Biblical Literary criticism: valid?

[RabbiO]

Reported: Unsolicited advertising. SPAM.

You're advertising for Torah.com and selling books on Amazon.

Now you’ve done it. It may not matter to you, but you have lost all credibility with me.

 

[dybmh]

It may not matter to you

It doesn't.

 

[jimb]

Now you’ve done it. It may not matter to you, but you have lost all credibility with me.

I agree with you, which is why I have put @dybmh on "ignore"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At this stage in archaeology I would say there is evidence for the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan and the existence of writing and written records back at that time etc but the documentary hypothesis was not thrown out altogether.

I would suggest there there is not.

 

[John D. Brey]

It doesn't.

Your new avatar is doubly false advertising.



John

 

[dybmh]

Your new avatar is doubly false advertising.

We are strengthened by cutting off dead weight. Bye bye uber-critical-mockery-machine.

"V'neesChazaik" = And we will be strengthened. Jews who spend time in shul will know what I'm talking about.

 

[John D. Brey]

We are strengthened by cutting off dead weight. Bye bye uber-critical-mockery-machine.

. . . Then shouldn't your avatar have the same Hebrew phrase but with a hand giving the finger? You've given at least two people in this forum the middle finger in one week. I vote you modify your avatar.



John

 

[dybmh]

Then shouldn't your avatar have the same Hebrew phrase but with a hand giving the finger?

You're still stuck; unable to see multiple ways.

John, there's more than one way to strengthen. There's more than one way to help. For the Jews on this forum who attack the Torah, don't forget, there's more than one way to have a portion in the world to come. Think about it.

 

[John D. Brey]

You're still stuck; unable to see multiple ways.

John, there's more than one way to strengthen. There's more than one way to help. For the Jews on this forum who attack the Torah, don't forget, there's more than one way to have a portion in the world to come. Think about it.

I would say that there has to be a fundamental distinction between there being "multiple ways" versus all ways being equally valid. If all ways are equally valid, then dialogue is pointless other than as a form of self-gratification and perhaps sharing gratification with like-minded persons.

But if it's conceded that though there are "multiple ways," there's a spectrum between ways that weigh down the truth, versus ways that support and promote the truth, then in my opinion debate and argumentation must take place on an even playing field where none of the debaters or commentators gets to assume his "ways" are higher on the spectrum of truth than anyone else.



John

 

[dybmh]

I would say that there has to be a fundamental distinction between there being "multiple ways" versus all ways being equally valid.

Obviously dude. I stopped reading after this.

 

[John D. Brey]

Obviously dude. I stopped reading after this.

. . . Your brilliance is truly stifling. Forgive my simpleness.



John

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Also, realizing each book of the Bible is a *separate book*. They were written separately and then *brought together*.

It's always a good idea to ask why any collection of books was brought together and organized as it was.

The task is actually a bit more complicated and daunting. It's the attempt to understand

• Who wrote each unit of text and when?
• Who redacted and merged the units into what we think of as a book and when?
• Who curated and organized these books and when?
• Who established the "received" cannon and when?

And, of course, many proposed answers are endlessly debated. There is a reason why the Documentary Hypothesis is termed an hypothesis.

 

[dybmh]

Realizing each book of the Bible is a *separate book*....

... was debunked in 2011. But the Reform Movement and Academia are in denial. Admitting it, demonstrates the serious flaws in the methods of the entire Reform Movement of Judaism and of the Academics who manufactured the Yahwist source, the Elohist source, etc out of whole cloth.

The Reform Movement made it up. And now they can only lie and deceive to cover for their mistake. It doesn't mean that suddenly there's proof that the Torah's true. It's back where it should be... agnosticism. It's a mystery. But the Reform Jewish Movement is going to die on the hill proclaiming proudly: "Hey Jewish believer. You're following a Pagan religion."

And all of it because they refuse to listen to the Rabbis who came before them It's what happens when stubborn meets stupid, if you ask me. And that ignores their vicious behavior directed to any that oppose them.

 

[dybmh]

Forgive my simpleness.

Whatever you call it... it's already done.

 

[dybmh]

the Documentary Hypothesis is termed an hypothesis.

You left out "debunked". At least Wikipedia gets it correct.

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll leave this here too.

King Solomon? Wisdom teaching? You don't need to believe in God to know right from wrong, Jay.

False weights are an abomination to the LORD; Dishonest scales are not right.​

That's the JPS, from sefaria. LINK I omitted the Hebrew, cause, what's the point, right? You trust them the JPS'ers.

