A zebra either has wings or it does not have wings. It could be that Ribbon was the name at one time, and then Bob began to call Ribbon another name later on at a different time. In addition, Bob could call his zebra Ribby as a nickname. Furthermore, we know Ribbon came from a certain zebra who came from a certain zebra who came from a certain zebra. Thus, Ribbon could also be called a Bandite zebra from the tribe of Band. Going even further back, the Bandite tribe could be from a tribe further back called the zebralite tribe. Thus, Ribbon could be both a Bandite and a Zebralite.
This example serves to address more than one alleged contradiction from Wellhausen followers. Let us now begin examining a few alleged contradictions from two different Wellhausen followers. Below, I will closely examine a few problems from two Wellhausen followers. I will show why their literary problems are not contradictions. In Exodus , the author says Reuel is the priest of Midian who had seven daughters.
The conclusion is not that the text has a contradiction. The text tells us that he had at least two names as they were recorded. Furthermore, is it possible to be named after a deceased relative? Oddly enough, Wellhausen followers typically apply their own rules. Was Adam created before the animals or after the animals? In Genesis 1, an order of creation is presented in six days from the view of someone on earth, ending with the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth day.
Genesis 1 clearly says the animals were made before Adam. In Genesis 2, the chapter begins with a short summary of creation before living things were on earth. It moves into details such as when Adam named the animals Genesis Wellhausen followers claim that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 because Genesis 1 has Adam being created after the animals whereas they think Genesis 2 has Adam being created before the animals.
Thus, Wellhausen followers read Genesis 2 incorrectly. There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Genesis 1 gives us the order of creation whereas Genesis 2 gives us details just after creation. I was surprised to find out how a young Wellhausen scholar from Yale University made at least four mistakes when reading the very short story of Joseph being sold and taken to Egypt Genesis This Wellhausen scholar from Yale found what he called textual difficulties, but the problem remains with his lack of understanding, as we shall see below, not in the text.
The first mistake he made is only a slight misreading of verses 18 and The text does not say that the brothers conspired to kill Joseph two different times. The text begins with a narrative where the brothers saw Joseph approaching. The brothers begin to conspire a plan to kill Joseph.
- You are here?
- Briefcase on Constitutional & Administrative Law (Briefcase Series).
- Navigation menu?
The text moves next to providing a quote of the brothers speaking about the heinous plan to throw Joseph in a pit to die. The two plans differ. Judah suggested they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites so that they would not be responsible for whatever happened to him in Egypt whereas Reuben did not want to hurt Joseph in order to keep him alive, and Reuben preferred to restore him to his father Jacob. Later, when the brothers reunited in Egypt, Joseph affirmed that his brothers indeed sold him to the Ishmaelites Gen.
He is confused where the text says the brothers sell Joseph to both the Midianites and Ishmaelites who sold Joseph to Potiphar verse As the text reads, the Midianites lifted Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. The main problem here is that the Wellhausen scholar wanted more details about the transaction than what the text actually gives. He speculated several different scenarios while rejecting what the text actually presents as sufficient for the purpose of the context.
He then went on to argue over whether the Judah story was the original or the Reuben story was the original. Like all other Wellhausen followers, he speculated on whether an editor possibly changed a few words here and there. He concluded that the Judah story must be the original, that the Reuben story must be the supplement. Like all other Wellhausen followers, he claimed that the E source conflicts with the J source. However, in reality, no such conflict exists.
4 Ways To Respond To Wellhausen Problems and Astruc Cuttings
We also learn that Moses wrote down the Book of the Covenant and read it to the assembly just after God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and a multitude of other laws Ex. Moses gave instructions to the Israelites for when they enter the promised land without Moses. Moses instructed the Levitical priests to read the Book of the Law to Israel at the end of every seven years during the Festival of Tabernacles Deut.
Just before he died, Moses commanded the Levites to keep the Book of the Law by the side of the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies Deut.
4 Ways To Respond To Wellhausen Problems and Astruc Cuttings – Lady Apologist
Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, the Book of Moses, teachers of the law, and experts of the law numerous times Matt. The Quran also happens to affirm Moses as the author of the Torah. Other church Fathers throughout the centuries have affirmed Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. In closing, we are long overdue in responding to the Wellhausen problem.
A reader in rabbinic and talmudic literature at Cambridge, he was a pivotal figure in English intellectual life. Umberto Cassuto.
- Managing Public Finances in a Small Developing Economy: The Case of Barbados;
- Cleanroom Design?
- Reconnaissance in the Russo-Japanese War by Asiaticus.
- Literacy, Emotion and Authority: Reading and Writing on a Polynesian Atoll?
- Chemistry of Heterocyclic Compounds: Special Topics in Heterocyclic Chemistry, Volume 30?
