Bible authenticity and transmission,fully detailed argument.

[YusufNoor]

No, "cow", but a little beef. What Johnson puts forward here is generally referenced as the Graf-Wellhausen developmental hypothesis. It most certainly is widely accepted by many scholars today. But it has never been universally received. So, what is the beef? If anyone writes that it is "unanimously agreed", they are ignoring those who disagree with them. Such a person is not truthful, and thus it calls the rest of their statements into question as to how truthful they are in presenting that material. On the whole I don't have a problem with the larger argument that Johnson presents. It seems to fairly accurately present the theory at an easy to understand level for the lay reader, but it is also worth noting that it has less acceptance today than it once did, and given what is at least overstated hyperbole regarding the theories level of acceptance, I doubt that Johnson wrestles with those criticisms very well.

he didn't "write it," i did. i was transcribing his lecture. everybody makes mistakes, but rather than edit it so that you never knew he made it, i did the honest thing and left it in. the lecturers at the Teaching Company speak before a very small group, however, they rapidly "perform" 4-6 lectures in a row. they all make mistakes, yet they are still the best lectures series that i've ever heard.

And those are just "Enlightenment" figures that argued against the developmental theory. Succeeding generations have produced even more critiques. That said, it must be admitted that Wellhausen is widely regarded, and even among his critics it is generally not the whole but only particular portions or conclusions with regard to its application that are disputed, but it is certainly not the only theory that is in vogue among biblical scholars and to present it as such requires Johnson to participate in a distortion of both the truth and of history.

regarding;

Other equally notable scholars were far from being convinced of the merits of many aspects of the evolutionary position that had been set out so plausibly by Wellhausen. Eduard Riehm attacked the view that the Priestly Code was the latest part of the Pentetuech, observing that the Deuteronomic legislation presupposed acquaintance with it. Dillmann placed the Priestly Code considerably prior to Deuteronomy in terms of development, and assigned the bulk of the Holiness Code, to which he accorded the designation S(iani), to an even earlier date. Baudissin placed the Law of Holiness in the pre-Deuteronomic period, while Kittel held that the Priestly literature had existed for a prolonged time as a document of ecclesiastical law, available only to the priests at first but subsequently made public by force of circumstance.

iirc from Friedman, you have TWO Priestly sources. Friedman puts "P" before "D." However, the FINAL writer/editor/redactor is identifiable to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra was a product of the priestly class, thus if ALL of the "P" stuff is assigned to him, your dates will be out of whack.

where they agree is:

The basic point is that the 5 books of Moses came into being over a long period of time through a complex process…

MY purpose here is to introduce what "Scholars" say on some of these issues and hopefully my brothers ans sisters in the Islamic faith can discuss said issues without relying on less studied individuals.

:wa:

 

[Grace Seeker]

MY purpose here is to introduce what "Scholars" say on some of these issues and hopefully my brothers ans sisters in the Islamic faith can discuss said issues without relying on less studied individuals.

:wa:

And I DO appreciate that. So, let me reaffirm, that the JEDP evolutionary document hypothesis proposed by Graf and further developed by Wellhausen, is indeed a well-respected hypothesis accepted by many scholars. It isn't universally agreed upon as accurately representing the development of the Old Testament, but even critics of it such as myself must admit that there is much to it that has merit and it should not be rejected out of hand.


To take it back to the question previously asked by a poster regarding how Christians can trust a book with an unknown author -- as regards to the Old Testament, specifically the Pentatuech, you would have two groups formed from those who accept this evolutionary hypothesis. One would simply see the whole things as an anthrological experiment in communal writing by a given faith community. They wouldn't see it as God's word any more than they would see Wikipedia as being authoritative. For them the Pentateuch is just the first significant example of open source composition. The other group would still contend that God was the one leading the editing and complining process. So it is academic as to whether it was all in Moses' hand or if it was re-written by others because God was the actual author behind the scenes no matter who, when, where or how many times pen was put to paper.

And then others of us, like Franz Delitzch mentioned above, think that JEDP remains unproven and that the argument for Moses' hand remains strong, even if there was minor editting later, and thus the question of authorship is unfounded.

