Biblical Literary criticism: valid?

[dybmh]

Why are you critical of your fellow Jews?

~confused~. Because it would be foolish not to?

 

[GoodAttention]

"... any linguistic "scholarship" you determine should stay where it belongs, which is the academic trashcan of useful information, and not to be used as a weapon that destroys the foundation of your own belief!" shows 110% where you're coming from!!!

Straight from the heart?

 

[dybmh]

Straight from the heart?

Good morning.

 

[GoodAttention]

Good morning.

Good evening to you sir.

 

[dybmh]

Aren't you aware of God's command in Leviticus 19:18?

The verses I brought regarding deceptive business practices over-rules this verse. Deceptive business practices are: תּוֹעֵבַה.

Strong's Hebrew: 8441. תּוֹעֵבָה (toebah) -- abomination

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is there anything in this video which directly addresses the points I made?

1. in 2011 non-biased computer analysis showed that the Torah cannot be split into pieces

I doubt it was unbiased.

1. The entire message of Ethical Monotheism collapses when the Torah is split

It just doesn't.

When the Torah is spilt: The Torah becomes Pagan. It is no longer Monotheism. It is no longer Jewish.

Nonsense.

That is, forgive me, the Reform Movement's cross to bear. They are teaching, and preaching, Ethical Paganism.

Hardly. But your prejudice against Reform Jews is duly noted.

Basically, I think you personally do not like the idea that the Torah was written by more than one person, because it is emotionally important to you to think it was written by Moses. Your strong bias is leading you to only notice things that support your idea, and completely ignore the evidence against. This is called confirmation bias. It's actually very common among humans.

 

[dybmh]

I doubt it was unbiased.

I recommend reading about. It's legit. Here are the links. I can try to find the journal articles which detail the methodology. I think they're on Jstor somewhere. I read them years ago.

And why would you assume it is biased? Do you apply that same pessimism to the academics which agree with you?

'Ghostwriting' the Torah? New algorithm distinguishes contributors to the Old Testament with high accuracy

A professor has developed a new computer algorithm to help unravel the different sources that contributed to the authorship of the scriptures. Sidestepping the problems of content-based analysis, his algorithm searches for patterns in writing style to give deeper insight into ancient writings...

www.sciencedaily.com

An Israeli algorithm sheds light on the Bible

Software developed by an Israeli team is giving intriguing new hints about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible. The new software analyzes style and word choices to distinguish parts of a single text written by different authors, and when applied to the Bible...

phys.org

It just doesn't.

After the Torah is split? What is monotheistic about it?

I asked this question already in the thread. It's my turn to doubt. I doubt very highly you will be able to answer this question.

Nonsense.

Answer the question above? Can you? If you can't, that means there is nothing, nothing monotheistic about the Torah once it is split. And isn't that the whole point of Reform Judaism? It's OK to be Jewish without God?

Hardly. But your prejudice against Reform Jews is duly noted.

It's not prejudice. You are attacking a whistle-blower.

Basically, I think you personally do not like the idea that the Torah was written by more than one person, because it is emotionally important to you to think it was written by Moses. Your strong bias is leading you to only notice things that support your idea, and completely ignore the evidence against. This is called confirmation bias. It's actually very common among humans.

Of course I don't like it. But you're wrong about the rest. I very clearly see the reasons for splitting the Torah, and the reasons for hyper-focusing on Pagan influence, and the reasons why academics avoid Rabbinic interpretation. I am opposed to this, because the reasons for splitting the Torah are weak.

All of this can and should be flipped, turned, and considered from the opposing point of view, simply as part of the process of rational inquiry. The Torah as a split, multiple sourced, document is preached to you by authority figures in your chosen denomination. You, very likely, want them to be correct, or, at the very least you don't want them to be wrong for several reasons.

And, Indigo? Do you know the message of the Torah? Abraham's realization? That story, the realization he had? It cannot be told if the Torah is split. That is a tragedy for Judaism. Where would we be, without the story of Abram who became Abraham? I think that the Reform community takes that for granted. Or perhaps, due to the agnostic atheism of the majority of their devotees, they simply don't care about Jewish Monotheism. It's OK not to care, but why ruin it for everyone? It's like filling the Grand Canyon with concrete.

 

[dybmh]

@IndigoChild5559 ,

The source criticism, really, I think and hope we both agree, only gets one so far in regard to who or what or when the Torah was conceived. It's mysterious, as it should be. However in classical logic, one of the most powerful and effective methods for establishing truth is by using the contra-positive. It's a very-very useful technique. It's the process of elimination.