- Documentary hypothesis;
Although originally published more than 50 years ago, The Documentary Hypothesis remains a classic in the field of biblical studies. Summary in form and popular in presentation, it provides a masterful exposition of the documentary hypothesis and subjects its exegetical methods and conclusions to a critical review. He gives plenty of examples and knows enough to stop beating the horse when it's obviously dead. After reading this book, I can't think of any reason why the Documentary Hypothesis is still taught and believed, unless it's the plain stubborn defensiveness of Academics whose precious paradigms are threatened.
Lecture 1 explains the origins of the Doc hypothesis, it was born in a disreputable part of the enlightenment characterized by a strong desire to deconstruct things into their composite parts even if they didn't have any. He shows how the same impulse was applied to other literature during that period, such as the Iliad.
Lecture 4, Language and style, is very impressive but somewhat excruciating if hebrew grammar's not your thing. He goes through the supposed different usage of the "sources" and shows that it's better explained by Hebrew grammatical conventions. Lecture 8, "conclusions" I might almost recommend reading first, because it's a quick overview that might make it easier to follow the flow of the rest of the book. In it he goes over the documentary hypothesis' vitals following his general examination, and pronounces it not just mostly, but all dead. Go through it's pockets for loose change if you like, but it's broke.
I recommend it for anyone who's interested in biblical studies as a good vaccine against being brainwashed by the Doc. Hypothesis' devotees to "see" their emperor's new clothes. View 1 comment. Oct 06, Charles rated it it was amazing. Mildly and politely he butchers the documentary hypothesis.
His exposure of parallel historical developments in studies on Homer is telling, the simple but potent critiques of overreading Hebrew idiom are especially revealing, given that the lectures were themselves given in Hebrew, and he displays the hollow unravelling of 'composite passages' by showing the nonsensical narratives that result from a strict dissection by 'author'.
Critics and teachers who think the hypothesis retains any credibility who haven't read at least this popular introduction should take their heads out of the sand. Yet it would be a mistake to consider this a critical or negative book. Whilst he doesn't here formulate an alternative, his affection for the warmth and captivating charm of Genesis is infectious. Despite his mistrust in a Mosaic authorship, his awe for its majesty and distinctive characteristics from contemporary literature is also evident. A highly recommended and surprisingly easy read. Jul 27, Dorian Driscoll rated it really liked it Shelves: biblical-studies , writing , theology.
This book is freaking brilliant. The introduction by Joshua Berman gives a very interesting and informative background on the DH, exposing much of the bias in favor of it. Cassuto's treatment is as devastating a critique as I think anyone could reasonably expect.
- The Secret of Excalibur?
- Egypt - Nothing Compares.
- Determinants of Dispensing Location in the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program.
- Toad Pocket Reference for Oracle, 2nd Edition.
- Exotica in the prehistoric Mediterranean?
- Documentary hypothesis | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online.
- A New Challenge to the Documentary Hypothesis;
As he was a not Christian, bias in favor of conservative Christian scholarship isn't viable. In good scholarly fashion, Cassuto explains that the DH was fairly well informed considering the few resources Wellhausen had at the time, but g This book is freaking brilliant. In good scholarly fashion, Cassuto explains that the DH was fairly well informed considering the few resources Wellhausen had at the time, but goes on to say that once more surfaced, disproving the DH, it had already been afforded near gospel-like status.
Let it be known that a refutation of the DH does not mean that Moses wrote the Pentateuch for strong argumentation in favor of his authorship, though, see K. Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament. This is a fascinating read. Nov 06, Jo rated it really liked it Shelves: christian , theology , non-fiction , adult. Straightforward, simple, and fairly easy to understand introduction to the documentary hypothesis and the arguments against it. I do have some background in theology and Biblical languages, but I really think that most people could wade through this little book and come out the other side a whole lot more informed about this issue.
There is some Hebrew words and grammar, but my solution to that would be to just skim over those parts.
The Documentary Hypothesis: and the Composition of the Pentateuch Eight Lectures
The theory of the documentary hypothesis is that "the Pentateuc Straightforward, simple, and fairly easy to understand introduction to the documentary hypothesis and the arguments against it. The theory of the documentary hypothesis is that "the Pentateuch was composed by the amalgamation of sections and subsections derived from four independent source documents, J, E, P, D.
As I said, I enjoyed how easy this was to read, and took away a much better understanding of the documentary hypothesis, as well as a few other gems of understanding particularly about the differing uses of Elohim and YHWH in the OT. Jan 30, John rated it it was amazing Shelves: crisis-of-faith. Professor Cassatu debunks the conclusions of Julius Welhausen in a series of lectures written out clearly comprehendible by any one of the Christian or Jewish Faiths He overviews and disproves each of the 5 pillars of the Documentary Hypothesis.
His phrase 'irretrievably doomed' distinguishes him Professor Cassatu debunks the conclusions of Julius Welhausen in a series of lectures written out clearly comprehendible by any one of the Christian or Jewish Faiths He overviews and disproves each of the 5 pillars of the Documentary Hypothesis.
His phrase 'irretrievably doomed' distinguishes him from others who have critiqued this century old thesis—still being tweaked and taught.