Yet "the form in which we have them now" is classical Yehudit (paleo-Hebraic versions, such as the Samaritan, contain many variations), and we know that Yehudit, even in its most aboriginal form, was not invented as an alphabetically written language before circa 1000 BCE, at least three hundred years after the supposed god-gift; logically we must therefore presume that the written Ten Commandments were in Egyptian hieroglyphs, and the oral tales transmitted in classical Egyptian, or perhaps Hurrian, the language of Kena'an (Canaan), itself a dialect of late Hittite proto-Aramaic, or in some dialect of Chaldean brought out of Ur Kasdim by Av-Ram's family (assuming that Av-Ram's family were ever in Ur Kasdim)... all of which leaves open a staggering number of rather obvious questions.
Isaac de la Peyrère, Baruch Spinoza, Richard Simon, John Hampden and many other of Hobbes' contemporaries came to similar conclusions, based on other oddities in the text, but where Hobbes' "Leviathan" lives on, unexcommunicated and un-indexed, amongst the canon of English literature, de la Peyrère, Simon and Hampden were condemned, imprisoned and forced to recant by the Christian authorities, while Spinoza was excommunicated by his Jewish confrères, a ruling based on the 12th of the 18 blessings in the Amidah, a statement of extraordinary compassion, empathy, sympathy and mercy written by Rabban Gamliel II in the 2nd century CE:
"And for slanderers let there be no hope, and may all wickedness perish in an instant, and may all your enemies be cut down speedily. The wanton sinners - may you speedily uproot, smash, cast down and humble them, speedily, and in our days. Blessed are you, YHVH, who breaks enemies and humbles wanton sinners."
As late as the 1950s, the verse was applied by order of the Beth Din of London, when Rabbi Louis Jacobs was forced out of his ministry in an orthodox London synagogue for daring to challenge the divine source of the text – he would probably have been excommunicated, but the right of excommunication had been withdrawn by the English Parliament. Challenges to the orthodox tradition are not welcome, in either Jewish or Christian circles.
If the goal of those who attacked Spinoza and co was to deter the open-minded scholars, the attempt failed, and somewhat ironically too, because the man who laid out the new methodology of Biblical scholarship intended it to be used to refute Hobbes and Spinoza. Published in 1753, Jean Astruc's "Conjectures on the original accounts of which it appears Moses availed himself in composing the Book of Genesis" employed the same techniques of literary analysis that were being used to deduce which of the many versions of the Latin and Greek classics was the authentic text. Astruc noted the variant usage of "Elohim" and "YHWH" as the name for the Yisra-Eli deity, and the repetition of certain stories (the two accounts of the creation in Genesis 1-3; the two accounts of Sarah prostituted to the harem of a foreign king in Genesis 12 and 20, et al); and concluded that a later editor had erroneously mixed up the deity's pure original!
Astruc had invented "Biblical Source Criticism", and applied it to Genesis. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn applied it to the entire Torah, and by 1823 had come to the conclusion that Mosheh could not possibly have written any of it.
In the meanwhile, Wilhelm de Wette had demonstrated from the language characteristics of Deuteronomy that it had to have been written by a different author from the other four books, who (or even possibly all of whom) used a much later form of Yehudit; compare Chaucer with Shakespeare with Dickens and you will see how easy it is to detect the stages in the development of language (the same is true of regional dialects, though de Wette did not notice this equally valid point of variation within the Tanach). At the same time de Wette's student Friedrich Bleek had identified the Book of Joshua as a continuation of Deuteronomy, though others prefer to regard Deuteronomy as a prologue to Judges, Samuel and Kings - it's probably both.
By 1853 Hermann Hupfeld had introduced the concept of the Redactor, a final editor who, at some as yet unspecified point of Yisra-Eli history, had taken all known sources, amalgamated them into a single (unsuccessful) synthesis, and produced the final mess of errors, anachronisms, duplications, self-contradictions, doubles, inconsistencies and downright impossibilities which is the divine and perfect Torah that we have today. Though even Hupfeld admitted that there were probably more than just the four sources that all agreed upon.
