SkepticWiki And The Bible

[Dr Adequate]

Just to draw your attention to the pages [swiki]Biblical Textual Issues[/swiki] and [swiki]Biblical Errors[/swiki].

We could really do with more Biblical Errors.

And no, before you mention it, the Skeptics' Annotated Bible is not trustworthy --- they try too hard. It might be a good place to start, but you'd have to separate out a lot of chaff.

 

[LW]

Just to draw your attention to the pages [swiki]Biblical Textual Issues[/swiki] and [swiki]Biblical Errors[/swiki].

Just a note. In the discussion section of [swiki]The name YHWH[/swiki] it might be mentioned that Ex 6:3 comes from Priest and all other verses are from Jahvist.

The Priest was consistent in his use: in P (and also in E) God is not mentioned by name until he tells it to Moses. The Jahvist was also consistent and used YHWH in all places. The contradiction arose when Redactor put together the different texts.

 

[jjramsey]

The Priest was consistent in his use: in P (and also in E) God is not mentioned by name until he tells it to Moses. The Jahvist was also consistent and used YHWH in all places. The contradiction arose when Redactor put together the different texts.

[tangent]
I'd be careful here. The documentary hypothesis is most likely correct in its broad outline, that is, that the Torah is stitched together from previous documents, and that there were probably four principal ones which we dub J (Jahvist), E, D, and P (Priest). However, these documents are not extant, and while we may be able to broadly establish their content, I doubt that we could say that the bulk of a passage belongs to J while a particular verse within it belongs to P, especially if there is no obvious textual seam. Our tools for reconstructing the past have only limited precision.
[/tangent]

 

[Dr Adequate]

Just a note. In the discussion section of [swiki]The name YHWH[/swiki] it might be mentioned that Ex 6:3 comes from Priest and all other verses are from Jahvist.

The Priest was consistent in his use: in P (and also in E) God is not mentioned by name until he tells it to Moses. The Jahvist was also consistent and used YHWH in all places. The contradiction arose when Redactor put together the different texts.

Good point.

In order for people to know what this means (and I'm hazy on the details myself) we'd need an article or articles in [swiki]Biblical Textual Issues[/swiki] explaining how the OT was put together.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I doubt that we could say that the bulk of a passage belongs to J while a particular verse within it belongs to P, especially if there is no obvious textual seam.

However, the case of [swiki]The name YHWH[/swiki] looks like a dirty great seam. At least we can say that J did not write it.

Seams? Nay, madam: is --- I know not "seams".

 

[LW]

[tangent]
However, these documents are not extant, and while we may be able to broadly establish their content, I doubt that we could say that the bulk of a passage belongs to J while a particular verse within it belongs to P, especially if there is no obvious textual seam. Our tools for reconstructing the past have only limited precision.
[/tangent]

Yup.

But if you check the verses yourself, you will notice that the J verses don't form one passage but instead are taken all over Genesis.

Though, checking the notes section of Friedman's Who wrote the Bible I have to concede that the authorship of two of the J passages (Gen 15:8 and Gen 22:15-16) is not completely clear and they may also be product of Redactor.

 

[LW]

We could really do with more Biblical Errors.

The setting of Book of Daniel contradicts all other sources that we have for the time period, not only history books (such as Herodotus) but also archeological records (inscriptions left by Persian great kings).

 

[Dr Adequate]

BTW, I was just looking up the "documentary hypothesis" and this article says that there are three versions of how Beersheba got its name. I can only find two: Genesis 21 and 26.

Are they counting Gen 21 as two accounts on the grounds that it includes a mention of seven lambs, as well as mentioning the oath, or am I missing something?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The setting of Book of Daniel contradicts all other sources that we have for the time period, not only history books (such as Herodotus) but also archeological records (inscriptions left by Persian great kings).

This is good stuff ... do you have details or links?

Thanks.

I found this:

The reasons for such an assignment include, according to proponents of this view, a use of Greek and Persian words in the Hebrew of the text unlikely to happen in the 6th century, that the style of the Hebrew was more like that of a later date, that the style of Aramaic used in the Book of Daniel was that of a later date than 6th century, that the use of the word "Chaldean" occurs in a fashion unknown to the 6th century, and that the repeated historical gaffes of the author of Daniel betrayed an ignorance of the facts of the 6th century that a high official in Babylon would not have, while the 2nd century history was found to be far more accurate.

There's a lack of detail there --- this article from religioustolerance.org is a bit fuller. I still don't see how they work out what the "abomination that maketh desolate" is.

 

[jjramsey]

However, the case of [swiki]The name YHWH[/swiki] looks like a dirty great seam. At least we can say that J did not write it.

