Challenging The Documentary Hypothesis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 сер 2022
- The documentary hypothesis is the view the five books of Moses (Pentateuch), were originally four separate sources of Israel's history. Alleged a redactor combined them into the present form of the Pentateuch, preserving most of the four sources. Proponents claim it is the best way to understand the history of the Pentateuch, but a lot of data challenges this assumption. I would like to thank the scholar Benjamin Kilchör for helping with the script for this video.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy - Розваги
I frequently hold to the P, B & J hypothesis (when it's close to lunch time anyway). Good work brother.
This is pretty eye-opening. Good to finally get a good Documentary Hypothesis critique on UA-cam.
This is only part 1. I’m planning at least 7 videos as of now.
@@InspiringPhilosophy 😮😮😮
@@InspiringPhilosophy bringing out the big guns ? Nice
@@InspiringPhilosophy Wow
@@InspiringPhilosophy nice, I love this exodus series, can't wait for more!
Hey InspringPhilosophy, as a physicist and agnostic, I absolutely adore your content! Your arguments are formulated, presented, and well-researched to to a much higher degree than any other theist channel and many secular channels I've come across. I particularly admire your "defending the rules of logic" video and would love to hear your perspective on how Godel's incompleteness theorem connects to John 1:1! To me it is a much sounder argument than the "qauntum woo" perspective which has fallen out of favor in academic circles
Thank you. Can you link me to a paper on the argument?
JOHN 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Are you still an agnostic, or did we get you to deist yet?
The idea that a redactor is the solution for the problems of J.E.P.D. hypothesis, when it comes to the Pentateuch, is what I like to call: *'the redactor of the gaps fallacy.'*
J.R.R. Tolkien gave roughly fifteen names to Gandalf alone, created two dialects of Black Speech, the language of Mordor, gave two names to Middle-earth's analog of Satan (Melkor/Morgoth) and uses them interchangeably, referred to Mount Doom as Orodruin early on in Lord of the Rings, and called the Fellowship the Company more often than Fellowship and nobody questions it being the sole creation of Tolkien's imagination. Sure, his son Christopher edited and published his posthumously published works, but that's all he did: edited and published since he had his father's papers and continued his father's legacy until his own death in 2020.
@KTChamberlain yes I was thinking along the same lines. In the later parts of the story Sam Gamgee is referred to as Samwise Gamgee. Tolkien was pretty scathing about literary critics who tried to analyse his work. I can't imagine what he would say about documentary hypothesis scholars dividing it into multiple authors!
Good point! As a Tolkien fan, I definitely agree.
@@DarrenGedye The documentary hypothesis predates tolkein, so maybe he did have an opnion about it in his own time.
I know CS Lewis wasn't a fan.
@@IamGrimalkin Oh yes, I'm sure Tolkien would have had an opinion on the documentary hypothesis, and I suspect based on his other comments on literary criticism that I can have a good guess what it was.
However my point was that I don't know for sure as he wasn't accused of it. Whereas my edition of TLOTR had comments by him in a forward explaining things like the chapter "the scouring of the shire" was written pre-war and definitely *Not* an allegory of post-war Britain as critics had assumed.
He also had a bit to say about the difference between allegory and applicability. I first read it when I was 12 and that had a formative effect on my thinking, so when I later found out about biblical criticism and interpretation I evaluated their plausibility based on Tolkien's experience. For example I think many of the OT references in the NT are better explained by applicability than allegory/prophecy. But that is getting into another discussion.
As an aside, I am a New Zealander and despite being a huge fan of the books since I was 12 it turned out that I was one inch too short to be a human/orc/elf extra in the movies, but way too tall to be a hobbit or dwarf. Meanwhile my flatmate ( _who hadn't even read the books!_ ) was taller than me and ended up having amazing experiences and is quite visible in many scenes! We still laugh about that when we catch up.
Tbf morgoths name was changed from melkor to morgoth when he fell from grace
There’s not enough of these extensive analyses online. Thank you, IP.