One of those attacks on the Graf-Wellhausen theory is made by Wilhelm Moller, who had once been an ardent supporter of the documentary hypothesis. His most important work, Wieder den Bann dar Quellenscheidung (1912) subjected the critical hypothesis to a searching examination. Moller argues both for the unity and authorship of the Pentateuch. It must be understood that the JEDP theory developed as a response to perceived problems with the Pentateuch -- for instance the doublets previously mentioned. Moller repudiates the general approach that the documentary hypothesis takes to those suggested problems and explains things such as the two divine names as being in fact indicative of two different functions. Thus Elohim was employed where the reference was to to the activitiy of God in nature, whereas the tetragrammaton YHWH was used specifically of the God of revelation.

What I am pointing out is that the traditional understanding of authorship is not without signficant scholarly support. So it is not just that there is a difference between critical scholarly understandings and traditional understandings as you suggest:

This is one of the ways in which a traditional understanding of authorship and a more critical Scholarly understanding of authorship come to quite different conclusions.

The reality is that there are significant differences among those scholars. Those who hold to the more traditional views are in fact also supported in their views by critical scholarship as well.

 

[Follower]

2 Timothy 1
1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus,

Who wrote down each specific verse of the Quran?

This eally off tpic but it is such a very simple fact -

faith without works is dead
and
you can not be saved by your works.

Even a muslim will not be saved by their works for it is still left up to allah to decide isn't it? Will your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds?

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Will your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds?

Yes.

 

[YusufNoor]

And I DO appreciate that. So, let me reaffirm, that the JEDP evolutionary document hypothesis proposed by Graf and further developed by Wellhausen, is indeed a well-respected hypothesis accepted by many scholars. It isn't universally agreed upon as accurately representing the development of the Old Testament, but even critics of it such as myself must admit that there is much to it that has merit and it should not be rejected out of hand.


To take it back to the question previously asked by a poster regarding how Christians can trust a book with an unknown author -- as regards to the Old Testament, specifically the Pentatuech, you would have two groups formed from those who accept this evolutionary hypothesis. One would simply see the whole things as an anthrological experiment in communal writing by a given faith community. They wouldn't see it as God's word any more than they would see Wikipedia as being authoritative. For them the Pentateuch is just the first significant example of open source composition. The other group would still contend that God was the one leading the editing and complining process. So it is academic as to whether it was all in Moses' hand or if it was re-written by others because God was the actual author behind the scenes no matter who, when, where or how many times pen was put to paper.

And then others of us, like Franz Delitzch mentioned above, think that JEDP remains unproven and that the argument for Moses' hand remains strong, even if there was minor editting later, and thus the question of authorship is unfounded.

One of those attacks on the Graf-Wellhausen theory is made by Wilhelm Moller, who had once been an ardent supporter of the documentary hypothesis. His most important work, Wieder den Bann dar Quellenscheidung (1912) subjected the critical hypothesis to a searching examination. Moller argues both for the unity and authorship of the Pentateuch. It must be understood that the JEDP theory developed as a response to perceived problems with the Pentateuch -- for instance the doublets previously mentioned. Moller repudiates the general approach that the documentary hypothesis takes to those suggested problems and explains things such as the two divine names as being in fact indicative of two different functions. Thus Elohim was employed where the reference was to to the activitiy of God in nature, whereas the tetragrammaton YHWH was used specifically of the God of revelation.

What I am pointing out is that the traditional understanding of authorship is not without signficant scholarly support. So it is not just that there is a difference between critical scholarly understandings and traditional understandings as you suggest: The reality is that there are significant differences among those scholars. Those who hold to the more traditional views are in fact also supported in their views by critical scholarship as well.

i'm lucky that i don't have vested interest in this matter [or at least not so much when i read it]. Professor Friedman's book is a "must read." for while being a teacher of Hebrew [as well as having his own commentary of the Torah published], breaks down the historical reasons for the differences in J and E. when the Nation was unified under David and the capitol moved to Jerusalem, the "Torah traditions" [MY words] of the north and south were combined. when the split happened after Solomon, the priests in Jerusalem [Aaronites] wanted to keep their new found "gigs" [MY word, again] and so they tried to discredit the priests of Bethel [Mu*s*h*i*tes] should some descendants crawl out of the woodwork and claim superiority over them. it was P that tells us the Moses face was disfigured from "talking with God,' and who introduced the SECOND waters of Mirebah story that claims that Moses sinned against God!

what other scholars get stuck in is that the figure Ezra for P, but that is not the case. Ezra, while an author of alot of the K'tuvim [the K of TaNak], should rightly be seen as R, the final redactor! by Ezra's time, Jerusalem was laid waste, the Temple needed to be rebuilt and total power needed to be placed in the hands of the priests.

here is an excerpt from pages 217-218 of Professor Friedman's book, which i can't recommend enough!

