Who wrote the bible?

[Meatros]

Has anyone read this book by Richard E. Friedman? I finished it a while ago and it's a pretty interesting read that attempts to uncover who wrote some of the books of the Old Testament.

Friedman has some convincing (to a layperson anyway) evidence to support the idea that 4 people wrote the first five books of the bible and an additional person combined the four sources (IIRC).

One of the reasons I find it interesting is because this idea clears up some of the 'odd' features in the first five books (such as the different creation accounts).

In any event, I'm placing it in the archeology section to see if anyone has any additional evidence to either back up Friedman's book or tear down Friedman's book.

[Socrates]

www.tektonics.org/REF.HBB_0060630035.html

When we last checked in on Richard Elliott Friedman, he was happily whistling the old JEDP tune in a book called Who Wrote the Bible? These days he's peddling an even wackier literary theory, one that makes the English/lit major in me get achy teeth. The basic thesis: The author of the "J" portion of the Pentateuch is also responsible for other parts of the OT history from Joshua to Kings.

As before, Friedman's tone is not that of a hostile critic; his tone is rather breathless at times (I wanted to mail him some paper bags and tell him to calm down) as he reports what he thinks is a great discovery, but is actually no more than the usual case of overstatements mixed with presumption. What Friedman has done is found an indeed large number of words and phrases that are found only in "J" passages from Genesis to 1 Kings. In a few cases the data is so meager as to be meaningless: A word or phrase is found only twice in this span. For example, "coat of many colors" is found twice, but in the context of Bible times, when this would be a special gift, would this mean any more than finding the words "leather jacket" twice in a multi-authored book on motorcycle gangs? In other cases the data is a mountainous molehill. Words like "hate" found five or seven times don't mean a thing; one may as well use the words "the" or "and" as markers of authorship. The term for animal feed is used five times in this span, but are we expecting references to animal feed in the Deuteronomy covenant, or in the annals of Kings? "And Rehoboam ordered a pile of animal feed placed in the middle of the throne room..." In yet other cases, mimesis by a later author is an even better explanation than Friedman's.

Friedman does offer a service in arguing for an early date for the J material. Nevertheless, Hidden Book in the Bible is little more than the usual literary three-ring circus we have been accustomed to.

[Meatros]

Interesting, so what does that leave us with in regards to who wrote the bible?

Also, do you have a site that directly examines 'who wrote the bible'?

[Amazing Rando]

The traditional version says that Moses authored the first five books of the Bible, though I'm not quite sure myself where this is claimed in the text.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375750#post375750)
Amazing Rando:

The traditional version says that Moses authored the first five books of the Bible, though I'm not quite sure myself where this is claimed in the text.

All throughout Exodus to Deuteronomy. Genesis was more likely edited by Moses. Jesus Himself affirmed Mosaic authorship in John 5:46-47.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375881#post375881)
Socrates:

All throughout Exodus to Deuteronomy. Genesis was more likely edited by Moses. Jesus Himself affirmed Mosaic authorship in John 5:46-47.

I'm sure that Moses was the primary source of the core of the Law, as Jesus affirms this multiple times, but as to the narrative portions, I'm not so sure.

What are some places in Exodus and Deuteronomy that claim this? It's clear that Moses received the Law from God at Sanai, but why is it thought that Moses also authored the narrative sections of the Pentateuch?

[Meatros]

Today @ 04:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375881#post375881)
Socrates:



All throughout Exodus to Deuteronomy. Genesis was more likely edited by Moses. Jesus Himself affirmed Mosaic authorship in John 5:46-47.


I'm not just disagreeing to disagree, I'm genuinely curious here, but how do you know Jesus is referring to all of those books-as opposed to one (or a few)?

I suppose I'm looking for some research and a bit of meat (I'm not trying to be offensive), do you (or anyone) have any book suggestions that confirm a mosiac authorship?

Thanks,

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375908#post375908)
Amazing Rando:

I'm sure that Moses was the primary source of the core of the Law, as Jesus affirms this multiple times, but as to the narrative portions, I'm not so sure.

The Jews, including Jesus, didn't split up books like this. Jesus explicitly affirmed the narrative portions such as the Creation and the Flood.

What are some places in Exodus and Deuteronomy that claim this?

"The LORD said to Moses ..." passim for one.

[IslamicGodzilla]

I recommend Friedman. I would characterize the documentary hypothesis as four "traditions" as opposed to four "authors". If you don't want to buy the book, go to "Dr. Google" and you'll see some outlines of the documentary hypothesis.

There is a complete lack of archaeoligical evidence for the exodus. There nothing in the egyptian histories. How can it be that small encampments of fifty thousand year old neanderthals can leave us such spectacular evidence - and a million people leave none? If they all just stopped to poop in one place we'd see the evidence.

