Jayhawker Soule

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?

Greg2003

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?

Jayhawker Soule

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.

Greg2003

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?

Jayhawker Soule

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.

CX

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.

Kosh

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..."

Jayhawker Soule

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>