Criminey!
Bookmarked for Leolaia's great variations post!
Discussion about the bible.
by Anti-Christ 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
BabaYaga
-
Leolaia
Could moses have written various bits that a later author put together and a cohesive whole came about?
Actually the Pentateuch decomposes rather readily into its major constituent parts, but all these "bits" show unmistakable marks of a later age via both language and content. As mentioned above, the oldest "bit" (the twelfth-century BC Song of the Sea in Exodus 15) is one of the earliest written parts of the entire Bible but it is still later than Moses since it looks back to the conquest of Canaan as lying in the past. The Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, another archaic text, looks back to the conquest as in the distant past as well. All the prose sections of the Pentateuch, including the legal material, are linguistically later (as evident from the Classical Biblical Hebrew) and similarly betray their later age by presupposing a standpoint within monarchical Israel or Judah.
The examples I gave above in my last post only scratch the surface; the evidence is everywhere. For instance, the book of Numbers relates mainly events occurring in the first month or so of the 40 years of wandering (ch. 1-15) and the final year of the wandering (ch. 18-36); the intervening 39 years are passed over in just a few verses in ch. 16-17 without any acknowledgement of such a gap. A writer living through this lengthy period would doubtless have much more to say about the events of this period. Another example of this phenomenon can be found in Deuteronomy 23:4 which refers to an event at the end of the 40 years (cf. Numbers 22-24) as occurring "when you came out of Egypt". This hardly a natural expression for Moses, who had just lived through 40 years of wandering, to refer to an event that occurred only six months earlier (i.e. after 38 years of wandering). But it is how a person from a later era would write, who viewed the totality of the 40 years as a single point occurring immediately after the exodus. The books of the Pentateuch also embrace at least three different law codes and these are not reconcilable with each other or with other writings that are ignorant of later laws. They are also largely irrelevant to the life of slaves escaping from bondage of several generations and instead presume institutions and social structures that would not arise among the Israelites until after a period of settlement in the land of Israel, and which embrace a lengthy phase of religious and legal development (i.e. from the simple and archaic lex talionis laws from the Book of Covenants of Exodus which presuppose a basic agricultural society, to the ethical and religious reforms of the Deuteronomistic Code which presuppose a monarchical Israel set in its ways, to the mass of sophisticated ritual, fiscal, and ecclesiastical directives in the Priestly Code). Aside from the things mentioned in my last post, I could mention all the laws in the Pentateuch that presuppose a society with land ownership (e.g. Deuteronomy 19:14 which commands "You shall not move your neighbor's boundary mark which was set by those of old," hardly a concern to nomads in the wilderness), clearly designed for people living in the land of Israel; few of the laws have any relation to nomadic life. As another example of lateness, Numbers 3:5-13 portrays the Levites as divided into two castes -- priests (through Aaron) and servants of the priests -- and no one other than Levite priests may approach the altar. This notion is first encountered in Ezekiel, who describes the division of Levites into two castes as a recent event (44:9-31, with v. 11-13 showing that priestly and non-priestly Levites were not distinguished before the Exile), whereas in earlier times Levites not of the seed of Aaron were priests (Judges 18:30), such that all Levites had a right to perform priestly functions (cf. Deuteronomy 10:8-9, 18:1-8), and initially the priestly office was not even limited to Levites (cf. Judges 17:5, 10-13, 1 Samuel 7:1, 2 Samuel 8:18, 20:26), although by the time of the writing of 1-2 Kings this was a cause for condemnation (cf. 1 Kings 12:31). What Ezekiel regarded as a recent division occurring on account of idolatry during the Divided Kingdom, the Priestly Code retrojects into the time of Moses himself as a law given by him during the wanderings in the wilderness. This suggests that the law in Numbers 3 belongs to the time of the prophet Ezekiel, or subsequent to his time, but yet prior to the time of the Chronicler (fourth century BC) -- who revised the history given in 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings by presuming the antiquity of non-priest Levites (cf. 1 Chronicles 6:48-49, 9:18-34, 15:14, 23:28, 26:20, 28:31, 2 Chronicles 7:6, 8:14, etc.). The Chronicler was influenced by the stipulation in the Priestly Code whereas earlier writers were not.
When all the evidence is taken together and accorded weight, there really isn't any reason to suppose Mosaic authorship in the first place -- the evidence points decidedly in the opposite direction.
one interesting fact is Jesus did acknowledge moses as the author
This statement is witness to the Jewish tradition about the authorship of the Torah circulating in the first century -- a millennia and a half after the purported time of Moses (whereas the statements in the Talmud date to two millennia after Moses). The author of the gospel of John makes this statement in much the same way that the author of Jude claimed that "Enoch, seventh from Adam" gave the prophecies in 1 Enoch (and it is clear that the author thinking of the whole book than just the portion quoted in Jude 14-15, as the short epistle alludes to many passages throughout 1 Enoch). I don't think many feel obliged to accept this claim at face value as proof that the pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch dates to the fourth millennium BC and was written by an antediluvian patriarch; it hardly outweights the overwhelming literary and linguistic evidence that proves that 1 Enoch was written in the postexilic era. It is much the same thing with the Pentateuch. A simple reference to the Torah as written by Moses (as any other rabbi in the first century AD would have done) does not explain in any way the overwhelming evidence that points to a much later date.
