Who Wrote the Bible ?
- Thread starter Avi
- Start date
Oh, yes - we've had some great coverage on this before.
Firstly, Bob X's piece analysing the matter from a secular perspective:
Redaction Theory (Documents Hypothesis) - torah torah torah
And bananabrain's rebuke from a Judaic perspective and discussion with Bob X:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tilting-at-windmills-a-response-369.html
Firstly, Bob X's piece analysing the matter from a secular perspective:
Redaction Theory (Documents Hypothesis) - torah torah torah
And bananabrain's rebuke from a Judaic perspective and discussion with Bob X:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tilting-at-windmills-a-response-369.html
Dream
Well-Known Member
I read that some years ago. I do not remember the details but there were signs that the author was not as familiar with Bible stories as they should have been. I was disappointed. They drew at least one conclusion based upon what they thought the Bible was saying, but they had not really gotten the point of what it was saying. Also they portrayed the development of higher criticism like it just happened by itself, like there was no avoiding the conclusion that the Bible was the fusion of El and YWY. The book was written in a persuasive style and tended to cut corners. It went into some of the methods of higher criticism but poorly represented the history and reasons. A another accounting of the history of modern higher criticism is in the first chapter of A Survey of the Old Testament by Harrold D. Harrison. It covers more of the history than the method.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
bob is very much up on this. if you want to learn about it, he's a great person to learn from. i'd also recommend prof. james kugel's "how to read the bible" rather than friedman. in fact, it was this very book, "who wrote the bible?", which prompted me to reject the documentary hypothesis, which i had grown up with, partly because the more i learned about it, the more far-fetched and based on scholarly conjecture, conceit and arrogance it appeared. if you read my thread about "personal theology" it goes into it in more detail.
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
BB, lots of threads on personal theology, can you give the specific one ? Thanks.
I thought the Friedman book was very believable, so I look forward to reading your criticism.
Most Conservative and Orthodox Jews I know are not supporters of DH. I think one of the problems is that 19th century Germany, where most of these ideas started, later became 20th century Germany.
I thought the Friedman book was very believable, so I look forward to reading your criticism.
Most Conservative and Orthodox Jews I know are not supporters of DH. I think one of the problems is that 19th century Germany, where most of these ideas started, later became 20th century Germany.
I think we all know the Bible was not written by G!d. That argument is long gone (for the majority of us), now did G!d influence the hand of man (or many men) who wrote, transcribed, translated, and interpretted....that argument is far from complete.Has anyone heard of: J, E, D, P ?
Reference: "Who Wrote the Bible ?", Richard Elliott Friedman, HarperOne, 1997.
P.S. - Does this mean the Bible was not written by G-d?? Oh my G-d, is that a scary thought !
Yes we've heard of the Yahwists, Elohists, Deuteronomists and Priests...and there are those that argue that this is the case and others say no those books were written by Moses...
But the rest of the bible is obviously by many hands, and often not the person who has the title for that book. There also exists argument as to whether all of the letters of Paul were from Paul.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
avi:
the posts you are looking for are my responses here:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/query-to-bananabrain-9420.html (that's the personal theology one)
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/observations-on-the-creation-stories-9195.html#post153722
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tilting-at-windmills-redux-8966.html#post147128
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/is-it-not-clear-that-7445-2.html#post113825
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/pentateuch-wisdom-6950-3.html#post100359
most of which deal with my objections on various levels to the documentary hypothesis. i should nonetheless point out that this only really presents a problem for me in regard to the Torah itself, ie the pentateuch. in all other respects, the traditional authorities are perfectly happy to discuss alternative theories about who wrote which bits of NaKh, whether job existed, how many isaiahs there were, what jeremiah's real name was and so on. it's only Torah itself that has to be mi-sinai.
b'shalom
bananabrain
the posts you are looking for are my responses here:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/query-to-bananabrain-9420.html (that's the personal theology one)
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/observations-on-the-creation-stories-9195.html#post153722
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tilting-at-windmills-redux-8966.html#post147128
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/is-it-not-clear-that-7445-2.html#post113825
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/pentateuch-wisdom-6950-3.html#post100359
most of which deal with my objections on various levels to the documentary hypothesis. i should nonetheless point out that this only really presents a problem for me in regard to the Torah itself, ie the pentateuch. in all other respects, the traditional authorities are perfectly happy to discuss alternative theories about who wrote which bits of NaKh, whether job existed, how many isaiahs there were, what jeremiah's real name was and so on. it's only Torah itself that has to be mi-sinai.
b'shalom
bananabrain
oldgordy
Member
Has anyone heard of: J, E, D, P ?
Reference: "Who Wrote the Bible ?", Richard Elliott Friedman, HarperOne, 1997.
P.S. - Does this mean the Bible was not written by G-d
I agree that the Bible was written by many hands and minds. For me , however , the question is more who translated and edited the bible and how much was lost or distorted in the process.
BB, very nice compendium and analysis of DH. As I mentioned earlier, I would have been shocked if you had accepted DH, for the reason I mentioned. I think last generation and our generation have been so devasted by the experience of the Holocaust, that accepting any German influence on the Jewish civilization has been nearly impossible. I hope this will change in the next generation.
Rather than discuss this issue point by point, with respect to your referenced posts, I would like to share some of my thoughts about DH and we can re-connect to your earlier threads, if suitable.
I will refer to the Friedman book (because that is the on I have read), but I would like to read Kugel's book as well (I have to add this to my summer reading list
).What I find attractive in the Friedman approach is his connection to a systematic approach. His references to archeological, anthropological, sociological, psychological and philosophic works are frequent. I feel that his views and approaches can be received warmly from a Jewish perspective.
Friedman claims to have identified the author of the redaction, R, as Ezra. If he is right about this, that is a remarkable contribution to an understanding of the Bible.
I believe he also differed from Wellhausen in his attributing P to the period of Hezekiah which is an important contribution as well.
In terms of your concerns with the errors with DH, of course there are problems. But I see this as a normal evolutionary process as a descriptive model is developed. The DH provided a preliminary target which everyone took shots at. As it becomes further refined, the changes required will be less and it will become a more robust model.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
well, this is the point, really. i grew up in the reform movement where it was more or less assumed that the bible was a human document "inspired" by G!D in some way. except, once i began to develop a direct relationship with the Text itself and understand traditional methods, the DH's explanations seemed to rely on an unwarranted set of presumptions that did not appear to be borne out by the evidence. the theories seemed badly thought-out if you didn't share the axioms, which, due to a series of very direct experiences of the depth of the Text, i felt were fundamentally mistaken. in other words, i once accepted it by default, until i really started looking at it and it simply didn't stand up to the process.Avi said:
my dislike for the wellhausen crowd has nothing to do with the shoah for me. there has been considerable german influence on jewish civilisation from mediaeval times onwards and much of it has been positive. what i object to is the more recent, wider post-enlightenment chauvinism, a sort of "orientalist" assumption that western europe is the fount of all knowledge worth having and that everything else is a barbarian backwater. clearly, in fields such as yoga, martial arts, healing, meditation, art, metallurgy, music, ecology and exegesis, this was never the case and, quite simply, jewish culture is no exception.
kugel, on the other hand, understands both the biblical critic's point of view as well as the traditional approach, which friedman simply does not, so he understands the contrasts.
i don't agree with the comparison with evolution. the DH rests, fundamentally, on axioms, which evolution really doesn't. evolution has a fossil record, but the DH relies on circumstantial evidence alone. until someone produces one of these source documents, they remain simply conjectural.
b'shalom
bananabrain
A good portion of this book is available on-line on Google:
How to Read the Bible: A Guide to ... - Google Books
I will give it a shot !!
pohaikawahine
Elder Member
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
How to Read the Bible is certainly an interesting perspective - but it would change depending on the level at which one reads or understands the stories (pshat, remez, drash, sod or at which level of consciousness, ie. physical, emotional, intellectual or spiritual or at which age childhood, youth, adulthood, and old age or literal, allegorical, moral/philosophical and anagogical, etc. etc. etc.) I went to the web site referenced above and read the portion on "the flood" (one of my favorite parts). Now I am not an expert on the Bible in any matter of speaking but whoever wrote it (or whomever wrote it) would have to have had the insight necessary to maintain each story at the highest level of consciousness while at the same time writing for all other levels. The oral tradition(s) maintained the inner meanings through the language itself and through sound, but the written tradition changed eveything. Through the loss of indigeneous language throughout the world we have also lost our sense of hearing and knowing. I think that the story of "the flood" must be one of the greatest connections from oral traditions that has perserved to some extent the inner meaning. Maybe another question might be "who sees or who hears the Bible". Just some small thoughts to send in writing. Me Ke Aloha Pumehana, poh