This should jar us into viewing the OT as a detective would instead of being a mindless slave of the pointy hat power elite.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375974#post375974)
Islamic "I'm a Christian but despise Christian doctrine" Godzilla:

I recommend Friedman. I would characterize the documentary hypothesis as four "traditions" as opposed to four "authors". If you don't want to buy the book, go to "Dr. Google" and you'll see some outlines of the documentary hypothesis.

And look on TWeb to see why the documentary hypothesis is bunk.

There is a complete lack of archaeoligical evidence for the exodus. There nothing in the egyptian histories. How can it be that small encampments of fifty thousand year old neanderthals can leave us such spectacular evidence - and a million people leave none? If they all just stopped to poop in one place we'd see the evidence.

Of course, you would need to look for them in the right place. Too many archaeologists rely too heavily on the crass chronology of Manetho. But with the revised chronology of Rohl et al., some archaeologists have looked in the right place (i.e. right dynasty) and found oodles of evidence. See Searching for Moses (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp).

This should jar us into viewing the OT as a detective would instead of being a mindless slave of the pointy hat power elite.

Here we go with IG's moronic conspiracy theories again :zzz:

[Robyn Banks]

Socrates:
Friedman does offer a service in arguing for an early date for the J material.

J was a woman, of course.

"My J is a Gevurah [sic] ("great lady") of post-Solomonic court circles, herself of Davidic blood, who began writing her great work in the later years of Solomon, in close rapport and exchanging influences with her good friend the Court Historian, who wrote most of what we now call 2 Solomon."
- Harold Bloom.

"Bloom has lifted the notion that the book of J may have been a woman from Richard Elliott Friedman, who proposed it in Who Wrote the Bible? (Summit, 1987). Bloom cites this work in another connection but does not credit Friedman for the provocative hypothesis that Bloom has placed at the center of his own work."
- Jack Miles

[Jaltus]

I would like to say that Moses did not write all of the Pentateuch, as there was obvious editing after his death (such as the inclusion of his death, which I doubt he wrote himself). In fact, Joshua in Jos 24 is said to add to the book of the law.

[Amazing Rando]

Yesterday @ 04:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375922#post375922)
Socrates:

The Jews, including Jesus, didn't split up books like this. Jesus explicitly affirmed the narrative portions such as the Creation and the Flood.

They split up books like Kings and Chronicles into two parts- when they were probably originally written as one part.

But anyway, it just seems more likely to me that someone other than Moses composed this narrative, and incorporated the law Moses had written into it. Unless writing in the third person was the custom of the day, and Moses somehow wrote about the circumstances of his own death before it happened, it just seems implausible to me.

"The LORD said to Moses ..." passim for one.

I don't see that as an authorial attestation- the Bible records "The LORD" speaking to plenty of folks directly- like the Patriarchs, yet no claim is ever made that, say, Abraham wrote Genesis.

I just don't see the case for Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch as very strong. Certainly Moses received the Law from God, but the question of the actual authorship of the Pentateuch just isn't made in the text. This is especially so in light of the lack of a clear authorial attribution like we have in the books of prophecy and the NT.

[Jaltus]

Are you discounting Jesus' words then?

And Paul's?

When they quote from ther Pentatuch, the call them "the law of Moses."

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 03:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=376737#post376737)
Jaltus:

Are you discounting Jesus' words then?

And Paul's?

When they quote from ther Pentatuch, the call them "the law of Moses."

Right- sorry if I wasn't clear before- I'll try it again.

It's absolutely clear to me that Moses wrote the law he received from God- either on Mt. Sinai or elsewhere. I'm just saying that it seems most likely that the Pentateuch in its present form was probably composed by someone other than Moses. This person certainly incorporated Moses' Law into the present composition. Thus, the Law is from Moses, while the rest of the Pentateuch probably is not. That sums it up a little better I think. Sorry if I was unclear.

[Jaltus]

Ok, cool.

I disagree in that I think Moses wrote/redacted much of the original text and it was later added to, but ok.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 01:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=376707#post376707)
Amazing Rando:

They split up books like Kings and Chronicles into two parts- when they were probably originally written as one part.

Missing the point. The Jews did not separate the history from the doctrinal.

But anyway, it just seems more likely to me that someone other than Moses composed this narrative, and incorporated the law Moses had written into it. Unless writing in the third person was the custom of the day,

It was!! Old Testament scholar Gray Pilgrim, who is fluent in biblical Hebrew, pointed out on TWeb parallels in the Epic of Baal found at Ras Shamra do, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Aqhat, Keret (sometimes called Kirta do to the improtation of Akkadian morphology in to Ugaritic phonology).

