quote:
did the author of genesis also write the epic of gilgamesh? if not, then it's plagiarism. it doesn't matter who the author is. why should it matter who the author is?
No not necessarily. Need I re-post the web definition for plagairism? The plagairizers needs to be taking credit for quotes or ideas that are not their own. But does the Epic of Gilgamesh or Genesis have an author's name attached to them? Technically they were written anonymously. Technically. Therefore, technically, they cannot be plagairized. Missed that subtle component of the definition to plagairism?
quote:
that bolded bit is "the documentary hypothesis;" the thing you're arguing against.
That's also the SOESV too. And saying I'm arguing against that, when I just argued for it, is not a logical statement.
quote:
either genesis is composed of source documents, or it's not. make up your mind.
I've already said my view on this. If you've forgotten it, then go back and read my previous posts again.
quote:
to play devil's advocate, you have to argue AGAINST your position.
Ya I got that. I just felt like I could argue your view better than you did on this point is all.
quote:
also, while we're at it:
quote:A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:
Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Straw man - Wikipedia
Right and when I argued against my own view, I didn't then try to refute that argument. Subtle difference? So technically I didn't construct a strawman argument. All very deliberate I can asure you.
quote:
i did not argue that genesis and the epic of gilgamesh were the same book. they are not. however, the flood stories bare many remarkable similarities in wording and plot.
We don't disagree on this.
quote:
you don't think that it maybe makes sense for isaiah to politically mock babylon for the same event as genesis?
Well I view Isaiah as prophecy of course, so it would be God doing the mocking. And no, I don't take a strict stance against that being the case. I just don't then assume that Genesis and Isaiah were all written around the same time too. I have no problem with a city or a country being mentioned in different written documents 100's of year apart. I see that as plausible.
quote:
you don't see how genesis appropriated a babylonian legend regarding a real place?
No, quite frankly I don't. Feel free to present a compelling argument that I must. But I see that coincidences are indeed possible. Why would Genesis not mention things about Babylon separately from the Captivity period and its writings? Why should I make a connection there?
quote:
sure the idea that this is the place does help your view a bit ("look! the bible's not made up!") but isn't another remarkable coincidence how all of the dates line up? the last date for genesis, the date of borsippa, and the date of the isaiah text are all pretty close. could they be talking about the same place? maybe?
According to liberal scholars these documents were written at a close time to each other. But I don't have that view. I view the Bible as truthful and accept it's plain meaning at face value. I do not need to develope elaborate conspiracy theories to prop up my arguments. Now do you have some compelling evidence that the Bible cannot be true that I missed somewhere?
quote:
well, look at the statements it makes regarding naming people.
quote:Gen 19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same [is] the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
"ben-ammi" loosely translates to "bastard" btw. it means literally "son of my kin" and thus someone who is inbred. the story is a play on the sounds of "ben-ammi" and "ben-ammon." basically, a racial slur, claiming they're a bunch of inbred yokels. (which, btw, is actually a JOKE. just a bad one).
now, you may not like my textual analysis, favouring that they really were the product of inbreading,. but the question is this: when is "this day." it says they are called ben-ammon "to this day." at the heart of the story is an explanation of how a people who are around at the time of authorship got their name. i doubt lot wrote that, or his daughter, or "bastard" for that matter. the point is that they were around when the story was written to explain where they came from.
The fact that the words may be a pun doesn't make the story not true.
quote:
genesis is the book of explanations of where names of people and places came from, and how customs came about. one needs only read the book of genesis to see that it is such a book. and books like that are written after the customs and names already exist.
I don't have any problem with this. I've read Genesis many times and I concur with your assessment here. But I don't see that as somehow making it untruthful.
quote:
yes, places like horeb. where is horeb, btw? i mean, mt sinai. or is it horeb? or sinai. gee, i don't know.
the fact that moses can't decided what to call the mountain of god, where the covenant was made kind of works against your theory. sure, he used lots of names of places in the sinai peninsula -- for the same place. wouldn't someone in moses's lifetime have maybe gotten it down?
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps that Mountain has two names, and Moses knew them both and simply used them interchangeably? What evidence do you have that writing or talking in this manner would have been ilogical or simply bad writing for Moses to do at the time periods in question? The Pentateuch is a huge book. My NKJV version has it at 190 pages, small print. I'm inclined to believe that a document of that size, written by one person, is going to have plenty words that have the same meaning, places with more than one name, or even people or peoples with more than one name.
You know, I write in the same manner myself. And although on papers that I turn into the classes I take at college I may be criticized for doing so, that does not mean that Moses attended any academic institutions that taught him NOT to write in that manner. It's hardly unnatural and the simple truth is that our academic institutions teaching that one must not write in this manner is purely subjective. It is not an absolute by any means. What evidence do you have that Moses should not have written in this manner?
quote:
the fact that moses can't decided what to call the mountain of god, where the covenant was made kind of works against your theory.
You have not presented any evidence that Moses could not decide what to call Mt. Sinai. Nor have you presented any evidence that he shouldn't be calling it two different names. I'm sorry but I don't see any indecisiveness on Moses' name calling of Mt. Horeb. It seems clear to me that he simply called it two different names. So what?
quote:
sure, he used lots of names of places in the sinai peninsula -- for the same place. wouldn't someone in moses's lifetime have maybe gotten it down?
Ya I just don't see a problem here. Sorry. I think it's more like you've been taught to view the matter in this way and so you do. Odd how for 1000's of years, people have been studying the Bible and never came to the same conclusion. Perhaps it's simply not as obvious as you imply?
quote:
ahem. and now for the overwhelming message of the torah:
the hebrews are different than the surrounding nations.
why do you suppose they had no king for so long? why do you think they had a system of judges? it's not until sual and david that we have kings -- that's well after moses and LONG after abraham. moses, you see, just left egypt, which was ruled by an oppressive king. i doubt he'd be too keen on the idea at all -- they did just fine ruled by the levite rabbis, and led personally by god. who needs a king when you have a deity who leads you around with a pillar of smoke and fire?
Was there a pillar of fire and a cloud once they captured the promised land? Perhaps Moses realized this would cease then? And being different from surrounding nations does not mean they can't have a king.
quote:
you don't disagree that the bible has a number of disagreements? you do understand, btw, that the inconsistency i just used to to justify written sources as opposed to oral is the foundation of the documentary hypothesis.
No I don't think the Bible has disagreements. You haven't presented any so far. Why should I? Inconsistency? I pray everyday. And I call God, Lord, Jesus, God, Father, and even more names than this. Am I being inconsistent? Are my prayers ilogical because of this? The "problem" you're describing, exists in the minds of liberal scholars and no where else. And it's that simple. Saying it's a problem, doesn't make it one.
I understand that the JEDP theory is built on a theory that divides up the authorship of Genesis by the names of God that are used in given passages. So? That's not evidence that any of that is true. The foundational theory is still a theory. Or do you have evidence for this too and I don't know about it?
quote:
a further logical breakdown on your part.
No it isn't. I'm just not making unecessary generalizations about the matter.
quote:
i'm suggesting that bible too is too strong inconsistent to be anything but a compilation of written sources
Well I've never been presented with anything that would make me seriously consider this possiblity yet. You're welcome to try and enlighten me if you like.
quote:
and you like this when i put the emphasis on "written as opposed to oral" intead of "multiple sources as opposed to one?"
Sure. I like it because I'm inclined to believe there is a whole lot of oral tradition in the Bible, as I've pointed out already. Or do I?
quote:
and the jewish tradition comes from where? i have shown above that the jewish tradition was doubted by such prominent rabbis as ibn ezra, and as early as the 12th century. i'm really gonna need something more than "because it's tradition."
I don't think the views of a 12th century Rabbi are terribly relevant to determining the views of ancient Rabbis. The way I see it, this is an irrelevant point.
quote:
this is "argument from ignorance" part. the preservation aspect plays the major role in the documentary hypothesis.
Look you put up in a previous post the best information for the JEDP theory from rabbinic tradition you could find and quite frankly there was nothing there. A Rabbi speculating that Moses didn't write a handful of passages in the Pentateuch, is no foundation for the JEDP theory. Those are separate issues, that bear resemblence by pure coincidence. Rabbinic writings are huge and they don't always agree with each other, as you point out later here and I'm perfectly well aware of. The point is that there is a Rabbinic tradition for Mosaic authorship of the Bible and it is known to not be questioned for some time. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Speculation by a few rabbis, at much later dates, is frankly, not relevant to this debate.
quote:
it is the part that keeps the sources identifiable. had preservation NOT been important, we'd see more agreement.
More Agreement? OK. Where in the Pentateuch is there DISAGREEMENT? Back up this claim please.
quote:
The main areas considered by these critics when supporting the Documentary Hypothesis are:
The variations in the divine names in Genesis;
Which proves nothing both because there is no reason why God could only be called one name by the author of Genesis or sources Moses likely based the book on and because dividing Genesis into separate accounts has zero to do with casting doubt on Mosaic authorship of the Bible.
quote:
The secondary variations in diction and style;
Which means nothing because Moses did not have to write the whole Pentateuch in one style only. What evidence do you have that he could not have written with shifts in styles?
quote:
The parallel or duplicate accounts (doublets);
Parallel accounts can be natural coincidences. I concede that doublets are strong evidence for either different source authors or the same author writing about the same matter at different times. But you would need to give an example where this type of style would be ilogical for Moses to do, in the last four books of the Pentateuch. Otherwise it's a mute issue.
quote:
The continuity of the various sources;
Not quite sure exactly what's being referred to here.
quote:
The political assumptions implicit in the text;
I think you'd need to cite examples to make a relevant point with this one.
quote:
The interests of the author.
This assumes more than one author. I don't concede to that and need evidence to do so. And please don't mention Genesis, because I already believe Moses only edited it. We're talking last four books or it's a mute point.
quote:
Doublets and triplets are stories that are repeated with different points of view. Famous doublets include Genesis's creation accounts;
I concede this is a doublet.
quote:
the stories of the covenant between God and Abraham; the naming of Isaac; the two stories in which Abraham claims to a king that his wife is really his sister; and the two stories of the revelation to Jacob at Bet-El. A famed triplet is the three different versions of how the town of Be'ersheba got its name.
And how are these true doublets. Aren't they actually talking about different things and just happen to have a few similarities?
quote:
There are many portions of the Torah which seem to imply more than one author. Some examples include:
The creation story in Genesis first describes a somewhat 'evolutionary' process, with first the planet created, then the lower forms of life, then animals, and finally man and woman being created together. It then begins the story again, but this time man is created first, then animals to assuage man's loneliness, and when this failed, Adam's wife Eve was created.
I'm inclined to agree that the Genesis compiler used more than one written document about the creation account.
quote:
The flood story in Genesis appears to claim that 2 of all kinds of animal went on the ark, but also that 7 of certain kinds went on, and that the flood lasted a year, but also lasted only 40 days.
I don't see this as implying more than one author.
quote:
In Numbers 12:3 Moses is described as the most humble man on the face of the earth, which would be remarkably vain, and arrogant, if Moses himself authored the statement.
I don't agree.
quote:
Numbers 25 describes the rebellion at Peor, and refers to daughters of Moabite; the next sentence says that one woman was a Midianite.
I think that what happened was either the women in question had both Moabites and Midianites among them or that some Midianites were in Moab. Or it could be both of these.
The JEDP theory, OTOH, supposes that there must have been atleast two authors who wrote this passage. But I don't see a logical split anywhere in the passage for such a possibility. Also, even if one author added to the story, it is very surprising that he would not have noticed that the passage begins by calling the women "Moabites." Seems unlikely he would have been so sloppy in lying to me.
Thus I view this passage as making much more sense if written by one author as opposed to two or more. It seems likely to me that if both Moabite and Midianite women were present that perhaps Moses didn't even realize he specified one, and not the other, in the earlier part of the passage. And if both were present or they were simply living in Moab, it's not like Moses would be lying.
quote:
The Ten Commandments appear in Exodus 20, but in a slightly different wording in Deuteronomy 5. A second, almost completely different set of Ten Commandments appears in Exodus 34.
This makes alot of sense if Moses was just speaking matter of factly. But if there were multiple authors, it seems ilogical to me that they would not simply copy the wording of the earlier passages. So I don't see any problems with this.
quote:
In some locations God is friendly, and capable of errors and regret, and walks the earth talking to humans, but in others God is unmerciful and distant (although consistently just).
Good luck trying to prove any real inconsitency here.
quote:
A number of places or individuals have multiple names. For instance, the name of the mountain that Moses climbed to receive the commandments is given in some places as Horeb and in others as Sinai, Moses' father-in-law is known by at least three names in the Hebrew original (, , and —), etc, and Moses' wife is often identified as a Midianite (and hence caucasian), but in the tale of Snow-white Miriam she is identified as an Ethiopian (and hence black).
So maybe Sinai had more than one name? Maybe Jethro had more than one name too, like Israel and Jeshurun? Maybe Moses married a 2nd wife, who happened to be Cushite? Or maybe Zipporah was half Midianite and half Cushite, but Miriam and Aaron didn't view Cushites as being equal to Midianites, who also would have been descendents of Abraham? Perhaps Moses was referring to Zipporah as Cushite, since that was what they objected to and called her a Midianite earlier, because Jethro, her father, was Midianite?
See I've read the Pentateuch a number of times, and it makes most sense to me that Moses wrote it shortly after the events happened, likely beginning just after the exodus from Egypt. This would also make sense as Moses would be able to write these things then, as he would have been the leader of Israel and thinking about its future.
I look at passages where something was talked about and then later on in the Pentateuch, the same incident was referred to and has an additional piece of information, as making most sense if Moses simply wrote the last four books of the Pentateuch shortly after each event took place or each law was given. These alleged inconcistencies make a great deal of sense if he simply was writing what just happened. Why would he even worry about different things he wrote seemingly not piecing together? I don't view the Pentateuch as some super polished written document but rather Moses just matter of factly writing down what took place shortly after it happened and thus logically paying no attention to style, multiple names for places or people, or paying any attention to later referrences to already mentioned events as having seeming inconsistencies or a lack of literary polish. To me this is very clear and your arguments do not detract from the conclusion I've come to on my own by reading the Pentatuech many times.
quote:
one could look a little harder, like in a library, and find a good deal more examples. here's another source that describes the different emphasis:
quote:
J
Jahwist E
Elohist P
Priestly D
Deuteronomist
stress on Judah stress on northern Israel stress on Judah stress on central shrine
stresses leaders stresses the prophetic stresses the cultic stresses fidelity to Jerusalem
stresses blessing stresses fear of the LORD stress on law obeyed stress on Moses' obedience
anthropomorphic speech about God refined speech about God majestic speech about God speech recalling God's work
God walks and talks with us God speaks in dreams cultic approach to God moralistic approach
God is YHWH God is Elohim (till Ex 3) God is Elohim (till Ex 3) God is YHWH
uses "Sinai" Sinai is "Horeb" has genealogies and lists has long sermons
Home | Department of Religious Studies
that page also contains a link to an analysis of the breakdown of which source is which in the flood story.
But I don't see anything that would make me believe that one person didn't write the whole Pentateuch. I mean come on, we could take a number of large writings and divide it up based on similar superficial divisions and then claim, see multiple authors wrote it. I think there really needs to be some compelling instances where it is very unlikely that one author could have written the whole Pentateuch, and frankly I just don't see any in your examples so far. Feel free to give more and we'll see of the matter is as you suppose.
quote:
that's fine. tell them that. but the point of the statement was that we treat the bible, for all intents an purposes, as a single book.
I disagree. It is a collection of books and we Evangelicals view it this way. Maybe some don't, but that sure as heck isn't what's taught at Bible colleges.
quote:
well, this is the problem, here. you fail to see the issues that the documentary hypothesis explains. you fail to see the inconsistencies that it accounts for.
Very true.
quote:
you fail to see how it makes sense out of a text that is qutie perplexing in structure when read without the goggles of dogmatic religious interpretation.
Actually the fact is that no one taught me that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, shortly after each event related took place. That is a conclusion I came to on my own by reading the Pentateuch repeatedly.
quote:
the orthodox view is evidently not perfectly logical and consistent, and to assert that it is is ignoring the facts.
I just don't see it that way. And I've taken note of the fact that for 1000's of years, neither did everyone else. On the contrary, even within specific examples of the JEDP theory that you've used, it seems clear to me that the JEDP theory is highly unlikely.
quote:
not everything taught in church is true, either.
Believe me I know.
quote:
the problem is that the tradition does not stand the test of scrutiny. there are too many holes and inconsistencies in the torah for it to have a single author. is that just my incredulity speaking?
Well I don't see it that way. I've come to my own conclusion about the book, based on studying it myself and I don't see the JEDP theory anywhere in the Pentateuch, sticking out at me and compelling me to seriously consider its possibility.
quote:
even you agree that joshua had to write part of it, not just moses. seems like multiple authorship on some level is common sense.
I agree, but this is only a small part of the JEDP theory and it is the view held both by Rabbinic tradition and Evangelical scholars, so hammering this over and over doesn't score any points. It's a mute issue as both sides have the same view on the matter.
quote:
yes, one is realistic. the other is not. have you read much rabbinic tradition? it's even more of a hodge-podge of different voices and opinions than the bible, by several degrees of magnitude. you find one rabbi that says one thing, i find another rabbi that says something else. heck, rabbinic tradition supports that the world is flat, on pillars, with a solid dome called heaven that keeps out the water. and that's a pretty literal reading of genesis, too.
I've read little of it. And none of this changes the fact that Rabbis historically believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. I mean what example of early Rabbinic tradition do you have of any Rabbis questioning Mosaic authorship of the vaste majority of the Pentateuch?
quote:
in genesis 1, god creates man and woman at the same time. in genesis 2, god creates eve after adam. you know the rabbinic tradition that explains this, right? adam had a wife before eve, and her name was lilith. she's mentioned in isaiah somewhere, right? lilith wasn't a suitable wife for whatever reason (sexual differences? power issues? eats children's souls?) so god banished her from eden, doomed to stalk the night. god later made a more acceptable wife for adam out of his rib.
this is pretty standard tradition, mind you. remember the popular feminist music festival a few years back? got it's name here. lilith was the first woman, who according to some tradition, overpowered the man.
of course, according to the documentary hypothesis, they're simply two different stories, not one that doesn't make sense.
I don't believe there ever was a Lilith that Adam married before Eve. The Bible says nothing of this. Genesis 1 and 2 are nowhere logically inconsistent. Perhaps the same things are mentioned with different emphasises but they don't ever technically contradict each other.
I find the argument that they do laughable. It presupposes that the compiler(s) of Genesis were so stupid that they didn't even recognize that they contradicted themselves a mere few paragraphs apart. I think if they lied and/or used different sources, that were not true, which is still a lying of sorts, that they surely would have seen the contradictions and realized that leaving it as is, would likely not fool people so easily and make their forgery look like one. I'm inclined to beleive that liars, in matters as important as this, would be much more likely to try and be more consistent. And I take comfort in the fact that my view of the Bible doesn't presume such ridiculous stupidity on the part of the Biblical authors to hold together, quite unlike the JEDP theory.
quote:
perhaps you missed the bit where i claimed that deuteronomy was most likely entirely one source, dating to the reign of josiah, of spurious origin? claiming mosaic authorship would lend it credibility. similarly, if i went to the middle east, and poked around in the desert a bit, and came back with a document talking about the current state of christianity signed "sincerely, jesus christ, lord and saviour, 33 ad." wouldn't you be just a tad skeptical? or would you accept that, hey, it says jesus on it and jesus wouldn't lie?
I simply don't view your deutoronomic theory as having any compelling evidence anywhere. Joshua has references to Deutornomy and I see no compelling evidence that the author(s) of Joshua also wrote any of the Pentateuch, besides the last few verses. Thus at no time have I ever been put into a position where I needed to seriously consider your theory. The fact is that the orthodox view makes a good deal of sense and your theory doesn't tarnish that in any way.
quote:
so was nebuchadnezzar, then. where is either ever called "king over israel" or "king to the children of israel?"
This doesn't invalidate my claim in any way. It is entirely plausible that Pharoah was called a king over israel but Nebuchadnezzar happened to not have been called this, at least not in the Bible. No reason why that couldn't be the case.
quote:
that's sort of right. had it says "eretz" somewhere we'd know. but it's likely implied, since they paralleled with edom, which is an eretz. but one needs to only search the bible and see that "children of israel" is a pretty common way to refer to the people who live in the country of israel. beny-yisrael = yisraely.
This doesn't detract from the vailidity of my claim in any way.
quote:
uh. no. because the edomite kings did not enslave edom. the RULED edom. the sense of the wordign is that israel has kings now, but did not then. had they meant pharaoh in specific, they might have said that.
Sure they might have, but as Pharoah was the only king to have ever ruled over them until that time, it's hardly problemtic that Moses' original audience would have known what he was referring to.
quote:
genesis does not hesitate to talk about pharaohs. but the parallel in the verse is not "king to oppressing power" it's "king to king." the contrast is that israel had no king at that point. pharaoh is not a king of israel.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how any of this challenges my claim. I mean so Edomite kings are being contrasted to a Pharoah that ruled over the children of Israel, so what?
quote:
this is not an ambiguous phrase. it says malak-melek l'beny-yisrael. "(there) ruled a king to the children of israel." is pharaoh a king to the children of israel? or the children mitzrayim?
It is indeed ambiguous, I don't see how you think it can't be. Pharaoh was king over the Israelites and the Egyptians. So? Honestly, I just don't see any real challenge to my claim. I think you need to provide new information on this point or it's a resolved issue. Forgive me if I don't respond to a rebuttal of yours on this point, that has no new information in it.
quote:
didn't you just get done telling me that sort of a statement is an ad-hominem? and doesn't that make you a hypocrite too?Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
In point of fact, I didn't do this. My criticism of liberal scholars here is what you call a "conclusion." It is not a supporting point of my argument. Argument leads up to it instead.
quote:
again, you missed the point. if they weren't in power, you sure wouldn't have called a place "____ of the chaldeans."
If Chaldeans lived there, sure you would.
quote:
it doesn't matter if it was just a little villiage or some little tribe at the time of abraham. the AUDIENCE knew who they were. i'm not saying that abraham came from a place called "ur" during a time when the chaldeans were there. that doesn't matter. i'm saying the text was written when people knew who the chaldeans were. which means they were in power.
Not neccessarily. If Moses simply compiled Genesis, based on earlier sources, it's quite plausible that that was simply the information available to him. Wouldn't surprise me if even Moses didn't know where "Ur of the Chaldeans" actually was.
quote:
surely, the israelites would know who the chaldeans were, right?
Quite possibly, but I don't see what difference that makes.
quote:
both samuel and joshua refer to the same book. the both have to be after the authorship of jasher. a good guess would put them close to being contemporary.
I don't see why.
quote:
but joshua citing something else is pretty good evidence that it was written later, by someone else, and not joshua.
How does that logically follow?
™ Version 4.2