That book and "misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, are must reads for anyone even remotely interested in the bible.
Friedman's "Who really wrote the bible"
by bohm 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
bohm
Glad to see i am not alone and i want to thank anyone for their contributions.
I want in particular to give a shoutout to the atheists -- I have an entirely new appreciation and admiration for the bible and its writers from reading the book.
I am currently trying to see whats on the WT CD on the documentary hypothesis. It seem hey call it the documentary theory ("but its not a hypothesis, its only a THEORY", hehe. ), but i have come up with quite little so far. I wonder if anyone here has tried to reason with a JW on the documentary hypothesis?
-
zeroday*
This is one of the first books I read after leaving...
-
bohm
The WT does not seem to really discuss the content of the documentary hypothesis. This seem to be as good as it gets:
*** it-1 pp. 920-922 Genesis, Book of ***
The “Documentary Theory” of Critics. A theory has been set forth by some Bible critics that Genesis is not the work of one writer or compiler, namely, Moses, but rather that it represents the work of several writers, some of these living long after Moses’ time. On the basis of supposed differences of style and word usage, they have advanced the so-called documentary theory. According to this theory, there were three sources, which they call “J” (Jahwist), “E” (Elohist), and “P” (Priest Codex). Because of a double mention of a certain event or because of similarity of accounts in different parts of Genesis, some would add still further sources to the list, going so far in dissecting the book of Genesis as to claim that there were up to 14 independent sources. They contend that these various sources or writers held different views and theologies yet that, nevertheless, Genesis as an amalgamated product of these sources somehow forms a connected whole. There are many absurdities to which they go to support their theories, a few of which may be mentioned.
The original basis for the documentary theory was the use of different titles for God; the critics claim that this indicates different writers. The unreasonableness of such a view, however, can be seen in that in just one small portion of Genesis we find the following titles: “the Most High God” (’El ?El?yohn′, Ge 14:18); “Producer of heaven and earth” (14:19); “Sovereign Lord” (’Adho?nai′, 15:2); “God of sight” (16:13); “God Almighty” (’El Shad?dai′, 17:1); “God” (’Elo?him′, 17:3); “the true God” (ha?’Elo?him′, 17:18); “the Judge of all the earth” (18:25). Trying to use this as a basis for attributing each of these sections to a different writer produces insurmountable difficulties and becomes absurd. Rather, the truth is that the different titles applied to God in Genesis are used because of their meaning, revealing Jehovah in his different attributes, in his various works, and in his dealings with his people.
Other examples are: Because of the use of the word ba?ra’′, “created,” Genesis 1:1 is said to be written by the source called “P.” Yet we find the same word at Genesis 6:7 in the source supposed to be “J.” The expression “land of Canaan” appearing in several texts (among which are Ge 12:5; 13:12a; 16:3; 17:8) is said to be a peculiarity of the writer known as “P,” and therefore these critics hold that “P” wrote these passages. But in chapters 42, 44, 47, and 50, we find the same expression in the writings attributed by the same critics to “J” and “E.” Thus, while the critics claim that their theories are needed to account for supposed inconsistencies in Genesis, examination shows that the theories themselves are riddled with inconsistencies.
If the material attributed to each theoretical source is extricated portion by portion, and sentence by sentence, from the Genesis account and then reassembled, the result is a number of accounts each one of which by itself is illogical and incoherent. If we were to believe that these various sources were used and put together by a later compiler, we would be forced to believe that these incoherent accounts, before being amalgamated, were accepted as historical and were used for centuries by the nation of Israel. But what writer, especially a historian, would even construct such disconnected narratives, and if he did, what nation would accept them as a history of its people?
Illustrating the unreasonableness of the advocates of the “documentary theory” is this statement by Egyptologist K. A. Kitchen: “In Pentateuchal criticism it has long been customary to divide the whole into separate documents or ‘hands’. . . . But the practice of Old Testament criticism in attributing these characteristics to different ‘hands’ or documents becomes a manifest absurdity when applied to other ancient Oriental writings that display precisely similar phenomena.” He then cites an example from an Egyptian biography that might, using the theoretical methods employed by the critics of Genesis, be attributed to different “hands” but which work the evidence shows “was conceived, composed, written, and carved within months, weeks, or even less. There can be no ‘hands’ behind its style, which merely varies with the subjects in view and the question of fitting treatment.” (The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1980, p. 349) The weakness of the critics’ theories actually gives added strength to the evidence that only one man, Moses, recorded the connected, coherent account found in Genesis as inspired by God.
I have bolded two obvious strawmans, but there are a lot of logical fallacies crammed into the article.
-
Pistoff
Friedmans book, and Ehrmans, changed my outlook on the bible and religion.
I appreciate the bible, even can appreciate religion to an extent, more so after reading them.
It would be fruitless to discuss this with a JW; it is too sophisticated for them to grasp. They need to be told what to think, to reason this out or challenge their thinking is not in their perspective.
P
-
PSacramento
It's always good to get "both sides" of the story when it comes to things like this, as the old saying goes, " There is her side, his side and the truth".
It applies even more so here in regards to the Bible.
-
fulltimestudent
It would be fruitless to discuss this with a JW; it is too sophisticated for them to grasp. They need to be told what to think, to reason this out or challenge their thinking is not in their perspective.
But isn't that the reality for most religions? And isn't that what most people want from their religion?
And maybe that's what we liked about the religion. It seemed to be reasoned, but not so reasoned, that we had to work hard (mentally) to understand it.
-
cyberjesus
I read both sides, for 38 years I read the WT side and last year I read the opposite side. 39 years wasted
-
bohm
fulltimestudent: hmm. its not the answer i was hoping for, but you might be right. No harm in trying though :-). At least i wont have to feel like an imbicil in a biblical discussion, i have somewhere to look for context for the text.