... and Moses somehow wrote about the circumstances of his own death before it happened, it just seems implausible to me.

OK, as Jaltus said, the account of Moses' death was probably added to Joshua, and this has long been evangelical consensus.

Other times, Moses said he used sources, as our resident Hebrew scholar GrayPilgrim points out. I've provided evidence both for Moses' editing earlier accounts (e.g. Gen. 26:33, 32:32). and for unedited portions (e.g. Genesis 10:19) indicating that Genesis had far older sources than Moses.

But the main points are): that Jesus and the Apostles believed in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and their frequent equation of "Scripture said" with "God said". There was nothing in the way "authorship" was understood to the ancients to rule out being the editor or using scribes, which is as Jaltus says.

[Robyn Banks]

Socrates:
the account of Moses' death was probably added to Joshua, and this has long been evangelical consensus.
Surely you mean added by Joshua?

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Amazing Rando:
It's absolutely clear to me that Moses wrote the law he received from God- either on Mt. Sinai or elsewhere. I'm just saying that it seems most likely that the Pentateuch in its present form was probably composed by someone other than Moses. This person certainly incorporated Moses' Law into the present composition. Thus, the Law is from Moses, while the rest of the Pentateuch probably is not. That sums it up a little better I think. Sorry if I was unclear.
The conservative IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament concludes thusly, under 'Authorship':"Since the Pentateuch itself offers no clear statement regarding the one responsible for creating it, we should exercise extreme caution before stating that its author can be identified with certainty. While the long-standing tradition of Mosaic authorship is based upon clear statements that Moses was responsible for writing substantial parts of the Pentateuch, the weight of evidence suggests that Moses probably did not compose the Pentateuch as we now have it ..." (p70)
Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 12:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=379786#post379786)
Robyn Banks:


The conservative IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament concludes thusly, under 'Authorship':"Since the Pentateuch itself offers no clear statement regarding the one responsible for creating it, we should exercise extreme caution before stating that its author can be identified with certainty. While the long-standing tradition of Mosaic authorship is based upon clear statements that Moses was responsible for writing substantial parts of the Pentateuch, the weight of evidence suggests that Moses probably did not compose the Pentateuch as we now have it ..." (p70)
Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

Thanks Robyn, that's a very good quote! I guess that would tie in with Soc's statement that the Jews had a diferent view of authorship than we do today- they didn't think that being an editor was much different than being the author.

By the way, I read somewhere that archeaologists have discovered the seal of Baruch the scribe- the "secretary" of the prophet Jeremiah. Is this accurate?

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 06:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=379500#post379500)
Socrates:

But anyway, it just seems more likely to me that someone other than Moses composed this narrative, and incorporated the law Moses had written into it. Unless writing in the third person was the custom of the day

It was!! Old Testament scholar Gray Pilgrim, who is fluent in biblical Hebrew, pointed out on TWeb parallels in the Epic of Baal found at Ras Shamra do, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Aqhat, Keret (sometimes called Kirta do to the improtation of Akkadian morphology in to Ugaritic phonology).



Thanks for the insight on the different conceptions of "authorship!" I had suspected that was the case- especially with Paul's use of a secretary/scribe to dictate some of his NT letters.

I think I was a little unclear in my question above. It just seems rather odd to me to have the story of Moses, if it was indeed written by Moses, to be written in the first person rather than the first. Perhaps that's just my ethno- and chrono-centrism talking, or perhaps I just lack understanding of the Hebrew literature, but I'm unaware of other examples in the Bible or elsewhere where the author of the story is writing about himself and uses the third person rather than the first. Most of the books of prophecy, for example, are written in the first person. Luke and Acts include first person statements as well. Does this make sense? I'm just confused as to why Moses would write in the third person. Can you understand my befuddlement here?

Could you link to Gray Pilgrim's post where he talks about this? Thanks, it would be helpful.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=379779#post379779)
Robyn Banks:

Surely you mean added by Joshua?

Jawohl.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=380020#post380020)
Socrates:

Jawohl.

:hrm:

Is that "Thank you" in Maori or something?

[sweet_jess]

is hard to read some things here. why does nobody read the bible for answers. pentatuch is not in bible.

[One Bad Pig]

01-15-2004 @ 04:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=380597#post380597)
Amazing Rando:


Socrates:

Jawohl.
:hrm:

Is that "Thank you" in Maori or something?

It's German. It's a formal "yes".

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 05:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=390805#post390805)
sweet_jess:

is hard to read some things here. why does nobody read the bible for answers. pentatuch is not in bible.

"Pentatuch" is a word that refers to the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Dueteronomy.

[sweet_jess]

thank you mr bad pig.

this is fun but there are bad poeople here too. talk about crazy things.

see if this working :hrm: :doh:

says hrm and doh. but i cant see them.