In this case, let's assume the Torah is split according to different divine names of the God per the documentary hypothesis. Let's grant that as true, then test it. What happens to the story? If the Torah is split, does the story remain intact? I did this test, Indigo. The story collapses. See below:

Refuting the Reform Movement's Documentary Hypothesis

Reform Judaism has been asserting a so-called academic, scholarly pursuit to prove that the Torah, Jewish Scripture is pagan in origin and the ONLY way to make sense of the narrative is to split it into different sources who were adherents of different Gods, not one single God. As I have...

www.religiousforums.com

When the documentary hypothesis is applied, If the story of Abraham cannot be told, then the documentary hypothesis is false.

 

[jimb]

Straight from the heart?

Hardly. From your own mind.

 

[GoodAttention]

E

Hardly. From your own mind.

You are too kind.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 ,

The source criticism, really, I think and hope we both agree, only gets one so far in regard to who or what or when the Torah was conceived.

I'm not claiming that textual criticism and related fields give us all the answers. I'm simply saying that these scientific sources are the only reliable way to determine who wrote things and when they were written, and what influenced them.

You brought up Abraham. Let me share how I view these stories.

The narratives from the Tanakh can pretty much be divided up into those set in the Bronze Age, and those set in the Iron Age. None of the people in the Bronze Age accounts can be verified by sources outside of the Bible. OTOH, a lot of people in the Iron Age are spoken of in texts that are contemporary to the events. What does this tell us?

It tells us that the Bronze Age legends probably have some history that was the original source, but that the stories have been passed on orally, with each subsequent telling embellishing them. The Abraham story and the Exodus story are what anthropologists call origin stories. Every culture has them, but they are almost never historically accurate.

OTOH, the Bronze age stories, because they were written at the time that the events actually happened, have a lot of historical reliability. This means that while a historian is not going to use the story of Abraham as a source for history, he certainly can use the story of Hezekiah.

 

[dybmh]

I'm not claiming that textual criticism and related fields give us all the answers.

I hear you. I am asking you, in no uncertain terms. Does the video you posted address my concerns, or not?

And if there is a preliminary question: do you understand the problem I have with the splitting of the Torah? Can you restate it in your own words?

You brought up Abraham. Let me share how I view these stories.

OK.

The narratives from the Tanakh can pretty much be divided up into those set in the Bronze Age, and those set in the Iron Age. None of the people in the Bronze Age accounts can be verified by sources outside of the Bible. OTOH, a lot of people in the Iron Age are spoken of in texts that are contemporary to the events. What does this tell us?

It tells us that the Bronze Age legends probably have some history that was the original source, but that the stories have been passed on orally, with each subsequent telling embellishing them. The Abraham story and the Exodus story are what anthropologists call origin stories. Every culture has them, but they are almost never historically accurate.

OTOH, the Bronze age stories, because they were written at the time that the events actually happened, have a lot of historical reliability. This means that while a historian is not going to use the story of Abraham as a source for history, he certainly can use the story of Hezekiah.

Indigo? You left out God. Where is the monotheism? What is Jewish about this? Do you see the problem? Please tell me you do?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I hear you. I am asking you, in no uncertain terms. Does the video you posted address my concerns, or not?

Indirectly, yes. It shows that your underlying assumptions are incorrect. And it shows the actual source of the books. What is an irrational form of thinking is to believe something is true just because you want it to be true, and that the actual truth is just too upsetting and frightening.

And if there is a preliminary question: do you understand the problem I have with the splitting of the Torah? Can you restate it in your own words?

You believe that if the Torah is written by multiple authors, that it destroys its authority and flies in the face of your belief that it is God's word. My response to you was that the NT has even more authors, yet you don't apply the same standard to the NT.

Indigo? You left out God. Where is the monotheism?

We clearly have entirely different approaches. The way I work things is to start with actual evidence, reach conclusions from that evidence, and THEN go and form a theology that matches up with that truth that I found. You on the other hand start with a theology that tickles your ears, and when evidence is presented that contradicts it, you put your fingers in your ears and say "La, la, la, I'm not listening."

What is Jewish about this?

The man in the video I presented was a Jew. There are many, many religious Jews that take my approach.

Do you see the problem? Please tell me you do?

What problem?

 

[dybmh]

The way I work things is to start with actual evidence

We are talking past each other. We are talking about completely different things. Let's start at the beginning?

