|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adam was created on the 3rd day | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Make sense? Not that I can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6192 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
It's actually not irrelevant. The fact that authors would present topics in non-chronological order to emphasize a particular subject or context relates to the "dual" genesis accounts completely. Your minor point about the synoptic gospel accounts not being by the same author is valid, but shows more my lack of time to jump through hoops to present the precise example that would please you rather than any lack of relevence of the original point.
The fact is, some accounts in the gospels in particular are given out of order and often skipping details in between. An example would be when dealing with the miracles that Jesus performed on earth. When reaching that point, the main ordering of the text ends and is supplanted by a "list" so to speak of non-chronological events. This happens because the main timeline story arrived at a point where Jesus' miracles became the focal point and required further clarification. Likewise, the 2nd telling of the Genesis account delves deeper into the special relationship between God and man as opposed to other animals because the subject matter logically needed to follow. What is irrelevant is your statement as fact that the Genesis myths didn't have only one author. I'm sure the thousands of Doctorate level researchers would be happy to hear that you've finally conclusively proved who penned one of the most controversial accounts of all time. Last I heard, the common consensus was the Moses wrote the Pentatuech....possibly using original source documents or stories passed down from Adam, etc....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Last I heard, the common consensus was the Moses wrote the Pentatuech.... That might be the thought among fundamentalist Christians. It certainly isn't among "the thousands of Doctorate level researchers" that have studied the Bible at the major divinity schools around Christendom for the last century or so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Last I heard, the common consensus was the Moses wrote the Pentatuech.... Well, you must have heard this in the 18th century or so. From the Wikipedia article:
quote: Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What is irrelevant is your statement as fact that the Genesis myths didn't have only one author. I'm sure the thousands of Doctorate level researchers would be happy to hear that you've finally conclusively proved who penned one of the most controversial accounts of all time. Last I heard, the common consensus was the Moses wrote the Pentatuech....possibly using original source documents or stories passed down from Adam, etc....
It is unlikely any Doctorate level researchers think Moses even existed much less wrote anything, unless of course they bought those Doctorates from a diploma mill like so many Biblical Christian Scholars. Even then though, if they bought the Class A doctorate package instead of the bargain package they would question the very existence of Moshe. Even then your method fails since the Orders, the methods and even the Gods depicted in the multiple Genesis accounts are still mutually exclusive. I'm sorry but your explanation like almost all of this thread simply belongs in the "Theology by making shit up" branch of the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes: It is unlikely any Doctorate level researchers think Moses even existed much less wrote anything, unless of course they bought those Doctorates from a diploma mill like so many Biblical Christian Scholars. Even then though, if they bought the Class A doctorate package instead of the bargain package they would question the very existence of Moshe. If you are serious, you clearly have no clue about how academia works! The top institutions in the world do not try to squeeze people into a rigid mold, but teach them to THINK and thus allow them to take any position that they can defend in a scholarly way. And Mosaic authorship, though at present a minority view, is certainly defensible. It is the second-class "wanna be" institutions which tend to indoctrinate and squeeze into a mold. I personally know a number of PhD biblical scholars who believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; they graduated from places like Berkeley and Cambridge. And of course there are a number of world-class biblical scholars who believe this, like Gordon Wenham (PhD Cambridge), Bruce Waltke (PhD Harvard), Gleason Archer (PhD Harvard), R. Laird Harris (PhD Dropsie), and Eugene Merrill (PhD Columbia). And though he has no PhD, Kenneth Kitchen is a serious scholar. Some leading biblical scholars of previous generations who defended Mosaic authorship are Edward J. Young (PhD Dropsie), Robert Dick Wilson (PhD Princeton) and Merrill F. Unger (PhD Johns Hopkins).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The top institutions in the world do not try to squeeze people into a rigid mold, but teach them to THINK and thus allow them to take any position that they can defend in a scholarly way. And Mosaic authorship, though at present a minority view, is certainly defensible. I am not at all sure how a position of Mosaic authorship could be defended, although I don't doubt that there are those who try. My point is that belief in a Mosaic authorship is certainly in the minority and any defense of such a position is unlikely to sway anyone who does not hold that position for reasons other than the actual facts. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
kbertsche
I personally know a number of PhD biblical scholars who believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch It does not matter that they are Phd's ,since what is important is the evidence that they can present to support their arguements. Now perhaps, since you know them personally, you could provide us with the cases that they make for their positions and we can see for ourselves whether they are valid or lacking in evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And Mosaic authorship, though at present a minority view, is certainly defensible. It would be interesting to see a defense of this. I did a quick Google search, but I'm not very good at using Google so all I came up with are apologetics websites. But this really isn't the main point here. (1) So far, from my quick search, the main arguments against the consensus' documentary hypothesis sound a lot like creationist arguments against the standard scientific theories. Of course, I'm not as up on Biblical criticism as I probably should be, and so it is possible that in this case these arguments might have some merit. (2) The arguments mainly claim that those in favor of the documentary hypothesis haven't proven (uh oh, there's that word again) their case. That may be so, but I haven't seen much in the way of positive evidence for Mosaic authorship, just criticisms of aspects of the documentary hypothesis (as if Mosaic authorship should win by default). (3) It strikes me that most of the people who are advocating Mosaic authorship have religious backgrounds that may have predisposed them to favor the traditional views. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. Are them many people who initially favored multiple authors but, by the weight of the evidence, came to accept single authorship? Of course, there may be a few people who have an emotional need to find proof that God does not exist, but by and large I can't see why many anyone would be emotionally predisposed toward the documentary hypothesis whereas I can see why people would a priori be more inclined to favor traditional Mosaic authorship. Certainly I could care less whether one person or several wrote the Pentateuch. (4) Garrett's claim was that the consensus opinion is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. You even admit that Mosaic authorship is a minority view. (5) Even if there was a single author for the Pentateuch, this really isn't what people like Garrett are saying. Garrett believes that the Pentateuch was written by an ancient Hebrew slave who was adopted by Pharoah's daughter, spoke to burning bush, did a few magic tricks, then led the entire Hebrew nation out of slavery in Egypt, through the parted red sea, wandered around the Sinai peninsula for 40 years, whacking the occasional rock to get water, and then dropped them all off on the edge of Canaan. I suppose that any collection of myths may be "defensible", but what would be more impressive is whether there is any positive evidence to support these myths. Edited by Chiroptera, : Changed the subtitle. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
I agree with your main point; it would be difficult to convince a skeptic of Mosaic authorship. And it's probably not essential to the biblical message.