[One Bad Pig]

01-13-2004 @ 11:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375917#post375917)
Meatros:




I'm not just disagreeing to disagree, I'm genuinely curious here, but how do you know Jesus is referring to all of those books-as opposed to one (or a few)?


In John 5:46-47, Jesus refers to the writings of Moses. In John 1:17, we find that the Law was given through Moses. The Jews divide the Old Testament into three parts; the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law refers to the first five books of the Old Testament.


I suppose I'm looking for some research and a bit of meat (I'm not trying to be offensive), do you (or anyone) have any book suggestions that confirm a mosiac authorship?

Thanks,

My Ryrie Study Bible affirms Mosaic authorship, and provides a short argument in favor of it. For something more in-depth, I'd recommend An Introduction to the Old Testament by Tremper Longman. It covers more than just authorship, but has quite an extensive bibliography, and should at least be able to point you in the right direction.

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 06:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=390921#post390921)
sweet_jess:

thank you mr bad pig.

:smile: You're welcome!


this is fun but there are bad poeople here too. talk about crazy things.

Yeah, but the bad people aren't in charge, and we have DDW to keep them in line. :whip:
This board is here, in part, to help "bad" people become "good" people. There's an occasional :rant: or :fight: (even from the "good" people), but the moderators help to keep things from getting out of hand.


see if this working :hrm: :doh:

says hrm and doh. but i cant see them.

You're not going to see them in the reply box. However, if you click on the "Preview Reply" button, you can see what your post will look like before you submit it.

[stevenw]

01-14-2004 @ 02:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=376685#post376685)
Jaltus:

I would like to say that Moses did not write all of the Pentateuch, as there was obvious editing after his death (such as the inclusion of his death, which I doubt he wrote himself). In fact, Joshua in Jos 24 is said to add to the book of the law.

[sweet_jess]

thank you mr bad pid pig i am learning now. . :smile: :smile: :smile:

some body ddw is boss here? tell them ddw about moses. not in genesis. moses starting in exodos. i think people here not read bible. abraham before moses. sodom and lot. in genesis. please read because genesis happejn before moses.

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=391705#post391705)
sweet_jess:

thank you mr bad pid pig i am learning now. . :smile: :smile: :smile:

some body ddw is boss here? tell them ddw about moses. not in genesis. moses starting in exodos. i think people here not read bible. abraham before moses. sodom and lot. in genesis. please read because genesis happejn before moses.

Yes, Dee Dee Warren (ddw) is the boss here. We don't let it go to her head though. :grin:

Yes, the story of Moses begins with Exodus. However, those who agree that Moses wrote his story also agree that he wrote Genesis. There are two different opinions on how this was accomplished. Some people believe that God dictated Genesis to Moses. Others believe that Moses had a set of clay tablets that narrated the Genesis account.

[Socratism]

I don't think that anyone who has looked into the authorship of Genesis seriously doubts that Moses "edited" the various eyewitness accounts into a single document, leaving the "signatures" intact of the original authors of each section.

This indicates to me that Moses had enough wisdom to leave the individual accounts pretty much as they were originally recorded.

Moses, as a prince of Egypt, would of course have had access to all the literature of the ancients, but unfortunately most of this material was destroyed when the great library at Alexandria burned to the ground. A good example of the adage to "not put all your eggs in one basket".

[Nimrod]

How about this:

Who wrote the Bible? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html)

How did these books come to be written? There's a wide range of opinion. We'll only present the two most commonly held views--what we'll call the "traditional view" and the "scholarly view." This is perhaps misleading terminology, since there are many profound scholars on both sides. We use the term "scholarly" in the sense of "academic" or "scientific", although neither of those terms are right, either. Perhaps the best term is "documentarist", but that's cumbersome. So we shall stick to "traditional" and "scholarly", without implying lack of scholarship on the other side.

The traditional explanation is that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses himself. There are several variants of this explanation:

Traditional Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity believe that the text was dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, letter for letter (or pretty much letter for letter).
Other religious groups still ascribe authorship to Moses, but use words like "divinely inspired" rather than "dictated letter for letter."
Still others say Moses was the sole author, but there's nothing "divine" about it except in the sense that all great works of literature and poetry are "inspired."
Mosaic authorship would mean the five books were written around 1280 to 1250 BC, the most commonly accepted range of dates for the exodus from Egypt, give or take 30 years.

It has long been recognized that there were a few problems with the traditional view of Moses as author. The text reports the death of Moses--how could Moses have written of his own death? It also describes Moses as "the most humble man who ever lived"--how could Moses write that about himself? But these are minor issues. Some say Moses' successor Joshua wrote the few lines that describe the death of Moses; others say that Moses himself was commanded to write that text before it happened. None of this represents a serious challenge to Mosaic authorship.