Chapter 13 The Great Irony

The combination of P with J, E, and D was even more extraordinary than the combination of J and E with each other had been centuries earlier. P was polemic – it was the an answer-Torah to J and E. JE denigrated Aaron. P denigrated Moses. JE assumed that any Levite could be a priest. P said that only men who were descendants of Aaron could be priests. JE said that there were angels, that animals could talk, and that God could be found standing on a rock or walking through the Garden of Eden. P would have none of that.

D, meanwhile, came from a circle of people were as hostile to P as the P-circle was to JE. These two priestly groups had struggled, over centuries, for priestly prerogatives, authority, income, and legitimacy.

And now someone was putting all of these works together.

Someone was combining JE with the work that was written as an alternative to it. And this person was not merely combining them side by side, as parallel stories. He or she was cutting and intersecting them intricately. At the end of this combined, interwoven collection of the laws and stories of J, E, and P, this person set Deuteronomy, the farewell speeches of Moses as a conclusion. Someone was merging the four different, often opposing sources so artfully that it would take millennia to figure it out.

This was the person who created the Torah, the Five Books of Moses that we have read for over two thousand years. Who was this person? Why did he or she do it?

This was the first question of the book: if Moses did not produce these books, who did?

I think that it was Ezra.

if i have time, In Sha'a Allah,i will get back to more of Professor Johnson before Ramadhan. i just wanted to interject a little Friedman at this point.

here's a link to Professor Friedman's book:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bibl.../dp/0060630353

if you have a half price books around, i get them there for about $7-8! just make sure it is 2nd edition, which is the one in the link.

:wa:

 

[Zafran]

Even a muslim will not be saved by their works for it is still left up to allah to decide isn't it? Will your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds?

Yes its left up to Allah swt - so how do you know whos good deeds will outweigh whos bad deeds if Allah swt will decide? - Only Allah swt knows.

 

[Grace Seeker]

i'm lucky that i don't have vested interest in this matter [or at least not so much when i read it]. Professor Friedman's book is a "must read."

Well, I don't have any recently published books in this field, can you give me the name, publisher, and ISBN number for Friedman's book?

 

[YusufNoor]

Well, I don't have any recently published books in this field, can you give me the name, publisher, and ISBN number for Friedman's book?

i posted this 1 page ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353

if you have a half price books around, i get them there for about $7-8! just make sure it is 2nd edition, which is the one in the link.

:wa:

 

[Follower]

"Yes its left up to Allah swt - so how do you know whos good deeds will outweigh whos bad deeds if Allah swt will decide? - Only Allah swt knows."

There is the huge difference between my concept of GOD and your concept of Allah-

I have been promised by GOD that if I repent sincerely I will be in heaven after death with GOD. Jesus has paid the debt for my bad deeds [the ones I know about and the ones I have done unintentonally].

I know that I do not deserve such a beautiful gift from GOD but because He loves me He sacrificed His Son for me.

 

[Follower]

Does the opinion that you think you know or don't know who wrote the Holy Bible change the fact that it was inspired and saved by GOD? It is the scripture that GOD wanted saved and did save for all times.

I would think that a muslim would need just the say so of the Quran in confirming the Torah and Gospel.

What does it say about the Quran when it confirms the authorlessTorah and Gospel?

 

[جوري]

i posted this 1 page ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353

if you have a half price books around, i get them there for about $7-8! just make sure it is 2nd edition, which is the one in the link.

:wa:

Jazaka Allah khyran

I just put it on my shopping carte along with three other books by Dr. Lawrence Brown..

 

[Follower]

YusufNoor you asked a while back -"when did the Church decide that the "current list of canonical books" is the Bible"?

"and is that your Church?"

Please don't forget that the list of New Testament Books in the canon always included Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If there is a difference of opinion as to which church and which books are included again Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are always included.

My church- Lutheran.

 

[MSalman]

I have been promised by GOD that if I repent sincerely I will be in heaven after death with GOD.

but do you know that your repentance was accepted?

Does the opinion that you think you know or don't know who wrote the Holy Bible change the fact that it was inspired and saved by GOD?

how do know that those unknown authors were really inspired by God? How do we know that they did not make up things and said this is from God? Did you get a revelation from holy ghost? It is your belief that it was saved by God but it has very little value in the real world.

 

[Follower]

"but do you know that your repentance was accepted? "

If it is sincere then yes.

how do know that those unknown authors were really inspired by God? How do we know that they did not make up things and said this is from God?