Abraham according to the story, true or not, was the founder of Jewish monotheism. And the story of that realization is in the written Torah that we have now. Do we agree this far?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We are talking past each other. We are talking about completely different things. Let's start at the beginning?

Abraham according to the story, true or not, was the founder of Jewish monotheism. And the story of that realization is in the written Torah that we have now. Do we agree this far?

That has been the traditional understanding, but it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. Not only are the stories of Abraham not entirely historically reliable, but the evidence seems to indicate that Israelite religion began as monolatry rather than immediately being monotheism. Monolatry is the idea that "There are many gods, but THIS god is OUR God." True monotheism didn't develop until the Babylonian exile. Thus, when we read, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," it is a commandment to worship only this one particular god, but doesn't deny that other gods exist. That is not monotheism.

 

[dybmh]

That has been the traditional understanding, but it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny

So, the Reform.version of the Torah doesn't include Abraham as the father of Jewish monotheism?

But the Hebrew version does?

 

[GoodAttention]

That has been the traditional understanding, but it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. Not only are the stories of Abraham not entirely historically reliable, but the evidence seems to indicate that Israelite religion began as monolatry rather than immediately being monotheism. Monolatry is the idea that "There are many gods, but THIS god is OUR God." True monotheism didn't develop until the Babylonian exile. Thus, when we read, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," it is a commandment to worship only this one particular god, but doesn't deny that other gods exist. That is not monotheism.

I hope you find this helpful.

In both Vedic and Babylonian beliefs, the gods were considered to be embodied in stars and constellations. You could consider this a form of idolatry.

The Hebrew God is never personified. In addition, Genesis 1 tells us he creates the stars and therefore other gods/them, those that are useful for telling the seasons or as signs.

These gods are the Sons of God.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Aren't you aware of God's command in Leviticus 19:18? "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."

That comes straight from the Torah!

Not to split hairs, but in Hebrew the text you quoted uses a very specific word for "neighbor" (רעך) The type of neighbor it is discussing is a Jew who keeps Torah as Hashem gave it at Mount Sinai. I.e. it is likek saying don't hold a grudge against one's fellow Jew who keeps Torah. When addressing those who don't keep Torah doesn't apply the same language. Ther is a mitzvah found in Wayiqra (Lev.) 19:17 which states that when a Jew is mistaken / misled that every Torah based Jew has a requirement to attempt to convince them of the correct way. There is some lattitude to how this is done when the mistake is done in the public space. There is also another lattidue when it is a matter of something where the Torah is not kept. Just FYI.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, the Reform.version of the Torah doesn't include Abraham as the father of Jewish monotheism?

But the Hebrew version does?

I'm not sure why you are comparing the Reform movement of Judaism to the Hebrew language. It's a bit like asking, "An iguana has four legs but does a table?"

Almost all the Reform Jews that I've had this conversation with have no problem with saying, "Well, it probably happened, but not the way it is depicted in Genesis." In fact, I've known Conservative Jews like me who feel the same way. I even know one Orthodox Jew who agrees with this.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I hope you find this helpful.

In both Vedic and Babylonian beliefs, the gods were considered to be embodied in stars and constellations. You could consider this a form of idolatry.

Pretty much. Paganism basically see various powers in the world, and those powers that greatly affect humanity are worshiped, seeking to placate them so that the humans don't get squished by them. Monotheism is a whole different idea, a Creator God who exists outside the space/time universe.

The Hebrew God is never personified.

I'm not sure why you think this. When it says God walked in the garden in the cool of the evening, that is certainly personification.

In addition, Genesis 1 tells us he creates the stars and therefore other gods/them, those that are useful for telling the seasons or as signs.

I'm not sure why you think that anything God created is somehow another god. I don't find that in Genesis at all. The fact that the sun and moon mark time for humans is really not at all making them gods.

These gods are the Sons of God.

Depends on what you mean by son of God.

The nephilim in Genesis are not gods. Genesis 6 is the instance I'm speaking of. The second place "sons of God" is used is in Job, where it refers to angels. It does not mean angels are literal sons of God. It is a metaphor meant to show that their relationship to God is very close, like a father to a son.

The only time the Tanakh uses the phrase son of God (singular) is Daniel 3:25 where it remarks that the fourth being in the fiery furnace, an angel, is LIKE a son of God, not that it actually is.

It is only when you encounter the Christian scriptures that there is indication that a "son of God" is somehow literal.