Here, this is also useful and related:

Lying By Omission: Is It Harmful?

Lying by omission is the deliberate act of leaving out important details, misconstruing the truth. But practical tips can help you rebuild trust in your relationships.

psychcentral.com

 

[dybmh]

The task is actually a bit more complicated and daunting.

You left out the undeclared assumption:

IT MUST BE PAGAN cause I can't understand it any other way <<< because >>> If I can't understand it, neither can you, It MUST BE PAGAN.

Circular arrogant ignorant reasoning. Total trash.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Last month, we wer all treated to ...

You left out "debunked". At least Wikipedia gets it correct.

View attachment 93994

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...

Oh my --- "DEBUNKED"! Triumphalism at its best. It's a bit reminiscent of the rapturous response one gets from the anti-science fringe whenever some scientific hypothesis or theory is challenged.

Of course a "collapsed consensus" and a "debunked hypothesis" are two very different things.

Speaking of which, there is a rather large 2023 tome by Konrad Schmid titled

The Scribes of the Torah; The Formation of the Pentateuch in Its Literary and Historical Contexts​

Chapter 3, "Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status," begins

The most striking difference commonly assumed between the three different cultures in North America, Europe, and Israel with respect to pentateuchal research is Europe's more critical stance toward the Documentary Hypothesis.​

​

This may be true in very general terms. However, it is doubtful whether it is correct the difference as follows: European scholarship has completely abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis, while American and Israeli scholars still adhere to it. Even more mistaken is the statement that Europeans do not recognize any source documents underlying the Pentateuch and that their approach is not documentarian but fragmentarian,​

So, yes, there are challenges to the consensus driven by an evolving appreciation of the available evidence. Far from being a threat to biblical criticism, it is its strength.

 

[dybmh]

Oh my ...

... >>> ignore-list.

( kidding )

I'll refer to the previously posted, important, useful, related, materials.

Lying By Omission: Is It Harmful?
How to restore trust..

Bye , bye, Jay. Please go away. I don;t trust you. Your posts are shwarmy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When I was a staunch young earther Bible literalist, I viewed literary criticism of the Bible as nothing but a bunch of unfounded assumptions. Now I’m looking at it from a different light. I have some books written by biblical scholars, the Anchor Bible Series is a great collection of the Bible with scholarly commentary.
There is this theory called the Documentary Hypothesis which organizes the first five books of the Bible into various hypothetical authors. I used to think that it was rather flimsy, (as a layman, I’m no scholar).
Just, with the Documentary hypothesis, they suppose that an author cannot use more than one name for God. They say one author says Elohim, while another author says Yahweh. Would it have been impossible for Moses to use both those names? I know when I was a Christian, I used more than one name.
With Isaiah, scholars say there is three authors. They say this because of different writing styles. As a Christian, I countered this in my head by saying that Isaiah wrote the book over the course of his life. So, it made sense that there was variation of literary style.
I was looking at biblical scholarship with a closed mind, already set that the Bible was the literal word of God. Now I’m ready to reevaluate biblical criticism with an open mind. I’m reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong for starters.
Are there any scholars on this site? I ask scholars and layman alike though the following questions, as I am a layman myself.
Is biblical literary criticism reliant on flimsy assumptions?
Does biblical criticism in general start its investigation with a decided conclusion beforehand I.e. the belief that God of the Bible isn’t real?
Is viewing the literary style of a book a valid way of determining various authors?

Belief in a literal interpretation combines two ideas: the belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and that anyone can simply pick up the bible and read it and know not only spiritual truths and moral truths, but also historical truths and scientific truths. It includes things not in evidence, like that Moses wrote the Torah or Daniel wrote the book of Daniel. It utilizes intuition and tradition, but not evidence. In answer to your question, literalism starts with the conclusion and then goes looking for things that confirm the bias.

Textual criticism, on the other hand, incorporates the scientific notion that assertions necessitate evidence. Linguistic scholars use their expertise to examine the texts for differences in style, wording, idioms, etc. Their commitment is not to traditional ideas and understandings, but to wherever the evidence leads. In answer to your question, in this case, it begins with the evidence, and then moves to conclusions.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You left out "debunked". At least Wikipedia gets it correct.

Debunked is totally the wrong word. Further application of textual criticism calls into question whether there are only four authors of the Torah, and which parts are written by which author. However, the underlying claim (that it was written by multiple authors rather than by Moses) has not changed at all. There are no qualified Biblical scholars that still think Moses wrote the Torah.