I could ask the same things of the Quran-How do you know that Mohammad spoke form Allah?

Christians have witnesses, Disciples, followers -many heard His sermons and parables, early church fathers, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament and early followers of Jesus quoted Jesus.

The Holy Bible is the most valuable book on creating a personnal relationship with GOD.

 

[MSalman]

If it is sincere then yes.

but you do not know whether what you perceive to be sincere really falls under the criteria of what God is expecting. Do you?

Because even we believe that if we sincerely repent then Allah will forgive our past sins and even turn them into good deeds for us. However, we do not know if our 'sincere' repentance is really accepted. We can only hope that it is accepted, insha'Allah.

I could ask the same things of the Quran-How do you know that Mohammad spoke form Allah?

it involves faith in addition to logical evidence. Our situation is completely different than yours: He was a man who was known for honesty and good character even among his enemies. We know who was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) unlike you who do not even have any bio. on these authors. Well, they would not be unknown if we had some bio. about them, wouldn't they be?

Christians have witnesses, Disciples, followers -many heard His sermons and parables, early church fathers, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament and early followers of Jesus quoted Jesus.

this does not strengthen your position: I am talking about the period when the books of NT were written. The earliest book of NT was written after 50 some years of Jesus' (peace be upon him) ascension and some of these books were written by unknown people. When you know nothing about these unknown people, how can you then claim that you got most perfect and authentic book in terms of preservation!? All you got is blind faith and it is fine as long as you do not claim that you got some sort of evidence for your blind faith.

The Holy Bible is the most valuable book on creating a personnal relationship with GOD.

that is what you believe; so, whatever flows your boat

 

[Grace Seeker]

The earliest book of NT was written after 50 some years of Jesus' (peace be upon him) ascension and some of these books were written by unknown people.

You really need to find better scholarship. The only book that is of unknown authorship is the Letter to the Hebrews.

To state that the earliest books of the NT was written some 50 years after Jesus, would mean that it was 80AD or later. Most Biblical scholarship will give dates for much earlier dates for all but a few books of the NT.

Even though there is not universal agreement, if you check out just a few of these timelines, Chronology of the New Testament

I think you will see that your dating would be heavily disputed and not just by traditionalists, but by serious scholars as well. For more discussion on this, you can read my reply to a similar question in another thread: post #1874, Questions About Christians

 

[Azy]

2:113 - Furthermore, the Jews assert, "The Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs," while the Christians assert, "The Jews have no valid ground for their beliefs" - and both quote the divine writ!

 

[Grace Seeker]

2:113 - Furthermore, the Jews assert, "The Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs," while the Christians assert, "The Jews have no valid ground for their beliefs" - and both quote the divine writ!

IS that be an accurate quote from the Qur'an? For the facts as I klnow them is that regardless of what Jews might say about Christians, and though we Christians hold that the Jews have missed properly identify the Messiah when he was among them (and continue to ignore his coming to this day), that Christians do NOT says that the Jews have no valid grounds for their beliefs. In fact, we think that they do indeed have very valid grounds for their beliefs. And we pray they would follow all of the grounds that they have available to them.

Given what the facts really are with respect to the Christian view of Jewish beliefs, surely this cannot be an accurate quote from the Qur'an for it would be an example of an inaccuracy within the Qur'an. On the eve of Ramadan I will not accuse the Qur'an of this, and trust that it was merely the interpretation rendered which was in error.

 

[Azy]

It is an accurate quote but I posted it with a different reason in mind from the one you proposed.

 

[GreyKode]

IS that be an accurate quote from the Qur'an? For the facts as I klnow them is that regardless of what Jews might say about Christians, and though we Christians hold that the Jews have missed properly identify the Messiah when he was among them (and continue to ignore his coming to this day), that Christians do NOT says that the Jews have no valid grounds for their beliefs. In fact, we think that they do indeed have very valid grounds for their beliefs. And we pray they would follow all of the grounds that they have available to them.

Given what the facts really are with respect to the Christian view of Jewish beliefs, surely this cannot be an accurate quote from the Qur'an for it would be an example of an inaccuracy within the Qur'an. On the eve of Ramadan I will not accuse the Qur'an of this, and trust that it was merely the interpretation rendered which was in error.

It is a quote from the Qur'an and yes it is 100% accurate, this verse has a historical background in "asbab el nozool"(reasons for revelation), and it is authentic, so your opinion is of no value, this is plain historical facts.