Do you guys have any opinions on Reuss and Wellhausen's "Documentary Hypothesis" as an explanation of the writing of The Torah. Any additional opinion on the subsequent "Supplementary" and "Fragmentary Hypotheses" would also be interesting.
Scientific hypotheses are never 'proven'. It doesn't work that way. A hypothesis that is workable, testable, and supported by the preponderance of data, is upgraded to a 'theory', which may contain various equations known as 'laws', which merely define numerical relationships between stuff. A theory proves nothing but does assign a *probability* of being an accurate model of the studied process or object.
Have you an original manuscript?
It sure wasn't written by God.
I agree, but the problem with that is less than 1% of the Torah can be proven. Archeology has proved the existence of King David in the 10th century, it has proved the exile around 587BC. There is proof that the Jews worshiped other gods in Northern Israel in the 8th/9th centuries and at Elephantine in the 5th BC.
The traditional hypothesis is that Moses wrote the first five books, that is beyond being proved too; indeed his very existence has no proof at all. Most remarkable of all is that there is no proof at all that the Jews lived in exile in Egypt for 400 years - the country which has preserved more artefacts than anywhere else due to its aridity.
We do know(proof) for example that some parts of the Torah are very ancient, because of the primitive Hebrew used. On this basis most scholars agree that 'Miriams Song of Victory' at the crossing of the Red sea and the 'Ode to Deborah' are the oldest writing in the Bible.
We cannot prove the original Genesis or Flood stories but there is convincing written evidence of Sumerian origins for both
I think that the original Documentary hypothesis is too simplistic but it does make sense as a way the Torah was developed over a very long period. It makes a lot more sense if the subsequent 'Fragmentary' and 'Supplementary Hypotheses' are considered.
I think that the Documentary hypothesis and its later amendments provide a workable and logical analysis which give a far better understanding of the Torah. No-one is ever going to 'prove' this idea, but it does have a much stronger basis than the totally unfounded notion of Moses authorship.
PS Just as an aside Try have you ever wondered why the two most ancient writings in the Bible which are referred to above are respectfully, by a woman and about a woman. Was ancient Israel more matriarchal?
Have you read Julian of Norwich? She compared Jesus to a mother goddess.
Not surprising at all.
God is a job description, not a proper name. Humans have invented many gods. Lord {JHWH} of the Hebrews is one of many, including those that Hebrews worshiped. That was okay with Lord {JHWH} so long s/he got first cut of sacrifices.
God sure fucked them then, didn't he?
Is that the same as the Synagogue of Satan?
Can't have a lot of members with that requirement.
Christianity fails the simplest tests for truth. Matthew 7:7 Ask and it shall be given to you. What bullshit.I don't know how I missed this but I apologize for not responding. Isn't that what those who are against Christianiy are asking Christians to do... Prove it. I had a guy say that over and over to me. Why is proof beyond science but MANDATORY for Christanity.
I'm not sure who is *against* Xianity itself as such. Maybe victims.I don't know how I missed this but I apologize for not responding. Isn't that what those who are against Christianiy are asking Christians to do... Prove it. I had a guy say that over and over to me. Why is proof beyond science but MANDATORY for Christanity.