Julius Wellhausen did not wait to be excommunicated or forced to recant; he resigned as Professor of Theology at Greifswald University, stating that
"I became a theologian because the scientific treatment of the Bible interested me; only gradually did I come to understand that a Professor of Theology also has the practical task of preparing the students for service in the Protestant Church, and that I am not adequate to this practical task, but that instead despite all caution on my own part I make my hearers unfit for their office. Since then my theological professorship has been weighing heavily on my conscience."
Wellhausen published "Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments - The Composition of the Hexateuch and the historical books of the Old Testament" in 1877, and the "Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels - Prolegomena to the History of Israel" in 1878, tracing in the latter the development of the religion of the ancient Yisra-Elim from an entirely secular, non-supernatural standpoint.
"Wellhausen's Hypothesis", which is also known as "The Documentary Hypothesis", was an attempt to deconstruct the Torah back into its original parts. He deduced four original texts (an extraordinary under-estimation!), using its language as his starting-point: those associated with J are much richer in their narrative style than those associated with E; the language of P is dry and legalistic; the language and content of D reflects the period of the Second Temple. Other obvious variations are the names of the Yisra-Eli god; the use of Chorev (Horeb) in E and D, but Sinai in J and P; ritual objects such as the Ark, which are mentioned frequently in J but do not actually appear in E; the absence of Judges from P, and of Prophets from both P and D; the Yisra-Eli god speaking directly with humans in J, but only through dreams in E, and more distantly still, through the office of the priest, in P. Wellhausen postulated the writing of the four texts as follows:
The Yahwist source (J), written c 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Yehudah.
The Elohist source (E), written c.850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Yisra-El (Ephrayim).
The Deuteronomist (D), written c 600 BCE in Yeru-Shala'im during a period of religious reform.
The Priestly source (P), written c 500 BCE by Kohanim (Temple priests) in exile in Babylon.
Evidence for these dates for the writing is difficult to find, except through hints in the texts, especially the prophetic texts, or specific statements made in the historical sections. For example, in 2 Kings 22:8–20 we read that a "scroll of Torah" had been "discovered" in a store-room of the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im by the High Priest Chilki-Yahu (Hilkia) in the eighteenth year of King Yoshi-Yahu (Josiah), which is to say 622 BCE. Yoshi-Yahu had embarked on a campaign of religious reform, destroying all altars except the one in the Temple, prohibiting all sacrifice except at the Temple, and insisting on the exclusive worship of YHVH; so the "discovery" of a Torah scroll would have been extremely useful. In the 4th century CE Saint Jerome speculated that the scroll in question was probably Deuteronomy; in 1805 de Wette suggested that it may only have been the law-code in Deuteronomy 12–26, and that Chilki-Yahu probably wrote it himself, on the orders of Yoshi-Yahu.
Wellhausen believed that the originals were variations of the same narratives, complete with the same incidents and characters, but that each carried its own theological message, based on its contemporary understanding of both the Yisra-Eli deity and the cultic practice, neither of which have remained constant at any point in human history. The four, he argued, were combined on two separate occasions, each time by an editor - the technical term for Biblical editorship is redaction - who tried to retain as much as possible of the original, but again sought to superimpose their own contemporary theology and ritual.
Wellhausen followed Karl Heinrich Graf in concluding that the four sources were written in the order J-E-D-P, though most scholars at the time believed P to be the earliest. A key part of his argument was the perceived evolution of religious practice over the centuries, with altars erected wherever the Patriarchs or heroes such as Yehoshu'a chose during the pre-and early monarchic period of Genesis, Judges and Samuel (the three are almost certainly concurrent historically), with sacrifice available to individuals, and not exclusively through the priesthood, and priestly portions more a matter of tipping at the discretion of the giver. By the time of Yoshi-Yahu (Josiah), but possibly earlier, the rite of sacrifice was becoming centralised under the controlling authority of the priesthood, while ancient tribal or cultic festivals that had become national institutions, or simply crossed tribal and cultic boundaries (the most obvious of these being the Passover) were updated to something more like their present form, as a way of creating a national history with which all could identify.
The third stage of this religious evolution came after the return from exile (536 BCE) when the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im was established as the only permitted sanctuary (the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim would not physically be destoryed until the reign of John Hyrcanus, in 128 BCE), and the descendants of Aharon as the caste designated to perform sacrifices. By this time the festivals had become linked to the calendar instead of to the seasons, and the schedule of priestly entitlements was strictly mandated.