Edit: it's VerseByVerseBT
there actually is, and alot of them.. you don’t watch them though because they aren’t edited for viewing pleasure, and their views and subscribership is so low, algorithm doesn’t help, but people naturally don’t trust that which is unpopular.. which is backwards in my opinion
The Old Testament is a lot more complicated than the New Testament and I had no idea where to start when studying it, but I think I found the right person which was you. For that, I thank you 👍🏻
@@polystrate1 uh huh uh huh.
Just jump in. No place where you need to start. Go in head first. Each book quenches your thirst in different ways. The Psalms your Heart the Proverbs your mind etc. just go.
As much as like this channel, you didn't think maybe Bart Erhman or James tabor. These are the OGz.
@@kumarg3598 idk about Tabor but Erhman is a NT scholar, so he wouldn’t be a good source for OT studies. You’d have to check out a OT scholar.
@@kumarg3598 ehrman has no place in a discussion on OT source theories lol.
Obviously nobody ever uses different names for the same person in the same document. Incidentally, I saw that video of Joe falling off his bike the other day. It's both sad and funny to see the president humiliated like that. Hopefully the commander in chief is able to recover from his ego wound. I certainly think Biden has it in him to bounce back from this setback.
I always wonder what these critics would make iof Russian literature, in which authors often call characters by half a dozen different names. Is The Brothers Karamazov a composite work falsely attributed to Dostoyevsky?
Therefore we can conclude this comment is composed of two sources: "J" source (documents the descriptive action of the president falling off), and a "B" source (a prose poetic depiction of the event, focusing on the president's state of being)
@@hippolyte9884 I have, I was trying to joke at the logic of how the sources are commonly seperated (via the use of different names reffering to the same person)
This is very good video, and so are IP's other documentaries and apologetics that have helped me to solidify the foundation of my faith
I’m sure you know this but the documentary hypothesis is a lot more than just two different names. You don’t get a census in scholarship from something so small.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou it was always a farfetched theory with no real evidence to support it except wild speculation and conjecture. Only in Biblical criticism is a theory composed of a string of "perhaps" statements considered definitive. Imagine a scholar of American history 1000 years from now who bases all his work on one assumption "perhaps George Washington was a gay black man"...this is the equivalent of what Biblical scholars do
Extremely common W for IP. Please keep making more of these videos. Apologists like you strengthen my faith and belief in the one true God.
Glad to help
The documentary is really well done and a tremendous use of scholarly sources to balance competing arguments for and against the Documentary Hypothesis. One component of the documentary demonstrating IP's academic prowess (and crucial to the understanding of history in general, no matter the period), is his demonstrating the historical, literary tradition over time from the ancient literary forms of writing into the early first centuries A.D. (A.C.E); this creates a foundation for a strong future argument.
Oh my! I seriously appreciate this video. I'm late to the party for this one Michael. I'm really impressed with the quality and the way you simplified such a complicated issue. Even if people disagree at the end of the day, this video should wet their appetite for diving into this topic.
You're very welcome!
Now have Dr. Davis and Bowman on to discuss.....
That's usually most of I.Ps videos
As much as the shorts you produce are helpful - this is where yu shine. Keep on shining you crazy diamond.
Thank you
The documentary hypothesis was one of the big questions about the faith that I encountered. This takes me back to my first years of defense of the faith.
I'm really looking forward to what's to come.
I think you’ll enjoy it
@@InspiringPhilosophy I knew I would from the moment you said you'd do it!
Why did it cause you to question your faith
@@Pseudo-Jonathan I'm guessing it made them doubt their faith because the hypothesis proposes that biblical history and theology as spelled forth in the Bible were a post-exile invention, rather than something Israel already knew before to the Babylonian exile.
@@gaiusoctavius5935 Okay and see this the misconception. I don’t what your personal beliefs are but this quite common in the skeptical ex Christian community. The Documentary Hypothesis DOES not necessarily mean that the stories in the Pentateuch are are sheer inventions. All it states is at the time of the Babylonian exile and beyond, pre existent ancient Israelite documents bearing the history of the people were redacted together to form what we now have as the Pentateuch. There’s no way to know how primitive these sources are, but it certainly doesn’t mean by necessity that the history in the Pentateuch is pseudo history.