As time went on, however, scholars became increasingly skeptical of the idea of Moses as single author.
The rest of the article addresses the issues.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 07:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=394509#post394509)
Socratism:

I don't think that anyone who has looked into the authorship of Genesis seriously doubts that Moses "edited" the various eyewitness accounts into a single document, leaving the "signatures" intact of the original authors of each section.

This indicates to me that Moses had enough wisdom to leave the individual accounts pretty much as they were originally recorded.

Moses, as a prince of Egypt, would of course have had access to all the literature of the ancients, but unfortunately most of this material was destroyed when the great library at Alexandria burned to the ground. A good example of the adage to "not put all your eggs in one basket".

Hmm. Do you have any suggestions as to who would have originally written Genesis then? Socrates has suggested Adam himself, but that would only apply to the first few chapters since he was long dead by the time of the Flood. So who might you suggest wrote the rest of the book, from Flood to the Tower of Babel to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph?

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=394587#post394587)
Amazing Rando:
Hmm. Do you have any suggestions as to who would have originally written Genesis then? Socrates has suggested Adam himself, but that would only apply to the first few chapters since he was long dead by the time of the Flood. So who might you suggest wrote the rest of the book, from Flood to the Tower of Babel to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph?

I would suggest that the various sections were written by the authors whose signatures appear in the text following the end of their respective sections.

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 02:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=394509#post394509)
Socratism:

I don't think that anyone who has looked into the authorship of Genesis seriously doubts that Moses "edited" the various eyewitness accounts into a single document, leaving the "signatures" intact of the original authors of each section.

This indicates to me that Moses had enough wisdom to leave the individual accounts pretty much as they were originally recorded.

Moses, as a prince of Egypt, would of course have had access to all the literature of the ancients, but unfortunately most of this material was destroyed when the great library at Alexandria burned to the ground. A good example of the adage to "not put all your eggs in one basket".

:thumb:

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 12:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=395092#post395092)
Socratism:

I would suggest that the various sections were written by the authors whose signatures appear in the text following the end of their respective sections.

Care to explain? I don't see any kind of claim to authorship within the Genesis text itself.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=395182#post395182)
Amazing Rando:
Care to explain? I don't see any kind of claim to authorship within the Genesis text itself.

I didn't either nor did anyone else until other ancient documents were found to be "signed" in a distinct way. Once this was discovered it became easy to see that the same type of distinctive "signature" also appeared in the book of Genesis, and what topped it all off was that the "signatures" always appeared following events that the "signature" author would have been an eyewitness to.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 03:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=395204#post395204)
Socratism:

I didn't either nor did anyone else until other ancient documents were found to be "signed" in a distinct way. Once this was discovered it became easy to see that the same type of distinctive "signature" also appeared in the book of Genesis, and what topped it all off was that the "signatures" always appeared following events that the "signature" author would have been an eyewitness to.

Do you have any more information regarding these "signatures?" Any links? Because as it stands, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=395393#post395393)
Amazing Rando:

Do you have any more information regarding these "signatures?" Any links? Because as it stands, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think I already gave you the info, and I think Socratism is referring to the same concept. There is an oveview The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship (http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp).

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 03:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=396326#post396326)
Socrates:

I think I already gave you the info, and I think Socratism is referring to the same concept. There is an oveview The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship (http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp).


Good deal! Thanks for the link. I shall investigate.

Interesting- the article suggested that "These are the generations of" was a transitional phrase, separating pieces of the Genesis narrative. That's certainly possible! Interesting theory, and certainly more plausible than the alternative.

Before this, the only explanation I'd ever heard for Genesis' authorship that wasn't labeled J, E, P, or D was that God dictated the whole of Genesis to Moses. While that's certainly possible (as all things are) with our God, it just didn't make any sense to me at all. Your theory is a good deal more rational and believable, in my opinion!

[Dr.GH]

Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy

Numbers 21:14
Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, ...

1 Kings 14:19
Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he made war and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.

2 Chronicles 27:7
Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, even all his wars and his acts, behold, they are written in the Book of the
Kings of Israel and Judah.

And this is in addition to the use of Sumerian and Ugarit material as well.

[Socrates]

Dr GH has provided genuine sources used by Bible writers. In the NT, Luke said he used sources too. These contrast with the fake sources of the JEDP crap.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=396370#post396370)
Socrates:

Dr GH has provided genuine sources used by Bible writers. In the NT, Luke said he used sources too. These contrast with the fake sources of the JEDP crap.

:yes:

[Dr.GH]

Dr GH has provided genuine sources used by Bible writers. In the NT, Luke said he used sources too. These contrast with the fake sources of the JEDP crap.