The four sources were finally combined, so this theory concludes, by a series of Redactors, first J with E to form a combined JE, then JE with D to form a JED text, and lastly JED with P to form JEDP, the final Torah. Taking up a scholarly tradition that stretched back to Spinoza and Hobbes, Wellhausen named Ezra, the post-Exilic leader who completed the re-establishment of the Jewish community in Yeru-Shala'im with the support of the Persian emperor Artaxerxes I in 458 BC, as the final redactor.
And given that Ezra's own book, as well as that of his immediate political governor Nechem-Yah (Nehemiah), both tell us that it was Ezra who introduced the twice-weekly reading of the Torah, in the annual cycle still used today, this latter conjecture is probably as close to historical accuracy as any Bible archaeologist is ever likely to get.
Most of the remainder of the works described above have been radically re-questioned over the two hundred years since Hobbes and Spinoza et al began their undertakings. Those of the orthodox Jewish and Christian faiths continue to reject them, totally and absolutely. Their successors in the various fields of Biblical archeology, both literary and physical, and including TheBibleNet, regard them with great respect, accept many but by no means all of their speculations and hypotheses, and reckon that they did little more than touch the surface of what is now believed. The commentaries within TheBibleNet will illuminate those deeper excavations.
✡
J, The Jahwist source (which ought, of course, to be called Y, the YHVHist source):
According to the documentary hypothesis, all anthropomorphic descriptions of YHVH, as well as his personal appearances and the use of his name, belong, until Exodus 3, to the Jahwist source. After Exodus 3, D, E and P all manifest these. The hypothesis regards J as the oldest source, covering about a half of Genesis and Exodus, and some fragments of Numbers. J appears to focus on places within the territory of the tribe, later the kingdom, of Yehudah, as well as individuals connected with its history, and gives special weight of attention to Yehudah himself and tales relating to him. The style of J is highly literary. The general view is that J was written (a term that is itself controversial; we shall return to it later) around 950 BCE, either during the reign of Shelomoh (Solomon), or not long afterwards; definitely before the civil war between Shelomoh's "sons" which caused the united Kingdom of Yisra-El to split into the northern kingdom of Ephrayim and the southern kingdom of Yehudah, which event took place in 922 BC.
According to John Bright, "The Jahwist presents a theology of history, rather than timeless philosophical theology. YHVH's character is known by his actions. The Jahwist picture of YHVH begins with the creation of human beings and the early history of Mankind in general (Genesis 2-11). The Jahwist contributions in this material do not intend to present an exhaustive history, but rather certain episodes with particular importance to later generations. These episodes explain human mortality, the need to work for a living, the existence of many languages, rivalry among brothers, and Man's attempt to break through God's limits. The family is often in view in theological contexts, and the sequence of sin-punishment-mercy appears several times.
"The Jahwist picture of a theology of history continues with the call of Abraham and the subsequent history of Israel and their ancestors. The Jahwist presents the nation of Israel as YHVH's own people, which he brought into being, protected, and settled in the land of Canaan, in fulfillment of promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Jahwist source presents a history of Israel that also illustrates themes of sin-punishment-grace, but more especially one that portrays YHVH as a powerful deliverer and provider of his people's needs. Faith in YHVH alone is the primary virtue. The Jahwist also emphasises Israel's destiny to be a great nation who will rule over her neighbors and have a king from the tribe of Judah. The theology of the Jahwist extends beyond Israel and includes notice that all nations will be blessed through Abraham (or bless themselves through Abraham); furthermore, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is attributed to the Jahwist."
E, the Elohist source:
✡
E, the Elohist source:
The use of the generic word for the deity, Elohim, rather than the more personal name, YHWH, prior to Exodus 3, and descriptions of YHVH of a more impersonal nature (for example, speaking through dreams, prophets, and angels rather than personal appearances), indicate the Elohist source, according to the documentary hypothesis - though it should also be pointed out that the documentary hypothesis does not consider Elohim as an expression of polytheism, but only as an alternate singular name.