I don’t know why many think this way.
You have a very good point. Studying the ancient world demands to abandon many modern cultural assumptions.
Spectacular, finally someone mentions the fact that these arguments were once used on Homer, a fact once mentioned by CS Lewis though he provided no details
The first minutes are I for Introduction, then the following is A for Arguments and the end is C for Conclusion. Good stuff, Mike!
Btw just to make another point .
Ancient israelites had different concepts to our modern Greco Roman thought . You may remember functional Vs material creation .
Well they also didn't think In sequence when telling stories ..as in chronological sequence but In block sequence .
The biggest gap between modern western people and ancient Israelites is philosophy
Modern western language and thought Is abstract ..Hebrew language and thought Is concrete .
Western thought Is material creation ..Hebrew thought is functional
Western concept of time or sequence is chronological . Hebrew is blocks .
It's extremely difficult to evaluate a source text when your imposing your philosophy onto a text that doesn't share your philosophy
Good points.
what do you mean by blocks here?
Great video. They are also ignoring the fact that Moses wasn’t trying to write a book like a novel or a history textbook. It’s more like a diary someone would keep, where different events can be mentioned more than once, and even differently in major details or reactions/conclusions as the writer mentally processes the same past memory/event in different ways. Even if he had written it start to finish in one continuous never repeating, never wavering, dry textbook way they would have argued that it was too much history to cover at once by one author so other sources must have existed to keep track of it all because they don’t trust humans to have good/reliable/accurate memory (thus why they disbelieve that oral stories can survive beyond a five person game of “Telephone”). They would never believe it was all written by Moses without video tape evidence of him writing each page (and even then there would still be debate because too many scholars have a bias against God and the Bible).
Well, that is general disbelief of the narrative. The narrative itself suggest that Moshe did not write the accounts out of memory but rather that angels gave him what to write as Yah saw fit. That is why in the New Testament the author of Acts says that the law came by the disposition of of angels.
Been looking forward to this. Love it!
Inconsistency in the Torah from Joshua Berman was such a good read. It was nice to see it cited here. Great video!
More on that to come
Excellent example of thorough research and an easy to understand, down to earth presentation! Many thanks!
So good! The kind of information we need to be aware of so that we don't unquestionably follow scholarly trends of Biblical understanding. [BTW, one of the studies we covered in the graduate Comparative Religion studies at UW in the 1990s concerned the oral vs written traditions. Classical music can be seen as exemplifying the written tradition, while jazz music exemplifies/parallels the oral tradition, where many themes are repeated numerous times.]
Thanks for targeting this, it has helped me understand much more about where scholarship stands on these issues.
Thanks Mike, awesome work!
Thank you for the work you do! The seriousness and thoroughness you engage these questions with make valuable ressources. I especially appreciate that you take time to present the evidence for your claims, and that you're not overstating your conclusions given what you've argued.
Thank you
Good stuff. Thanks for addressing this!
I've been waiting for this since 2021
I love it when you do Bible stuff
I've been fascinated by the Documentary Hypothesis and its competitors the Supplementary Hypothesis and Fragmentary Hypothesis. If I recall correctly Dr Michael Heiser supports the Supplementary Hypothesis.
I think so, yes
This is such a well researched video 😮
Ive been waiting for something like this!!!
Good stuff! Thank you for your hard work.
This is quite helpful! Thank you for explaining thoroughly and effectively! I think the visuals were a great aid as well. God bless you friend:)
I'm so glad I found your channel! Once I got out of right wing-ism, and the fundamentalist branch of Catholicism, I kind of had a crisis of faith. I started listening to several atheist UA-cam (prophet of zod, paulogia, aron ra and others). They seemed to make sense.
But then an incident happened that woke me up to the fact that my parents will NOT be here forever and I better stop taking their presence here for granted. So I started going to church with them, like before I became Catholic.
That humble, simple faith...not based on a lot of rules and reams of dogmas (like Catholicism) but on trying to be Jesus to those around us...restored my faith.