I don't see that this follows. The documentry hypothesis used northern and southern references (ie (North) El, Baal, Elohim, (South) Yahweh, etc ... ) to identify sources. The Pentateuch/Torah mentioned one source book, and there were others mentioned by name in later additions. There doesn't seem to me to be a lot of mystery about this. The title "Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah" alone indicates that there was a historical recognition that Northern (Israel) and Southern (Juda) perspectives and experiences differed. The interesting theological point is that they were fairly easy to reconcile, not that they never existed.

The parsing of text into one 'source pile' or another can always be taken too far to be meaningful. Over analysis is a common academic pastime. I would be very excited if the Ugarit library would turn up a "Book of the ... "

[puppyluv]

I think I already gave you the info, and I think Socratism is referring to the same concept. There is an oveview The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship (http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp).
That was a really great article. Thank you.

They will dig these up some day!

[webulite]

I'm not just disagreeing to disagree, I'm genuinely curious here, but how do you know Jesus is referring to all of those books-as opposed to one (or a few)?
Thanks,

hey Meatros, from what I understand, the term "the Law" refers to the torah or the first 5 books of the bible. "the Profits" also fits a number of books, but I forget offhand which they were... so when someone says "the law and the profits" they are refering to a specific set of jewish texts.

cheers! webulite.com

[webulite]

I didn't either nor did anyone else until other ancient documents were found to be "signed" in a distinct way. Once this was discovered it became easy to see that the same type of distinctive "signature" also appeared in the book of Genesis, and what topped it all off was that the "signatures" always appeared following events that the "signature" author would have been an eyewitness to.

hello Socratism, could you give me some more information about the signatures? What is the term that acedemics use for these signatures, is there any URL that you could provide me that would allow me to look into this further? and/or do you know who might have discovered these signatures?

cheers! webulite.com

[Socratism]

hello Socratism, could you give me some more information about the signatures? What is the term that acedemics use for these signatures, is there any URL that you could provide me that would allow me to look into this further? and/or do you know who might have discovered these signatures?

cheers! webulite.com

http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

[shunyadragon]

http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html
The problem with this is the tablets referred to are not Biblical, but Babalonian and other literate related cultures. There are no biblical records on stone or clay older than ~250 BCE.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hmm. Do you have any suggestions as to who would have originally written Genesis then? Socrates has suggested Adam himself, but that would only apply to the first few chapters since he was long dead by the time of the Flood. So who might you suggest wrote the rest of the book, from Flood to the Tower of Babel to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph?
Considering the similarity to the creation myth in the ugartic bible, it is much more likely that it was adapted by the early Jews from that religion.

[One Bad Pig]

Considering the similarity to the creation myth in the ugartic bible, it is much more likely that it was adapted by the early Jews from that religion.
:huh: Ugartic Bible?

[Dr.GH]

Ugarit was a late Babylonian seaport north of Israel. They spoke, and wrote Western Semetic closely related to Hebrew. I would suggest reading:

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel.
Boston: Harvard University Press

Pardee, Dennis
2002 Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor)
1997 Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L
Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Uragit was the major source for the Northern tradition or "Elohim" versions of a good part of the pentateuch, as well as providing a fair amount of material for Proverbs. For example, Baal was an annually resurrecting fertility god in Ugarit who is mentioned very negatively by preists of the Southern tradition from Juda. "El" was the principal god. Ugarit fell to the "sea people" and was rediscovered in the 1920s. Excavations have recovered a major collection of tablets which are still being studied.

[mikeledo]

Ugarit was a late Babylonian seaport north of Israel. They spoke, and wrote Western Semetic closely related to Hebrew. I would suggest reading:

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel.
Boston: Harvard University Press

Pardee, Dennis
2002 Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor)
1997 Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L
Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Uragit was the major source for the Northern tradition or "Elohim" versions of a good part of the pentateuch, as well as providing a fair amount of material for Proverbs. For example, Baal was an annually resurrecting fertility god in Ugarit who is mentioned very negatively by preists of the Southern tradition from Juda. "El" was the principal god. Ugarit fell to the "sea people" and was rediscovered in the 1920s. Excavations have recovered a major collection of tablets which are still being studied.
The Ugarit texts have been claimed to have been the common source for both many Bible stories and Greek myths. My own research reveals a primitive Biblical text was written BEFORE the Ugarit text. From this script, the Ugarit text borrowed and added to. Up to this point only YHWH was mentioned in the Bible.

Later the authors of the Bible then copied parts of the Ugarit text into their own, such as the legend of King Krt was used in the story of David, the story of the two brothers was used in the story of Joseph, and of course some whole sale stealing of Daniel.

