I vote for knowing the truth. Hands down. It's like in the matrix. Do you really want to live your whole life not knowing what's real?
And, personaly I'm a lot happier now. Even in my fundy days, in the back of my mind, I always knew the skeptics were right. I just supressed that knowledge with congnitive dissononce. That internal struggle made me very depressed. I'm much happier now.
I also think that many fundies practice relegion to the extent that it is unethical. If you belive in the occupation of Yesha for security reasons, you are a fine man in my book. But, if you belive in it for religious reasons, that's downright immoral. And, many fundies do belive in that and act on thier beliefs.
about documentary hypothesis,
Wahoo! Go DH! I see I am slowly convincing the blogosphere it's not BS. Soon, you will all agree with me.
BJ,
Firstly, very interesting post!
Will you be changing your Tagline to say knowledge is real?
I have a post in process for over a month (LF, and it includes Matrix). But. It's just so awkwardly worded that I must redo. I have a different take than you.
I use the red pill/blue pill analogy in real life.
BHB,
You watch movies? pashnish.
LF: Although I owe you a more in-depth understanding of DH, I certainly didn't reject it before. I know enough Tanach to realize intuitively how composite it is (or at least appears). 
BHB: I look forward to hearing your take on this. Speak of taglines, I am trying to think of something better. I do still like the Leonard Cohen but I think it's time to move on.
Orthoprax: It is a good analogy. Of course, I haven't watch the Matrix in so long, I don't remember which pill I've chosen...
LF: Although I owe you a more in-depth understanding of DH, I certainly didn't reject it before. I know enough Tanach to realize intuitively how composite it is (or at least appears).
Aww. Here I thought I convinced someone, and you were convinced already. I guess I'm just a little confused now because a few days ago, there was a whole argument on xgh's blog in which it seemed to me that even the skeptics sort of admitted they didn't believe in DH, which confuses me because I always found DH pretty convincing.
Actually, I was thinking about it the other day, and it occurred to me that while it may be possible to sustain the idea that the Torah has one Divine author, you can show pretty conclusively, that it could not possibly have been written by one mortal person. It's got to be either a Divine being or multiple humans. The only way you can possibly sustain an argument against composite authorship is if you make certain assumptions that you could not possibly make about a book that was written by a mortal (though, even then it’s a weak argument). I shall do a post soon explaining why I think that. I don't see anyway around it, which makes me wonder how you could be a skeptic and not buy into DH.
lf
the skeptics just want to sound intellectual.
its a fad now to not admit dh is convincing.
maybe they mean, its not convincing that someone other than moshe, joshua and others wrote it.
more likely they mean that THE dh doesnt have it right. but multiple authors is a given, just not how DH says it does.
Happy,
Let's say all skeptics say multiple authership are a given. DH makes many claims about who wrote what. Some of those claims, obviously, have very little evidence to support them. And, I understand why some might reject them. However, in some cases, there is much evidence. To these points, I do not understand why skpetics would reject them. Especialy, considering
1. If you are already admiting the book is composite and there's good reasons to break it up along the lines of DH, why not do it that way?
2. Again, I belive that certain of the divisions that DH makes can not be argued against unless you make certain assumptions about the text that are completely untenable unless you assume the text is Divine. I'd elaborate more, but I don't want to steal the thunder of my upcoming post.
lf
who said they dont buy any of it?
i think they mean that some of it is not convincing.
but why dont you ask them?
LF,
It depends what kind of DH you're taliking about. The kind that breaks paragraphs into pieces to show the work of a Redactor I do not find compelling. Interesting, yes, but not something I'd be willing to defend in debate.
The idea, however, of multiple traditions being combined into a later work, that does have something to it. It's where the DH starts making very specific claims on continuingly tenuous evidence that it becomes a hypothesis I cannot endorse.
In any case, it doesn't matter if the DH is true or not except in an academic sense so it's not worth getting bogged down in its details when the better argument to make is simply that TMS hasn't been substantiated. And even if we're dealing with a text of completely mysterious origin, it hardly becomes reasonable to presume supernatural intervention based on weak sociological speculation - as RJM has done.
Orthoprax,
Yes, from a religion perspective it's irrelevant. Torah is not from God either way. It's just an academic curiosity. Here's the way I see it. Yes, the Torah is definitely composite. Now, beyond that, DH makes many different claims, including
1. That D is a distinctive source
2. That P is a distinctive source
3. That JE is a distinctive sources
4. The precise borders of P.
5. That JE is divided up into J & E
6. That H is a distinct source
7. The precise borders of H.
8. The precise borders of J & E.
9. Claims about P1, P2, D1, D1, G etc.
10. Claims about the relative dating and authorship of all of the above
Which of these 10, do you not accept. To me,
1. Definitely true
2. Almost definitely true
3. probably true
4. almost definitely true
5. Plausible
6. Plausible
7. Plausible
8. Unlikely
9. Unlikely
10. Unlikely
I believe I could hold in debate that all of these 9 categories are true with at least the likelihood I have given them.
And, personaly I'm a lot happier now. Even in my fundy days, in the back of my mind, I always knew the skeptics were right. I just supressed that knowledge with congnitive dissononce.
Bingo. The cognitive dissonance can get reeeeeally hard after a while.
LF, what is "H"? Do you mean Redactor?
> even the skeptics sort of admitted they didn't believe in DH, which confuses me because I always found DH pretty convincing
I think what they were referring to is not the the fact that there was multiple authorship, but rather comparing the likelihood of DH to KP as an explanation for the jews accepting TMS. That's why I never frame it as such, I stated it as
"The Skeptics counter with an explanation of how myths are created and provide specific examples of myth-making. This is backed up by hypotheses of how the Torah came to be accepted by the Jews. One example is DH."
It need not be DH. DH is just an example. I think the two need to be separated. Of course, once you believe DH, the KP is automatically thrown into question, because it conflicts with the Mesorah. So you can be a skeptic and still not require DH. As for me I find it quite compelling.
Nice post, and personaly I very much agree with wanting to know the truth.
Regarding DH, I don't really understand how some people tend to look at it as a disproof of divine origin (or as a proof for human origin) of the bible. DH assumes human origin and then goes about theorizing how that exactly occured.
But, even without DH, the theory of human origin stands on its own merit. I don't think that you can say "there are contradictions and varying literary styles in the Torah, so God could not have written it" any more than you can say "I have a problem with the DH, so man could not have written it". These are really seperate issues. If you can believe that the Torah is divine, then you can reconcile (perhaps with some dificulty) all of the problems. If you can't, then DH is an interesting exercise in understanding it's origins.
LF, what is "H"? Do you mean Redactor?
No, by some scholars there is another source, H, or Holiness Code that is part of P. It is mostly localized in Lev 17-26, though that section is really a mix of P and H according to many scholars who belive in H. Some scholars actualy also see H in our parsha (Ex 6:2-9, but I belive that is the minority opinion) on the basis of the phrase "ani Hashem" which is very common in H.
Regarding DH, I don't really understand how some people tend to look at it as a disproof of divine origin (or as a proof for human origin) of the bible. DH assumes human origin and then goes about theorizing how that exactly occured.
If you think you can prove the Torah has more than one author, and you discount the possibility of there beign two gods, you can conclude that the Torah is not all written by God. Moreover, if you accept that it contradits itself, it can not all be right.
I don't think that you can say "there are contradictions and varying literary styles in the Torah, so God could not have written it" any more than you can say "I have a problem with the DH, so man could not have written it".
I don't follow this. If you don't like DH, and you think Torah has one author, you still have no reason to assume that author is God. On the other hand, if you think Torah has multiple authors, it stands to reason that it's not all written by God.
If you can believe that the Torah is divine, then you can reconcile (perhaps with some dificulty) all of the problems
A lot of difficulty.
LF,
1. very likely
2. likely
3. possibly
4. possibly
5. In some sense
6. maybe
7. unlikely
8. unlikely
9. untenable
10. untenable
"On the other hand, if you think Torah has multiple authors, it stands to reason that it's not all written by God."
I was talking to someone on GH's blog about the obvious differences in style between Deuteronomy and the rest of the Pentatauch. He said that the first four books were God's word for word creation while Deuteronomy was Moshe's own words but approved by God.
See, multiple authors (God and Moshe), yet still all from God.
Orthoprax,
Yes, your response to my survey is sensible to me. But, that is essentialy accepting DH. The recognition of both P and D is at least likely.
I was talking to someone on GH's blog about the obvious differences in style between Deuteronomy and the rest of the Pentatauch. He said that the first four books were God's word for word creation while Deuteronomy was Moshe's own words but approved by God.
See, multiple authors (God and Moshe), yet still all from God.
Cute, but I don't buy it for reasons I will explain in my upcoming post on the topic.
LF,
"Yes, your response to my survey is sensible to me. But, that is essentialy accepting DH. The recognition of both P and D is at least likely."
Yes, but they don't rely on the existence of some whimsical redactor who split up stores from different sources one line at a time. That concept just doesn't seem right.
stories*
> It need not be DH. DH is just an example.
I agree with this, although I think DH has a lot going for it.
Also, it leaves many questions unanswered. Who were these people? Did they work with older texts or create their own? What was/were their agenda(s)?
I think that skeptics by nature will question everything and while DH makes a lot of sense, it doesn't really have any more hard proof than TMS. Until/unless archeologists find an older text that proves or disproves DH, there will always be that doubt and it will remain a theory, however convnincing.
you still live the balancing act. all of you. how difficult is it for you?
as for DH: its very interesting, brillianrt in fact, but its not set in stone. what i mean is that while its obvious that the tanakh is the result of editing and combining and reediting from several sources over a period of perhaps 800 years, the sources may not be exactly as postulated by DH.
The balancing act is difficult. In some ways it's getting easier, in others it's getting harder.
I agree with you about DH, although I think DH's divisions make sense, as far as I know anyway.
Commenting by HaloScan