I've been listening to your Playlists and I'm grateful for your videos. I'm now hearing the rebuttals to the atheist videos I saw.
In this video you point out the simple fallacy of modern scholars applying OUR criteria to ancient documents, authors, peoples and cultures...and tbh, my first thought was, "duh! How did I miss that?! It's right there in front of my nose!"
This is really fascinating and giving me a greater appreciation for the Bible. Thank you!
It seems to me that these theories are essentially that there was one *incompetent* redactor, and we are smarter.
Absolute gem of a video you have here.
this is a most excellent discussion. i haven't heard richard elliot friedman mentioned yet. [i may have missed it] his opinions and book on the matter are quite interesting. keep up the good work!
When it comes to video presentations, citing your work, you are easily the greatest apologist of our day. I thank God for your work for the Kingdom!
Thank you very much for sharing this video with us. That was very impressive!
I appreciate your breakdown IP. Thank you.
What immediately stood out to me as an obvious criticism of the documentary hypothesis, is that if there was a "redactor" then why would they leave in all the inconsistencies and repeat stories... I can't think of any reason at all that seems plausible.
Exactly
Because the Jews weren't inerrantists, they weren't afraid to preserve different traditions even if contradictory or in tension.
@@CanadianOrth that depends on which sect and which time period. We don't have information going back to the time of the so called redactor, but that's an interesting theory
@@wallaceanthony4707 Not sure if replies with links are held for approval or rejected, but I just tried to leave you an article "Preserving Multiple Opinions" from "The Torah" site by Rabbi Jeffrey Tigay on this very issue.
Because there’s value in including as much of the original stories as possible. I’ll give you a minor example from more recent literature:
In some The Shadow stories, his alter ego is Kent Allard. In other stories, his alter ego is named Lamont Cranston. So later stories decided his real name is Kent Allard and Lamont Cranston is a disguise he uses.
Popular fiction does this kind of thing all the time. Every story is somebody’s favorite, and people like stories to make sense, so when conflicts in details happen, a later story story will come along to say they’re both true somehow.
Another example is Doctor Who’s Cybermen. Their planet of origin has variously been said to be Mondas, Telos, Planet 14, an alternate Earth, and a few others. So a few years ago, a newer Doctor Who episodes declared that there are multiple groups of Cybermen who each originated on each of these different planets.
Well done! Loving your videos. I wish you could provide a whole list of every book that you've cited within all of your videos 😆.
I did, throughout the video
@@InspiringPhilosophy I meant all of the videos you've made. I'm just gonna have to watch them all again and take notes.
@@InspiringPhilosophy basically just a list of books in your library would be cool.
Brother, God bless you one million times
awesome. Thank You Holy Spirit, I found this just when I´m starting my "in depth" study of Genesis and the OT
Good work, IP. The thing is, if somebody has already decided that a literary work must be an incoherent thrown-together hodgepodge, and then goes hunting for pretexts by which to divide it up and deconstruct it while ignoring any signs of underlying unity, they WILL be able find pretexts regardless of whether the work is unified or not, particularly in a work that is ancient or produced outside their culture. However, once you've seen the underlying indicators of unity (elaborate chiasms, similarities to ancient Hittite treaty forms, and so on), you can't really unsee them.
I'm only a few minutes into the video. I never really heard about these hypotheses before, but just hearing you go through all of them at the beginning I noticed how ad hoc most of them sounded.
As though scholars were looking for any possible reason to be skeptical of the traditionally held belief.
Not that that's inherently bad to test traditions to see if they are really true, but it quickly became apparent that there seemed to be other motives for these hypotheses.
It might seem that way if this is your only exposure to it. Read "Who wrote the Bible" by Friedman and "Composition of the Pentateuch" by Joel Baden if you want to know why smart people have views different from IP's. IP doesn't address the basic and prominent linguistic arguments that are pretty compelling.