Nor does the Elohist's narrative begin with a depiction of YHVH's creation of Humankind, but with the divine address to Av-Ram, the ancestor of Israel: Lech Lecha - the instruction to leave Padan Aram for Kena'an (though actually he goes on to Mitsrayim, and when he comes back it is to Gerar; so this is a major flaw in the hypothesis). Because both the Jahwist source and the Elohist source use "YHVH" for the deity after Exodus 3, it is more difficult to discern Elohist from Jahwist source material from that point onward. E parallels J, often duplicating the narratives. E makes up a third of Genesis and half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers. E describes a human-like deity initially named Elohim, but YHVH subsequent to the incident of the burning bush, at which Elohim reveals himself as YHVH. E focuses on the Kingdom of Yisra-El and on the Shiloh priesthood, and has a moderately eloquent style. Scholars suggest that the Elohist source was composed around 850 BCE.
The theology of the Elohist focuses on four key elements: 1) prophetic leadership, 2) the fear of Elohim, 3) covenant, and 4) the theology of history.
Prophetic leadership is emphasised by building the narrative on four key ancestors (Av-Raham, Ya'akov, Yoseph and Mosheh) who are presented as prophets who receive revelations from Elohim in visions and dreams.
The Elohist's concept of the fear of Elohim goes beyond reverent awe and is the root of Av-Raham's obedience to the command to slay his son.
Covenant is emphasised by the Elohist on a number of occasions, notably the covenant ceremony of Exodus 24, the establishment of the tent of meeting, and Yisra-El's rebellion at Sinai, especially the worship of the golden calf, which presents the Elohist's gloomy view of Yisra-El's propensity to violate her covenant with Elohim.
The Elohist theology of history is focused on the nation of Yira-El and more inclined than the Jahwist to focus on the specifically religious aspects of prayer, sacrifice, and prophetic revelations. The goal of history for Yisra-El is explicitly religious: to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."
The other major flaw in the Elohist hypothesis is that, reckoning it to be from the Ephrayimite northern kingdom, its usage should surely die out after 720 BCE, when that kingdom was sent into oblivion in chains by Shalman-Ezer V; and yet the name continues to be used, alongside or in preference to YHVH, in most of the books of the Tanach after that date, including in the period when Ezra was writing down the Tanach.
D, the Deuteronomist source:
The other major flaw in the Elohist hypothesis is that, reckoning it to be from the Ephrayimite northern kingdom, its usage should surely die out after 720 BCE, when that kingdom was sent into oblivion in chains by Shalman-Ezer V; and yet the name continues to be used, alongside or in preference to YHVH, in most of the books of the Tanach after that date, including in the period when Ezra was writing down the Tanach.
✡
D, the Deuteronomist source:
According to Martin Noth, the Deuteronomist wrote in the middle of the 6th century BCE, with the purpose of addressing contemporaries in the Babylonian exile to show them that "their sufferings were fully deserved consequences of centuries of decline in Israel's loyalty to YHVH." Loyalty to YHVH was measured in terms of obedience to the Deuteronomic Law. Since Yisra-El and Yehudah had failed to follow that law, their histories had ended in complete destruction in accordance with the divine judgment envisaged by Deuteronomy.
"But it shall come to pass, if you will not listen to the voice of YHVH your god, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, that all these curses shall come on you, and overtake you."
D in the Torah is, self-evidently, restricted to the Book of Deuteronomy, although the hypothesis regards it as continuing into the subsequent books of Yehoshu'a (Joshua), Shophtim (Judges), and the four books of the Kings (the two books of Samuel and the two books of Kings in the Christian versions). There, it takes the form of a series of sermons about the Law, as well as recapitulating the narratives of Exodus and Numbers. Its distinctive term for the deity is YHVH Eloheynu, traditionally mistranslated in English as "The Lord our God".
Scholars since Noth now estimate that this source was likely composed circa 650–621 BCE, which would have been prior to the Babylonian Exile (587-539 BCE). Two principal examples of this:
According to Gerhard von Rad, Noth's view of the purpose of the Deuteronomist rightly emphasised the theme of judgment, but missed the equally central theme of YHVH's grace. The Deuteronomist, he claims, reported repeated instances of YHVH's word at work, by describing previously reported oracles of YHVH's Prophets being precisely fulfilled in events described later. On the one hand, destruction of Yisra-El and Yehudah was portrayed as being in accord with the prophetic pronouncement of doom in retaliation for disobedience; on the other hand, the final destruction was restrained by YHVH's promise to David, found in Natan's oracle in 2 Samuel 7, and reiterated throughout 1-2 Kings. Alas Noth was not alive to respond to von Rad, but one imagines that he would have pointed out the use of "retroactive validation", one of the favourite techniques in the Tanach as in all writing of human history; not that this negates von Rad, but it does equivocate the matter.
