FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-17-2002, 02:56 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Post The Documentary Hypothesis & 'Minimalism'

Some, like Kosh, assert that the whole Tanakh is some [i]"7th cent BCE. Fabrication". But doesn't this mean a complete repudiation of the Documentary Hypothesis? Is there, in fact, a Friedman/Finkelstein debate?
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 04:53 AM   #2
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 167
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
<strong>Some, like Kosh, assert that the whole Tanakh is some [i]"7th cent BCE. Fabrication". But doesn't this mean a complete repudiation of the Documentary Hypothesis? Is there, in fact, a Friedman/Finkelstein debate?</strong>
By 7th century are you refering to the Ezra dating of the Tanakh, in which case the Persian Empire basically wrote the legends to make the jews loyal to Persia, or the Josiah dating which is Finkelstein's position?

What exactly is meant by documentary hypothesis? If you mean the hypothesis that the Tenakh is an eyewitness historical account, or at least an account grounded on factual accounts of the past, then hasn't that been soundly refuted by all non-biblicist archeaologists, minimalist or non-minimalist?
Greg2003 is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 05:07 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Greg2003:
<strong>
By 7th century are you refering to the Ezra dating of the Tanakh, in which case the Persian Empire basically wrote the legends to make the jews loyal to Persia, or the Josiah dating which is Finkelstein's position?

What exactly is meant by documentary hypothesis? If you mean the hypothesis that the Tenakh is an eyewitness historical account, or at least an account grounded on factual accounts of the past, then hasn't that been soundly refuted by all non-biblicist archeaologists, minimalist or non-minimalist?</strong>
I believe that you'll find Finkelstein's position to be that this was the period of the final redaction (as opposed to the initial fabrication). As for "What exactly is meant by documentary hypothesis?", see, for example, <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html" target="_blank">Documentary Hypothesis</a> for a brief overview.
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 05:48 AM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 167
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
<strong>
As for "What exactly is meant by documentary hypothesis?", see, for example, <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html" target="_blank">Documentary Hypothesis</a> for a brief overview.</strong>
Oh, I see! Sorry about my ignorance there. Yes, that does seem to pose a problem. The literary analysis seems to contradict the latest archeaological theories, at least Finkelstein's.

But couldn't you support a view that the other redactors simply followed the 7th century BCE? The midrash tradition would support such a view. Does Finkelstein completely discount that possibility?
Greg2003 is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 06:11 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Greg2003:
<strong>But couldn't you support a view that the other redactors simply followed the 7th century BCE? The midrash tradition would support such a view. Does Finkelstein completely discount that possibility?</strong>
For the J|E 'traditions' to make much sense, they would pretty much have to precede the Deuteronomists. This is certainly what Friedman suggests, and I found nothing in "The Bible Unearthed" to suggest a rejection (or discounting) of the Documentary Hypothesis. In fact, I believe that it was referenced with approval.
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 06:34 AM   #6
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
<strong>Some, like Kosh, assert that the whole Tanakh is some [i]"7th cent BCE. Fabrication". But doesn't this mean a complete repudiation of the Documentary Hypothesis? Is there, in fact, a Friedman/Finkelstein debate?</strong>
I think Finkelstein is often misrepresented. I have not finished the book yet, but from what I can tell he is saying only that the final form of the Tanakh as we have it is the work of compilation undertaken beginning in the 7th century BCE under the authority of King Josiah. The stories were around much longer than that and so I don't think Finkelstein's position is in anyway contradictory to the documentary hypothesis.
CX is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 07:12 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
<strong>
For the J|E 'traditions' to make much sense, they would pretty much have to precede the Deuteronomists. This is certainly what Friedman suggests, and I found nothing in "The Bible Unearthed" to suggest a rejection (or discounting) of the Documentary Hypothesis. In fact, I believe that it was referenced with approval.</strong>
Hmmm. Perhaps my use of that term was a bit too vague. What I meant was simply to agree with Finkelstein, that the OT as we know it was fabricated in the 7th century. Ie, the pentatauch wasn't written by Moses or anyone close to him. And as ReasonableDoubt has pointed out, Finkelsteins theory includes a weaving together of earlier oral traditions.

However, as he also points out, I still believe it's mostly mythology. No Adam and Eve, no Flood, No Exodus. No great Temples of Solomon, etc.

That's why I call it a fabrication.

Of course, this is my opinions, and as the saying goes, "Opinions are like Assholes..."
Kosh is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 07:18 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Post

I'm not sure why I haven't come across this before, but I much appreciate the intellectual honesty found in this <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~temdavid/the%20veracity%20of%20the%20exodus.html" target="_blank">Sermon Delivered on First Morning of Passover</a>

The problem I see with confusing 'final redaction' with "fabrication' is that the latter tends to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'. This is fine if the only question at hand is the inerrancy of the Torah. But once the focus shifts from apologetics to one of history, archaeology and anthropology, to quote Feldman's editorial in BAR: "The debate over the historicity of the Bible is nowhere near as settled as Lazare would have the readers of Harper's believe."

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:10 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.