It is never a simple "one borrowed from the other." Cultures borrowed from each other, with influence going in both directions. I am sure you would agree to my last statement.

[Dr.GH]

The Ugarit texts have been claimed to have been the common source for both many Bible stories and Greek myths. My own research reveals a primitive Biblical text was written BEFORE the Ugarit text. From this script, the Ugarit text borrowed and added to.

Interesting. What are your references for this "primitive biblical text?" I certainly do agree that cultural interactions are complex.

[One Bad Pig]

Uragit was the major source for the Northern tradition or "Elohim" versions of a good part of the pentateuch, as well as providing a fair amount of material for Proverbs. For example, Baal was an annually resurrecting fertility god in Ugarit who is mentioned very negatively by preists of the Southern tradition from Juda. "El" was the principal god. Ugarit fell to the "sea people" and was rediscovered in the 1920s. Excavations have recovered a major collection of tablets which are still being studied.
Ah. JEPD. :eww:

[mikeledo]

Interesting. What are your references for this "primitive biblical text?" I certainly do agree that cultural interactions are complex.
Not trying to sound like Lazlo Toth, but I have researched the material myself. The older text is from EB III. I place it circa 2218-2141 BCE, plus 50 minus 200 years at the outside.

I was inspired by Freidman's work and found he did not edit the Bible properly. He left in material which should have been removed and took out material which should have stayed. The text was a living document of circular history. Imagine if we wrote the history of the United States from the Revolution thru WWII. Then Vietnam came along. Instead of just adding it on to the end of story, it would be inserted say...about 1900 when we fought against the Philippines. The story may have been added by just adding a line "and Vietnam" behind the word Philippines or a whole story may have been inserted- even fusing presidents, leaders etc. into one character.

The technique that was commonly used was to repeat a phrase, sentence or ideal, and then insert material in between the two phrases. This would let future readers know it was inserted. Once the material was introduced in this manner it was fair game to use it sporadiacally throughout the chapter. For instance Solomon is crowned king twice, Saul dies twice, Joshua conquers the cities of the 5 kings twice although their names differ slightly the second time (first time Bronze Age cities, second time Iron Age cities). Noah boards the ark 3 times and debarks 2. Moses conquers and occupies the cities of the Amorites twice- in between the statements Heshbon is introduced in a poem(Iron Age city). Abraham travels with Lott to their promised homeland twice. The list is almost endless.

Once the book is properly edited (It becomes a different story too) you have a tale with a heavy Babylonian flavor which reproduces historical characters from Sargon I as Moses to Narum Sin as David.

The book starts Genesis 2:4a. "These are the histories of the heavens and the Earth..."

The book when edited lays neatly unto a map of the constellations in a contiguous fashion with ancient Arabic star meanings neatly fitting unto Biblical names translated into their original Hebrew. Joshua stopped the sun in the sky at the point of an ancient super nova which lit up the night. Samson, the sun god, loses his hair and sight at a star which not only represents the ancient winter solstice but was dedicated to the Temple of Dagon. Every story has these "coincidences" which mount overwhelming evidence for an astrology basis.

The Midrash explained OT stories by comparing them to their Greek counterpart for the same constellation location that the Greeks assigned to them. I have an incredible amount of data. One can also compare nearly any religion to the stars now. I have Egypt and the New Testament pretty well mapped out too.

[ChrisChillin]

Hey mikeledo -

I'd love to have a detailed, structured, point-by-point discussion of your theory, if you'd be willing. We could set up another thread for it, and perhaps make it a tennis court thread if you want to just discuss one-on-one. Tell me what you think.

[mikeledo]

Hey mikeledo -

I'd love to have a detailed, structured, point-by-point discussion of your theory, if you'd be willing. We could set up another thread for it, and perhaps make it a tennis court thread if you want to just discuss one-on-one. Tell me what you think.
I would love to discuss my thesis. I would prefer we leave it open to all people who might have questions and comments. I will ignore the ugly comments in my replies, but valid points you can pick up and restate. I don't want to leave someone out with a valid comment. I have picked at my theory, rewrote some of the details until I can't find fault in it. I would love an intellectual discussion to see if it passes the muster. I have had 3 people (all atheists) read my theisis and are convinced by it. One has a degree in comparative religion and is an ancient language buff. My shift schedule right now gives me little time for lengthy responses for the moment.

I am not sure under what topic this would be best suited. Or if you want we could make this a tennis court thread with those who have specific comments or questions should e-mail you personally so they should be included.

[ChrisChillin]

My shift schedule right now gives me little time for lengthy responses for the moment.

That's fine. School will be starting back up for me next week, so that will mean either limited responses as well or longer intervals between lengthier responses. I imagine we can start this by having you outline your thesis in an abstract, and then perhaps I can choose a certain point or line of evidence to probe and ask questions about, and we work from there.