@@truncated7644 I readily admit I am not versed in this subject hardly at all. I also do not completely doubt the hypothesis as a whole, I think there is decent amount of merit to the idea.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken in my perception, but as I mentioned, my first impression on many of the theories(not all) was that they were rather superficial; and yet, there were still people who held on to that given theory.
Therefore, I was suspicious that some of the scholars who subscribed to the hypothesis *as a whole* may not have been genuine or diligent in their research and in reaching their conclusions(and thus, I assume, their conclusions may have also been reached with ulterior motives).
I am still open to many of the elements of the hypothesis since I am still quite lacking in the information, but this part of it put me off a bit.
Wow, what a hizuk emunah. Shkoyach! kol have, sadiq.
Yeah, the comparison with the Diatessaron is a poor one because it was made to 'smooth out' conflicting narratives in the Gospels and provide a clearer story. The JEPD redactors, on the other hand, simply chopped up their stories (all of which were *cough* internally consistent and had their own identifiable styles) and partially merged them, creating a Frankenstein-text with a hand from one guy here, ear from another guy, torso made of two stitched together, etc, which can all be conveniently identified.
The documentary hypothesis then creates the need for a redactor. I always had trouble with the term "redactor" because he or she couldn't be an editor. This person just joined pieces of other sources together without regard to logic, consistency, and story structure. This could be called "sloppy editing". How could this person do such a bad job, pass it off to anyone as being the final text, and stand by it.?
I just discovered your channel and I love the research. I’m not a podcast kind of person, but I’d listen to these. Keep up the good work!
Welcome
Well done. Years ago, I stumbled on an academic journal article that charted the various theories of redactors of the Pentateuch key passages. The jumbled mess of contradiction was a sight to behold. It illustrated your point about the contradictions in a visually powerfual way. In the chart, the various JEDP redactors were broken down even further into sub-redactors J1, J2, J3, etc. When I saw the chart, I laughed. Who could take this seriously? Wellhausen is a theory that has collapsed under its own weight.
Yep that is what I am finding as well.
Finally!!! Can't wait. 😁😁😁
Mind breaking video. Great work!
Thank you
You inspire me Michael...thanx ever so much🙏
Thank you
Great work on this Michael!
I have a few other things that I’ve experienced in life and then things God has shown me that give more explanation to this.
First, I used to have to write things twice in my official correspondence. As strange as it sounds, I would write a short version of what happened, then immediately following it I would write the detailed account. The “Brief” version was to be able to be read in about a minute for informational purposes of an event, who was involved, and an outcome/impact. Should the official want to know the in-depth details, they could read the entire correspondence.
Second, there are two creation accounts, because there is the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man. There is God and the Word. Soul & Spirit of one being who is the Alpha and Omega. Most believers can not grasp this, because their Spirit is a dead Spirit. Having both a living Soul & Spirit is one thing required to be an Elohim. God is an Elohim, as are many other beings; Moses was made an Elohim by God, and so were others. YHWH is the name of our Lord. Both have their written accounts in Genesis, and the second account is the account is the more personalized account, and as it continues you can watch the separation of YHWH name and God (Elohim) title. After Adam and Eve depart the garden a separation is made. Adam and Eve are separated from the Tree of Life for their sin, but you also see YHWH and God (Elohim) starting to be separated, for we are sinful and can not have direct access to God anymore. You will still find it, but it isn’t every mention like the second creation story of Genesis where it is every mention at every opportunity. It is only through the LORD that we can reach God, and the first separation of YHWH from God after the introduction of the name is by the Serpent. As such, there is purpose for the use of LORD (YHWH) and God (Elohim) at different times through the scriptures.
Very interesting and so many good points. When I read about this years ago I couldn't understand how they figured this out. How they deciphered it in other words. You would think with the different variations in the DS scrolls that that would settle the arguments, but still all of this is very fascinating nonetheless.
It's always seemed to me that the text of the Pentateuch was edited together from different sources. I agree attempts to reconstruct the original sources are mostly fruitless. I disagree that just because the Documentary Hypothesis creates more questions that it's to be dismissed. The text we have is the text we have and noting that there are marks of editing is more than enough for me. Even more important noting we have two separate and very different creation stories is critical to undoing the foolishness of the Young Earth hypothesis.