Still more recently, Hans Walter Wolff has described the purpose of the Deuteronomist as a pattern of apostasy, punishment, repentance, and deliverance - the Yonah story writ larger, though he does not actually use this exemplar. According to Wolff, the Deuteronomist's intent was to show the exiles that they were in the second stage of the pattern and therefore needed to "cry out to YHVH in repentance", something achieved, quite simply, by going back to dutiful obedience to the given laws.
P, the Priestly source:
The documentary hypothesis describes the Priestly source as using the title Elohim as the general name for the Yisra-Eli deity in the primaeval period (Genesis 1-11). El Shadai is the first special name for the god, and it is revealed to the patriarchs and reserved for that era. YHVH is the personal name for the deity that is revealed to Mosheh, and never set in the mouth of any speaker by the Priestly source prior to Mosheh (Exodus 6:3). The Priestly source portrays this god as the creator of the whole world, which he declared to be good, and on which he has bestowed his blessing. Humanity is created in the image of this deity, implying dominion over the whole Earth.
P includes many lists, especially of genealogies, dates, numbers and laws. Portrayals of the god viewed as distant and unmerciful are ascribed to P. P partly duplicates J and E, but alters details to stress the importance of the priesthood. P consists of about a fifth of Genesis, substantial portions of Exodus and Numbers, and almost all of Leviticus. According to Wellhausen, P has a low level of literary style. Scholars estimate its composition to have been around 600–400 BCE.
✡
P, the Priestly source:
The documentary hypothesis describes the Priestly source as using the title Elohim as the general name for the Yisra-Eli deity in the primaeval period (Genesis 1-11). El Shadai is the first special name for the god, and it is revealed to the patriarchs and reserved for that era. YHVH is the personal name for the deity that is revealed to Mosheh, and never set in the mouth of any speaker by the Priestly source prior to Mosheh (Exodus 6:3). The Priestly source portrays this god as the creator of the whole world, which he declared to be good, and on which he has bestowed his blessing. Humanity is created in the image of this deity, implying dominion over the whole Earth.
P includes many lists, especially of genealogies, dates, numbers and laws. Portrayals of the god viewed as distant and unmerciful are ascribed to P. P partly duplicates J and E, but alters details to stress the importance of the priesthood. P consists of about a fifth of Genesis, substantial portions of Exodus and Numbers, and almost all of Leviticus. According to Wellhausen, P has a low level of literary style. Scholars estimate its composition to have been around 600–400 BCE.
The Priestly source portrays YHVH as a god who is interested in ritual. The covenant of circumcision, the dietary laws, and the emphasis on making a tabernacle according to a divinely revealed plan are all ascribed to the Priestly source. YHVH's presence and blessings are described in the Priestly source, not to be mediated by the king, but by the high priest mediating at the central place of worship.
The Priestly source also depicts a formal structure in terms of space, time, and social structure. The spatial center of the universe is the sanctuary, which is first modeled in the Mishkan (Tabernacle), and later in the Temple, using the pattern revealed to Mosheh (though actually it was modelled on the temples to Adonis in the Lebanon). It is at this specific location that YHVH wanted to make himself present to His people. YHVH arranged the temporal order around progressive layers of sevens, most of them Sabbaths: seven days, seven months, seven years, seven times seven years.
In terms of social structure, the Priestly source portrays YHVH as granting his presence to the particular people "who know his name". The priesthood, the ritual system, and the law represent the cosmic order in a priestly garment.
As noted already, all of these hypotheses have been, and continue to be challenged; and yet they remain in place, and the internal evidence of the text, alongside the vast absence of archaelogical support for the alternative faith position, has bestowed on them a considerable validity, to the extent that they are now the starting point for most other schools of Biblical criticism.