I suggested making this a tennis court thread as a means of keeping it structured and on subject without diluting into various tangents and extra conversations. But I understand that you wouldn't want anyone left out who can make a contribution. I'll leave it to be your call, since it's your theory. If not tennis court, then I imagine the new thread could fit here or in world history, or maybe apologetics.

[mikeledo]

That's fine. School will be starting back up for me next week, so that will mean either limited responses as well or longer intervals between lengthier responses. I imagine we can start this by having you outline your thesis in an abstract, and then perhaps I can choose a certain point or line of evidence to probe and ask questions about, and we work from there.

I suggested making this a tennis court thread as a means of keeping it structured and on subject without diluting into various tangents and extra conversations. But I understand that you wouldn't want anyone left out who can make a contribution. I'll leave it to be your call, since it's your theory. If not tennis court, then I imagine the new thread could fit here or in world history, or maybe apologetics.
I will construct something lengthy and post when I get a chance- perhaps Monday, if not next weekend. I will e-mail you when I post it. I am leaning toward World History.

[Lion]

the textual critics have torn the Bible apart until there is very little left. By that I mean the critics have said they have analyzed the style of writing and attributed many different styles of wriiting to different authors. What they all seem to forget is the fact that Hebrew has no vowel letters and the scribes were very careful to transcribe EXACTLY the letters on each page. They counted the number of letters on each page. Thus, when the ancient scrolls were found, they were pleasently surprised to find an exact comparison between the wording of Isaiah with the modern text.

The supposed differences attribuited to different authors disappeared when the original Hebrew was used. Translations are not valid indicators of authorship. Genesis is a slightly different story. We find differences in style when we examine the records of families headed by the expression "these are the generations of." There were obviously different men who transcribed these records.

The Hebrews considered the sacred records exactly that sacred. The word of God was not to be trifled with and was not to be spoiled with any other material. The Gilgamesh account of the flood, for instance is so mixed up with mythology as to make it impossible that it was the original copied by Moses.

[shunyadragon]

the textual critics have torn the Bible apart until there is very little left. By that I mean the critics have said they have analyzed the style of writing and attributed many different styles of wriiting to different authors. What they all seem to forget is the fact that Hebrew has no vowel letters and the scribes were very careful to transcribe EXACTLY the letters on each page. They counted the number of letters on each page. Thus, when the ancient scrolls were found, they were pleasently surprised to find an exact comparison between the wording of Isaiah with the modern text.

The supposed differences attribuited to different authors disappeared when the original Hebrew was used. Translations are not valid indicators of authorship. Genesis is a slightly different story. We find differences in style when we examine the records of families headed by the expression "these are the generations of." There were obviously different men who transcribed these records.

The Hebrews considered the sacred records exactly that sacred. The word of God was not to be trifled with and was not to be spoiled with any other material. The Gilgamesh account of the flood, for instance is so mixed up with mythology as to make it impossible that it was the original copied by Moses.
The translations are not what is used in this analysis by the best scholars. It is the original Hebrew.

The known Bible texts are embarrassingly recent. There are no known texts of anything prior to ~250BCE at the earliest. There are no records or evidence of exodus or Moses. In fact the existing evidence from Palestine indicates the exodus never took place.

There are numerous Gilgamesh tablets on clay and stone dated over a thousand years earlier. The archeological documentation of Babylonian, Ugarit and Elba texts is extensive, but nothing concerning the OT before ~250 BCE.

The mythology of the Biblical creation story and the world flood is no more real or believable than Gilgamesh.

The best argument is that the pentateuch evolved from known earlier Babylonian, Elba, Ugarit and related texts. Can you come up with any extra-Biblical evidence at all to support the view that Moses was the author or even that Moses was a real person?

[Sacrificial Ram]

The translations are not what is used in this analysis by the best scholars. It is the original Hebrew.

The known Bible texts are embarrassingly recent. There are no known texts of anything prior to ~250BCE at the earliest. There are no records or evidence of exodus or Moses. In fact the existing evidence from Palestine indicates the exodus never took place.

There are numerous Gilgamesh tablets on clay and stone dated over a thousand years earlier. The archeological documentation of Babylonian, Ugarit and Elba texts is extensive, but nothing concerning the OT before ~250 BCE.

The mythology of the Biblical creation story and the world flood is no more real or believable than Gilgamesh.

The best argument is that the pentateuch evolved from known earlier Babylonian, Elba, Ugarit and related texts. Can you come up with any extra-Biblical evidence at all to support the view that Moses was the author or even that Moses was a real person?
Actually, we do have a small fragment from an amulet from one of the poems from Numbers dating to about 600 century bc. Published in
the NYT today

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28scro.html