I just pictured Deuteronomy as a kid just standing there by himself, waving and saying "hi".
I had a OT professor who said that it is possible to have multiple sources but The redactor is Moses.
Good video! Thanks
Interesting video, congratulations! I was thinking about how new testament scholars seem confident they can discern from small changes in the synoptics the agenda of the author. In the case of Taitian we have incredible advantages compared to the gospel authors in that we know the theology of Tatian as well as the four sources. I wonder if any scholar looked at reconstructing Tatians theology using comparisons of verses in the gospels and the Diatesseran? If they do so it would be interesting if they have a lot of evidence for his actual theology and also if they get many false positives with incidental changes appearing to indicate theological agendas that don't exist
Very well done!
Thank you
Is it possible that we think much more about the ancient writers' word choices than they did? This seems to be a theme when discussing ancient texts-it was an earlier era, with less time for expectations to develop. I'd love it if someone could talk about that.
As a (collaborative) writer and performer, different stories, roles, settings, chronology and styles are always mixed up, yet the origin of all this effort is mostly me or close collaborators. Stylistic variations in words/music or performance is pretty easy if you know the basics of different styles. A master can create in many different styles.
Scientists have a tendency to tear things apart in order to get to the essence and completely miss the essence in the process. Artists can connect to the creative energy/essence from a work of art and can actually ad to it.
This is a very interesting video. I'm not sure if I can completely dismiss the Documentary Hypothesis, but there were definitely interesting counterarguments used here, and I'm willing to see other viewpoints on the origins of the Pentateuch.
I have a question: why would other ancient texts contain contradictory accounts and doublets and so forth? Even if it was written in a different context than ours today, wouldn't it have been easier if these texts weren't contradictory?
For curiosity sake, what was the full outline of Exodus you provided around the 36 minute mark? I think it might be a useful study aid in general.
I’d recommend getting the book “exploring the composition of the Pentateuch,” it is in there.
Great video. you sir are a scholar and a gentleman. 🧐
Yeah. I heard someone applying the same logic to the LOTR books and unsurprisingly came to conclusion that the book couldn’t have been written by one writer :). When you focus on differences (which are plenty in any big text) you can come to logical but untrue conclusions.
This would be the opposite of combining several occurrences but making one into two narratives. You might look into the number of quail events. Are Ex. 16 and Num. 11 describing the same event? They are very similar. If so when in the timeframe of the Exodus did it happen? As reference to when and how many times check the event as described in Psalms 78, 105 and 106.
This was great, are you planning on doing a similar analysis of the Q Source theory?
He already did
You know in my own cognitive biases I never found authorship of the old testament to be that big of an issue but having this information to present to someone who needs it more will always be appreciated.
@@polystrate1 If they have doubt on old testament reliability
I have never been worried about it because my faith is in the resurrection of Christ - not who authored specific books. Do you relate to this much?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou I do agree it's higher on the priority list, not that the torah is less intrinsically important.
@@polystrate1 What does it mean, then?
@@polystrate1 ...
You told us what you think Moses writing the 5 books DOESN'T mean, but what do you think it DOES mean?
How long does it take you to make these?
Now this is a good topic
Hearing all the different opinions of "scholars" concerning the alleged 4 sources, I was reminded of all the different opinions of "scholars" concerning how to interpret Revelation. It's the same way, a bunch of wild conjectures, and the only thing they all agree on is that the prophecies can NOT be read literally.... just like they say the first 5 books of the Bible can NOT have been from one source! 😂
I think the supplementary hypothesis is the most compatible with Mosaic autorship: Jewish tradition states that Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly recompiled the Torah, basing themselves on the oral tradition of the elders, which preserved it perfectly.
By combining these two views, the Deuteronomist, the Jahwist, and the Priestly source (the supplementary hypothesis denies the existence of the Elohist) would have been previous attempt to rewrite down the oral tradition (which, in turn, is simply a memorized version of Moses' autograph), so Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly simply combined those. Coincidentally, the supplementary hypothesis dates the Priestly source to Ezra's time. This recompiling of the Torah would also explain the updated language and added commentary.