Where once the Catholic church locked up its rebellious Bible theologians (Roger Bacon is the most obvious example, but see the list of "proscribed Gospels" in "The Ghetto of the Christians"), today's Vatican has bowed to the advice of its publicity department and acknowledged that the "light derived from recent research... should not be neglected by Catholic scholars", which is a splendidly negative way of not encouraging it, and urging them especially to pay attention to "the sources written or oral" and "the forms of expression" used by the "sacred writer", which is vague enough to meet the requirement without actually naming or supporting anything. Sadly Jewish orthodoxy has not yet made even this level of non-acknowledgement.
✡
As noted already, all of these hypotheses have been, and continue to be challenged; and yet they remain in place, and the internal evidence of the text, alongside the vast absence of archaelogical support for the alternative faith position, has bestowed on them a considerable validity, to the extent that they are now the starting point for most other schools of Biblical criticism.
Where once the Catholic church locked up its rebellious Bible theologians (Roger Bacon is the most obvious example, but see the list of "proscribed Gospels" in "The Ghetto of the Christians"), today's Vatican has bowed to the advice of its publicity department and acknowledged that the "light derived from recent research... should not be neglected by Catholic scholars", which is a splendidly negative way of not encouraging it, and urging them especially to pay attention to "the sources written or oral" and "the forms of expression" used by the "sacred writer", which is vague enough to meet the requirement without actually naming or supporting anything. Sadly Jewish orthodoxy has not yet made even this level of non-acknowledgement.
And there are, of course, other schools of thought, including those non-religious scholars who reject Wellhausen entirely, and religious scholars such as Umberto Cassuto (1883–1951) who, while Chief Rabbi of Florence, wrote "The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch" as an attempt to disprove Wellhausen line by line and premise by premise. He failed.
"Supplementary hypothesis", primarily the work of John Van Seters, prefers to argue for a single original book that was supplemented with later additions and deletions.
"Supplementary hypothesis", primarily the work of John Van Seters, prefers to argue for a single original book that was supplemented with later additions and deletions.
"Fragmentary hypothesis", primarily the work of Rolf Rendtorff and Erhard Blum, insists on far more than four source texts and redactions, all ultimately conjoined in a single anthology.
Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth have argued that many of the texts were the writing down of ancient core beliefs that had previously belonged to the oral tradition. These include the journey out of Egypt, the conquest of the Promised Land, the covenants and the revelation at Sinai/Chorev. In fact, this does not conflict with Wellhausen; it merely provides a possible source for the sources, in the way that Shakespeare scholars will acknowledge that many of his plays were sourced in the Italian Commedia del'Arte, paralleling Wellhausen, while other scholars will go further, as Alt and Noth have done, and trace the sources of those Commedia del'Arte "originals".
The American Biblical archaeology school under William F. Albright have made the case that, even if Genesis and Exodus were only given their final form in the first millennium BCE, they were nonetheless still grounded in the material reality of the second millennium – which is a variation on Alt and Noth but not radically different. Wellhausen does not contend that the authors of J-E-D-P made up their tales as fictions, but simply that this was the form in which they anthologised them.
By the 1980s three models had become standard among scholars: the "documentary" (the Torah as a compilation of once separate but complete books), the "supplementary" (a single original book, supplemented with later additions/deletions), and the "fragmentary" (many fragmentary works and editions).
In 1987 Roger Whybray, an Oxford-trained Christian priest and theologian, published "The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study", in which he challenged the plausibility of the processes of J-E-D-P individually, and especially the process by which the final redaction was supposed to have been made. The key for Whybray – and TheBibleNet supports this contention wholeheartedly – lies in the contradictions and duplications that are present, not only in the final redaction, but within specific fragments of J-E-D-P themselves. Surely they would have been noticed, and corrected, at some if not at every stage; and if not, the theory describes a sloppiness of extraordinary degree in multiple priests and scholars over many centuries. "Thus," Whybray concludes, "the hypothesis can only be maintained on the assumption that, while consistency was the hallmark of the various [source] documents, inconsistency was the hallmark of the redactors!"
A dozen other models offer variants on these three – but all non-faith scholars agree that "the form in which we have them now" cannot possibly be a complete original given by the Yisra-Eli deity to Mosheh at Sinai, even though this remains the central tenet of orthodox Jewish faith.
✡
The second part of this essay, which takes the conclusions above to their next stage, and offers a fuller contemporary account of "The Writing of the Tanach", will be found by clicking the link under that title, as soon as I have completed the essay and published it.
Copyright © 2021
David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment