*General Chapter breakdown of Job* John Hamer, Centre Place, 59:44-1:04:25 “Documentary Hypothesis vs. Supplementary Hypothesis” ua-cam.com/users/liver-FWJuSMibs?si=Byk-f1rsjzU9oUAM
“While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three bands and made a raid on the camels and took them and slew the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”” Job 1:17
I have heard that the book of Job is a "historical fiction" written in the post-exilic period but based on a older tradition of Job. I have my doubts is there a pre-Exile Job tradition?
@@JakobVirgil Probably. Ezekiel knows about a Job who’s a righteous person in 14:20. He’s writing in the middle of the exile, so the tradition has to be older than that.
@@abhbible That is a wild verse. (not the Ezekiel) the Daniel in isn't the Lion's den Daniel right? Although I guess it could be. It is that other Daniel, the Sage,. the wise guy in 28:3
@@scienceexplains302 Will Kynes’ article “Job and Isaiah 40-55 Intertextualities in Dialogue” shows how. By comparing the contexts in which the phrases are found, priority is given to the one where the phrases appear most naturally versus where they appear like off handed quotations.
@@abhbible Thank you for the answer and citation. I was thinking something like that, specifically a difference in the stage of Hebrew, e.g. “Archaic”, Ancient, etc.
There is no character named Satan in Job (or any book?). It is a label: “the satan,” _i.e._ “the accuser/adversary.” Chapters 1 and 2 (together with 48?) seem to have been written separately and all occurrences of _ha satan_ are in ch 1 & 2.
@@scienceexplains302 I didn’t say it was a name. All uses of the word as a substantive noun to indicate a character as opposed to a verb, are in post-exilic texts.
@@abhbible Thank you. And likewise I didn’t say you said it was a name, but you used it like a name in your video instead of The Satan and most people (maybe not most of your viewers, who are more educated on the issue), infer a name when they hear “Satan.”
@@abhbible I don't want to be generally dismissive of "consensus(1)" because even when it's wrong it's always good to know what the consensus view of a given field is. (Acknowledging consensus can be wrong). With "Biblical studies" consensus(2) doesn't always mean consensus(1). Consensus(1) is that the Torah (first five books) was written sometimes between 250 BCE and 325 BCE. Jonathan Adler and others have demonstrated this rather conclusively. Consensus(2) is that the Torah was written post 600 BCE. Clarifying Consensus(1) refers to those qualified in the relevant fields to determine the veracity of the evidence, and who have actually carried out the necessary examination. Consensus(2) refers to "the field of biblical studies". The assumption most people (including scholars who should know better) make is that because someone holds a degree related to the bible they are qualified on all things biblical. This is the same assuming that a biologist is qualified to comment on astronomy. Could a biologist be qualified to comment on astronomy? Sure. But, that requires asking what are their qualification in doing so (are they actually studied in the subject). There is a "consensus" problem in biblical studies. The problem is that outside of a handful of hyper specific questions consensus doesn't actually exist in biblical studies. This is because in order for consensus to exist scholars of a given field must operate from a shared set of frameworks and assumptions. The other reason it doesn't exist is because the category "biblical studies" is so wide and undefined that it doesn't actually exist. Bold statement so let me be clear on what I mean. Again turning to science as the example imagine using the term "science studies" as a category, and under that umbrella term you could include anything from astronomy, to biology, to psychology, to parapsychology, and pseudo archeology. But bringing this back around to the original question "when was the Torah compiled". There is zero archeological evidence of the Torah prior to ~325 BCE. Best evidence strongly suggests that the Torah was written in Alexandria Egypt by survivors of the Elephantine Yahweh Temple sometime around the year 300.
@abhbible that's easy, just look at the comments on every video made by academic Bible scholars who have a following. All atheist or or other academic scholars. Look at who they team up to make videos to discuss their opinions, other academic Bible scholars. It's a vacuum of academic scholars. Not a single video I have found has anyone but other academic scholars. Answer I will even go further and say they're mostly progressive academic scholars.
@abhbible if a person leaves a comment stating they agree with the person and then states this is why I am no longer a Christian, what do you think they mean by it? Stop trying to overcomplicate an issue where it isn't. Sorry the truth hurts
*General Chapter breakdown of Job*
John Hamer, Centre Place, 59:44-1:04:25
“Documentary Hypothesis vs. Supplementary Hypothesis”
ua-cam.com/users/liver-FWJuSMibs?si=Byk-f1rsjzU9oUAM
@@scienceexplains302 The composition of Job is not analogous to the composition of the Pentateuch, and my comments only concern its final form.
I've heard several pastors say this over most of my life.
“While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three bands and made a raid on the camels and took them and slew the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.””
Job 1:17
I have heard that the book of Job is a "historical fiction" written in the post-exilic period but based on a older tradition of Job.
I have my doubts is there a pre-Exile Job tradition?
@@JakobVirgil Probably. Ezekiel knows about a Job who’s a righteous person in 14:20. He’s writing in the middle of the exile, so the tradition has to be older than that.
@@abhbible That is a wild verse. (not the Ezekiel) the Daniel in isn't the Lion's den Daniel right? Although I guess it could be. It is that other Daniel, the Sage,. the wise guy in 28:3
How do you determine whether the Book of Job quoted 2nd Isaiah or 2nd Isaiah quoted Job?
@@scienceexplains302 Will Kynes’ article “Job and Isaiah 40-55 Intertextualities in Dialogue” shows how. By comparing the contexts in which the phrases are found, priority is given to the one where the phrases appear most naturally versus where they appear like off handed quotations.
@@abhbible Thank you for the answer and citation.
I was thinking something like that, specifically a difference in the stage of Hebrew, e.g. “Archaic”, Ancient, etc.
There is no character named Satan in Job (or any book?). It is a label: “the satan,” _i.e._ “the accuser/adversary.”
Chapters 1 and 2 (together with 48?) seem to have been written separately and all occurrences of _ha satan_ are in ch 1 & 2.
@@scienceexplains302 I didn’t say it was a name. All uses of the word as a substantive noun to indicate a character as opposed to a verb, are in post-exilic texts.
@@abhbible Thank you.
And likewise I didn’t say you said it was a name, but you used it like a name in your video instead of The Satan and most people (maybe not most of your viewers, who are more educated on the issue), infer a name when they hear “Satan.”
It has the CENTURION in it. Wouldn’t you think that has something to do?
The Torah wasn't compiled until after 300 BCE
@@alananimus9145 There’s no consensus on when it was compiled.
@@abhbible I don't want to be generally dismissive of "consensus(1)" because even when it's wrong it's always good to know what the consensus view of a given field is. (Acknowledging consensus can be wrong).
With "Biblical studies" consensus(2) doesn't always mean consensus(1). Consensus(1) is that the Torah (first five books) was written sometimes between 250 BCE and 325 BCE. Jonathan Adler and others have demonstrated this rather conclusively. Consensus(2) is that the Torah was written post 600 BCE.
Clarifying
Consensus(1) refers to those qualified in the relevant fields to determine the veracity of the evidence, and who have actually carried out the necessary examination.
Consensus(2) refers to "the field of biblical studies". The assumption most people (including scholars who should know better) make is that because someone holds a degree related to the bible they are qualified on all things biblical. This is the same assuming that a biologist is qualified to comment on astronomy. Could a biologist be qualified to comment on astronomy? Sure. But, that requires asking what are their qualification in doing so (are they actually studied in the subject).
There is a "consensus" problem in biblical studies. The problem is that outside of a handful of hyper specific questions consensus doesn't actually exist in biblical studies. This is because in order for consensus to exist scholars of a given field must operate from a shared set of frameworks and assumptions. The other reason it doesn't exist is because the category "biblical studies" is so wide and undefined that it doesn't actually exist. Bold statement so let me be clear on what I mean. Again turning to science as the example imagine using the term "science studies" as a category, and under that umbrella term you could include anything from astronomy, to biology, to psychology, to parapsychology, and pseudo archeology.
But bringing this back around to the original question "when was the Torah compiled". There is zero archeological evidence of the Torah prior to ~325 BCE. Best evidence strongly suggests that the Torah was written in Alexandria Egypt by survivors of the Elephantine Yahweh Temple sometime around the year 300.
Chaldeans, I’m sorry bro.
Thankfully, most people dont pay attention to academia scholars. Most of the time, it's either atheists or other academics.
@@sbaker8971 Where’s the evidence for this?
@abhbible that's easy, just look at the comments on every video made by academic Bible scholars who have a following. All atheist or or other academic scholars. Look at who they team up to make videos to discuss their opinions, other academic Bible scholars. It's a vacuum of academic scholars. Not a single video I have found has anyone but other academic scholars. Answer I will even go further and say they're mostly progressive academic scholars.
@@sbaker8971 You don’t know the religious affiliations of random commenters on UA-cam. You’re being ridiculous.
@abhbible if a person leaves a comment stating they agree with the person and then states this is why I am no longer a Christian, what do you think they mean by it? Stop trying to overcomplicate an issue where it isn't. Sorry the truth hurts
@@sbaker8971 You have no data to substantiate your generalization. These are just one off anecdotes. It’s entirely fallacious to reason this way.
“Religion Poisons Everything” - Christopher Hitchens
I love Hitch but I think he overestimates the power of religion.