When writing was a relatively new practice, the ancients viewed it as inferior to or less admirable than memory and oral recitation, so one can see how the higher status of oral composition and recitation could well have led to the development of early literary styles that mimicked oral composition. Also, literacy was for a long time a relatively rare skill for various reasons, so documents would often have been read aloud to illiterate listeners who were accustomed to hearing oral recitations of oral compositions, and who would likely have expected documents read aloud for their benefit to reproduce the features of oral compositions that they were familiar with.
I find it amazing people will come up with all sorts of elaborate " theories" before actually studying the Torah with rabbis
Btw I never understood why people think genesis 1 and 2 are both creation accounts .
There is no creation of the sun stars the heavens etc in genesis 2 .
What we mean by " creation account " is cosmological creation . And genesis 2 has no hint of such a thing
A video on that is in the works
@@InspiringPhilosophy looking forward to it . And I.P.. just to remind you . I came to your channel almost 6 years ago and you were one of the people who helped me in accepting Christianty as someone who was once an atheist .
I tell you this too remind you that what your doing is extremely important and has meaning and thus you hearing that should give you more strength to keep doing what your doing .
God bless brother
I was eager to see this one
I hope you enjoyed it p
@@InspiringPhilosophy still watching. But I always learn something from your videos
Unity of the book of Genesis is a book that can be found or interlibrary loan from your local library
I feel there was a craze of this, like q and the document shared for Jude and Peter.
I think it's interesting and important, but I think it's often a blend of stories that have different authors, but yet they are telling the same story but have stylistic tendencies.
But after reading exodus, especially Moses plague story atleast the first 8 plagues are stressing different points but yet the same overall point, I don't feel it could do this with fragments of stories.
Therefore it makes me think that they are one main source
Outstanding
Can you make a similar video on Synoptic gospels accounts variation?
It occurs to me just now listening to this that the duplications in the stories could be a more protracted form of the poetic amplification which versus use when they state the same thing twice in slightly different ways.
i could have easily listened to 2 hours of you discussing this.
In another comment IP said that this is part 1 of 7, so just hold off on watching part 2 until part 3 is out.
Sacrificing this comment to the algorithm gods. Great video.
Too many literal-minded modern scholars are hampered by never having tried their hands at writing poetry. Ancient texts are loaded with poetic passages, and even the prose style of ancient authors is informed by a deep familiarity with the rhythms and conventions of poetry. (The further back into history you go, the more poetry tends to predominate relative to prose, for the simple reason that it's generally easier to memorize, a critical quality for a book to have when manuscripts were scarce and expensive and literacy rates were extremely low).
As anyone who has ever gotten decent at writing formal, metrical poetry (modern-style free verse doesn't count) can tell you, repetition of information, the use of multiple synonyms, variations of style, allusions and references- ALL of these are critical to conveying information in a way that is clear and intelligible, and which ALSO sounds pleasing to the ear and makes for a easily-memorizable text.
Great video!
You reject the possibility of reconstructing each source. You reject the criteria that DH scholars use to split and reconstruct the sources. But you do not reject the possibility of multiple sources being used by Moses (or Moses figure)? I hope I understand correctly.
So, are you going to discuss how, in your view, Pentateuch became a book? Most scholars who reject DH, afaik, mostly argue for exilic or post-exilic composition.
I had someone ask me if the disciples were asleep in the garden, then who heard Yeshuas prayers?
Being a roofer and not a scholar, I said faith had answered my questions, but that I couldn't answer his.
It felt like I had perhaps lost the chance to guide another soul to Yeshua. Still I pray. 🙏
This all started when Moses wrote his death
The P source on its own is coherent and non contradictory and has a very distinct wording and style. The P sources seem to contradict directly and “fix” the issues with the non P sources.
This seems to suggest that the non-P source(s) was the older. P is a retelling of the non-P. Just as Chronicles is a retelling of the Deuteronomy histories but with major details changed and omitted.
To be honest, this is completely new to me and I don't know where to start in looking into scholarly sauces on the old testament. I will full thanks if you can tell on what to look at.
Check out some of the sources I used
To start I would recommend
"On the reliability of the Old Testament" by Kenneth A. Kitchen
And
"Did I not bring Israel out of Egypt" though this one could be a bit expensive. It will also give you some information that can be used against the Documentary Hypothesis.
@@UltraConservativeMonarchist Thanks
This reminds of the story of a janitor/ cleaner that was cleaning the back of the auditorium while a lecture was going on the scholars were discussing the prose etc etc of Ps 23 they went back and forth in their arguments but could not reach a consensus. Eventually one the Professors in expiration decided to call the janitor/from where he was and asked what he thought. The janitors response was that doesn't know any of the scholarly theology etc but he does know the Sheperd and have experienced Ps 23 in his own life.
I guess the point is that there is a place for this type of dissection of the history etc etc of the Bible as we know it today. HOWEVER with a vast amount of people needing the gospel as it being God's power to save should be and must be more important than scholarly discussions on the texts. People are hungry and lost and as Christians its our responsibility to go out to make sure that the gospel be spread all over the globe.
Also scripture is my bill of rights as a Christian. I need to know, meditate on and feed of God's word. It cuts off me things that are harmful to me spiritually, mentally and physically. It is essential to the life of a Christian.
This is inside part of your Live Debates playlist, but not your child marriage one.
Please update it!!
Also do a debate with Dr Kipp Davis about the documentary hypothesis
In his wonderful essay "Fern-Seed and Elephants", C.S. Lewis recounts how most literary critics of his day, in reviewing his written works, would offer up elaborate theories as to how his works were composed, what he was thinking when he wrote them, what sources and ideas he was drawing upon, and to what purposes his compositions were directed. In his estimation, these guesses about the origins and development of his oeuvre were always 100% wrong- guesses, it must be added, made by people who shared the exact same language, culture, and historical setting of the author they were analyzing. How likely are the same guesses made about writers from 3000 years ago, who are now dead and can't chime in to explain how wrong the speculations are?
Hey ip, could you please
Make a video on proof pauls letters are inspired by the holy spirit or something on those lines
Hey I.P. is there any chance you could do a video or video series on what language you think the new testament or each book of the new testament was originally written in using external and internal evidence .
The only times I've ever heard an argument that any New Testament book wasn't originally written in Koine Greek are some of the Church Fathers' references to a Hebrew Matthew, and Brian Simmons' claims that he was "translating" the Passion "Translation" from "the original aramaic". Is there anything more substantial than that which you think is actually worth IP addressing?
@@stephengray1344 yes search in UA-cam . " The Semitic origins of the new testament * you will find a playlist by Jeff a Benner . Who teaches Hebrew and also created the mechanical translation of the Hebrew Bible
@@stephengray1344 he makes an excellent point .
In the 1900s our oldest old testament was in greek . Yet no one assumed that was the original text.
Iv become convinced that our earliest new testament manuscripts are translations .
The fact that Mathew quotes both the Masoretic or some form of Hebrew old testament and the septuigent means he can write and read both languages . He may have wrote it in both
He already did
@@INFINITUMSPIRIT
I think he the work he has done just says the new testament manuscripts are in greek but I'm not sure if he did a video on if the originals were greek Aramaic or Hebrew
I should've watched this before watching the flood video it makes more sense now
Go back and watch that one again now
Ran into a far lefty, christian-hating, Rabbi who held to the documentary hypothesis "in part", and was claiming that Exodus 20, 34, and Deuteronomy 5 conflict and contradict.
Read “The Jews and Their Lies” by Martin Luther
Is anyone familiar with Dr. Brant Pitre or Dr. John Bergsma's opinion of the documentary hypothesis is? I would be interested in seeing their assessment of it. I'd guess they have a similar take as this video, but I don't know that I've seen or read them say one way or the other.
I don't believe in just one source, but i agree that sometimes people overcomplicate too much and make it seem much bigger than already was