-
Anti-Christ
When all the evidence is taken together and accorded weight, there really isn't any reason to suppose Mosaic authorship in the first place -- the evidence points decidedly in the opposite direction.
one interesting fact is Jesus did acknowledge moses as the author
This statement is witness to the Jewish tradition about the authorship of the Torah circulating in the first century -- a millennia and a half after the purported time of Moses (whereas the statements in the Talmud date to two millennia after Moses). The author of the gospel of John makes this statement in much the same way that the author of Jude claimed that "Enoch, seventh from Adam" gave the prophecies in 1 Enoch (and it is clear that the author thinking of the whole book than just the portion quoted in Jude 14-15, as the short epistle alludes to many passages throughout 1 Enoch). I don't think many feel obliged to accept this claim at face value as proof that the pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch dates to the fourth millennium BC and was written by an antediluvian patriarch; it hardly outweights the overwhelming literary and linguistic evidence that proves that 1 Enoch was written in the postexilic era. It is much the same thing with the Pentateuch. A simple reference to the Torah as written by Moses (as any other rabbi in the first century AD would have done) does not explain in any way the overwhelming evidence that points to a much later date.
Thank you, I could not have said it better myself.
The evidence is overwhelming. The dishonesty of the WT and every other religion who make extraordinary claims when there is absolutely no evidence to support these claims is just mind blowing. Once again I must say "they must find it difficult those who thake authority as the truth instead of the truth as authority".
The examples I gave above in my last post only scratch the surface; the evidence is everywhere. For instance, the book of Numbers relates mainly events occurring in the first month or so of the 40 years of wandering (ch. 1-15) and the final year of the wandering (ch. 18-36); the intervening 39 years are passed over in just a few verses in ch. 16-17 without any acknowledgement of such a gap. A writer living through this lengthy period would doubtless have much more to say about the events of this period. Another example of this phenomenon can be found in Deuteronomy 23:4 which refers to an event at the end of the 40 years (cf. Numbers 22-24 ) as occurring " when you came out of Egypt ". This hardly a natural expression for Moses, who had just lived through 40 years of wandering, to refer to an event that occurred only six months earlier (i.e. after 38 years of wandering). But it is how a person from a later era would write, who viewed the totality of the 40 years as a single point occurring immediately after the exodus.The books of the Pentateuch also embrace at least three different law codes and these are not reconcilable with each other or with other writings that are ignorant of later laws. They are also largely irrelevant to the life of slaves escaping from bondage of several generations and instead presume institutions and social structures that would not arise among the Israelites until after a period of settlement in the land of Israel, and which embrace a lengthy phase of religious and legal development (i.e. from the simple and archaic lex talionis laws from the Book of Covenants of Exodus which presuppose a basic agricultural society, to the ethical and religious reforms of the Deuteronomistic Code which presuppose a monarchical Israel set in its ways, to the mass of sophisticated ritual, fiscal, and ecclesiastical directives in the Priestly Code ).
These are a very good points. I find it sometimes hard to believe I never notice all these details when they were right in front of my eyes. I can't tell you how many times I have seen these verses and never notice this before. Isn't mind control a beautiful thing?
-
Anti-Christ
Okay here is more information about the bible. I,m not going to mention all the contradictions, absurdities and just crazy verses in the OT but I am going to continue with the NT.
For more details this is a good start
The Formation of the New Testament Canon (2000)
I will cut and past some general information. ( yes I know I'm lazy)
Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."
The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known. Their names were assigned early, but not early enough for us to be confident they were accurately known. It is based on speculation that Mark was the first, written between 60 and 70 A.D., Matthew second, between 70 and 80 A.D., Luke (and Acts) third, between 80 and 90 A.D., and John last, between 90 and 100 A.D. Scholars advance various other dates for each work, and the total range of possible dates runs from the 50's to the early 100's, but all dates are conjectural. It is supposed that the Gospels did not exist before 58 simply because neither Paul nor any other epistle writer mentions or quotes them, and this is a reasonable argument as far as things go. On the other hand, Mark is presumed earlier, and the others later, because Mark is simpler, and at least Matthew and Luke appear to borrow material from him (material that is likely his own invention, cf. my review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark).
After learning all this in formation I find it hard to expect someone to believe 100% that the bible is 100% reliable.