I am not at all sure how a position of Mosaic authorship could be defended, although I don't doubt that there are those who try. My point is that belief in a Mosaic authorship is certainly in the minority and any defense of such a position is unlikely to sway anyone who does not hold that position for reasons other than the actual facts Chiroptera writes: It would be interesting to see a defense of this. I did a quick Google search, but I'm not very good at using Google so all I came up with are apologetics websites. But this really isn't the main point here. It's probably off-topic, but I'll give just a couple of points that I remember. You can doubtless find more by looking at a good scholarly conservative biblical commentary (e.g. Word or Zondervan biblical commentary series).1) Deuteronomy is written in the format of a Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty, which was long dead by the time that the documentary hypothesis dates the Pentateuch. If not written in the time of Moses, this was highly anachronistic. How would they even know the style of this ancient form? 2) Analysis of the literary arguments of books and sections of the Pentateuch shows highly detailed patterns which cross the accepted "JEDP" boundaries. Often these contain literary constructs such as chiasms which go across different supposed sources. This would not be possible if a redactor merely pieced sources together. Any supposed "redactor" would be more like a modern author, placing his own structure on the whole account. Here's one reference that I found quickly, but I'm sure you can find more: Mackey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But even Mackey does not try to support Mosaic authorship.
From you own source:
That the Book of Genesis shows evidence of having been derived from various sources, at least in part, none but the very obstinate, or excessively pious, would deny. and
Three lines of evidence will be used in this article in support of the traditional view that Moses was substantially the editor, or compiler (though not the actual author), of the Book of Genesis. AbE: If you ever drop into chat, maybe we can exchange stories about developing church websites. Edited by jar, : No reason given. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
But even Mackey does not try to support Mosaic authorship. No, it seems to be even better! I haven't read it carefully, but it appears that Mackey is repeating a "theory" that I've seen on various crackpot sites. Namely, that Genesis represents an actual transcription of recorded history written by the actual Biblical Patriarchs at the time of their occurrence. The Hebrews (and their Patriarch ancestors) were lugging around these clay tablets written by Adam, Noah, Abraham, and so forth until Moses (not a name attributed to a hypothetical single author, but the guy who actually parted the Red Sea!) finally re-edited it all together. But I only skimmed this quickly, so maybe this isn't what Mackey is saying. Added by edit: But let others see for themselves. This is where it starts to get good. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed another potentially inflammatory remark. Also edited the last edit. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Here's one reference that I found quickly.... Maybe too quickly? Mackey comes off as a crank, and the site that is hosting that essay, The California Institute for Ancient Studies, seems like a crackpot site. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Chiroptera writes: Maybe too quickly? Mackey comes off as a crank, and the site that is hosting that essay, The California Institute for Ancient Studies, seems like a crackpot site. Maybe; I was in a hurry. If any of you guys REALLY want to research this, I've given you plenty to start with. I have suggested some commentaries, and you can look at the wiki entries on the scholars that I listed; this lists their most important writings, many of which are scholarly works on the Pentateuch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
If any of you guys REALLY want to research this, I've given you plenty to start with. You sure did! The Mackey material was a real hoot. Moving onto the first name on your list, I found some of Gordon Wenham's books on Amazon. Here is a quote from a blurb of one of his books:
quote: Um, okay. Maybe this particular book (Word Biblical Commentary) isn't meant to be a scholarly work, but it does seem that Dr. Gordon has, er, theological reasons to prefer a traditional approach to Biblical criticism. One of the works by Dr. Wenham listed on your wiki page is Exploring the Old Testament: The Pentateuch published by SPCK Publishing, who's stated mission is:
quote: I dunno, maybe in pursuing this mission these folks decided to publish an important scholarly work, but I'm beginning to suspect that Dr. Gordon's main audience is composed of traditional Christians rather than other scholars. Maybe I'm a bit too suspicious, but I am having a lot of trouble finding any information that would help a layman in Biblical criticism like myself in determining whether Dr. Gordon is a serious scholar who is holding a minority viewpoint or an anti-scholarship crackpot like the folks at Answers in Genesis. Edited by Chiroptera, : Changed subtitle. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024