time.

Do you see any reason to accept any of these today?


spin

rlogan

Hmmm...

So that leaves us with the question of what, exactly, was found in 2 Kings 22.

I found this abstract interesting:

King Josiah of Judah - Lost Messiah of Israel


http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso...33242/toc.html


Basically, that large portions of the prophetic literature as well as the Deuteronomistic History were written (or edited) in support of Josiahs reforms.

spin

If you accept the basic veracity of that account. What makes anyone think that any of 2 Kgs was written before the latest date indicated in the text, ie the taking of people into exile? But then are people being carted off into exile going to have the opportunity to write a royal history of a line which has just been terminated? We are dealing with a "post-exilic" writing effort, but then, why should a small time priestly state want to write a royal history? It is this problem which makes me see the writing of Kings as Hasmonean. They were the only second temple royals acceptible to the Jewish people.

Sounds like old schlarship to me.

If you can see that "out of Egypt" would contain materials useful for those supposedly just "out of Babylon", or that Persian period Daniel can be useful to Seleucid period Jerusalem, then it becomes hard to take such texts at face value. The present was so often illustrated by a past, be it real or not.


spin

CX

I regularly confuse Friedman and Finkelstein which is unconscionable but I seem to ahve some kind of mental block. I meant Friedman.