J is the one who is supposed to tend to use YHWH as the name for God, as opposed to E, who uses Elohim.

 

[Dr Adequate]

J is the one who is supposed to tend to use YHWH as the name for God, as opposed to E, who uses Elohim.

I mean that he didn't write Exodus 6:3.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've added a piece on [swiki]Beersheba[/swiki]. Again, this needs explaining with reference to the redaction --- I can tell that J wrote Genesis 26, but who wrote Genesis 21?

 

[LW]

I've added a piece on [swiki]Beersheba[/swiki]. Again, this needs explaining with reference to the redaction --- I can tell that J wrote Genesis 26, but who wrote Genesis 21?

According to Friedman, everyone except D.

He lists J writing the verses 1a, 2a, and 7; P writing 1b, 2b-5; and E writing the rest: 6, 8-34.

I'm not completely certain what the 'a' and 'b' division exactly means in verses 1 and 2.

 

[Dr Adequate]

According to Friedman, everyone except D.

He lists J writing the verses 1a, 2a, and 7; P writing 1b, 2b-5; and E writing the rest: 6, 8-34.

How does he know?

More generally, can you explain the basis of the JEPD hypothesis? I am suspicious of claims that it can be applied so precisely.

That makes the duplicated part E, anyway. Yup ... "God is with you" ... "swear to me here by God" ... "called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God" ... oh, is Elohist allowed to say YHWH under certain circumstances?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Linky : why so many Ten Comandments?

 

[Pauliesonne]

You'd think the fact that the jewish/christian/muslim god is a vicious son of a bitch would be proof enough that they did'nt exist.

But that's just me.

 

[tkingdoll]

You'd think the fact that the jewish/christian/muslim god is a vicious son of a bitch would be proof enough that they did'nt exist.

But that's just me.

You're a vicious son of a bitch?

Or...you're proof that god doesn't exist?

Or...you're the jewish/christian/muslim god?

 

[jjramsey]

You're a vicious son of a bitch?

Or...you're proof that god doesn't exist?

Or...you're the jewish/christian/muslim god?

[tangent]
More to the point, the reasoning "X does not exist because X is a vicious son of a bitch" doesn't follow at all. By that reasoning, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell don't exist.
[/tangent]

Back on topic, I'd definitely encourage LW to post more on Daniel. It looks interesting.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I remember hearing about something like Daniel when I was studying Medieval Welsh (arrrgh).

In the Middle Ages lots of prophecies were produced, attributed to Arthurian times (and Merlin in particular) which would be completely accurate right up until the point where they said "And then in 1415, lo, the Welsh shall utterly defeat the English at the battle of Cwymgoddoddoch, and then they shall march on England and drive the hated Saxon into the sea, and ... etc."

Of course, what had happened was that someone had knocked up this "prophecy of Merlin" immediately before the battle of Cwymgoddoddoch in order to put morale into the soldiers.

Now because the "prophecy" up to that point needed to be accurate to be convincing, modern historians use the "prophecies of Merlin" as historical material ... right up to the point at which the Welsh beat the English. It's also a handy way to date the manuscripts --- as with Daniel.

 

[LW]

Back on topic, I'd definitely encourage LW to post more on Daniel. It looks interesting.

On the whole the picture that the Book of Daniel gives for the last days of Babylon is very different from what is obtained from other sources. However, the historical sources are not complete so biblical literalists have an out and can claim that other sources just left the biblical bits out. But there is one certain mistake there:

• Bible claims that Belshassar was the son of King Nebuchadrezzar (Dan 5:2 , 5:11, and 5:18). Instead, he was the son of King Nabonaid. Unfortunately I have only few books on ancient Babylonia and they don't identify the exact cuneiform texts that detail their relationship.

Among the things that are probably errors but have an out are:

• Bible claims that Belshassar was the king (Dan 5:1). He was the viceroy while his father who was the reigning king resided in the South. Here the out is that as the viceroy he was the acting king of Babylon (the ciry).
• Bible claims that "Darius the Mede" got the crown after Belshassar's murder (Dan 5:30). History tells us that the guy who conquered Babylon was the Persian Cyrus. There have been several different ways how people have tried to reconcile this:
  • Some claim that "Darius" was another name for Cyrus. This has numerous problems since Dan 6:29 talks about Cyrus and Darius as different kings, Dan 9:1 identifies Darius's father as Xerxes while Cyrus was son of Cambyses, and even though Cyrus had a Mede mother, he was considered to be ethnically Persian. (The difference between the peoples was similar to modern Ukrainians and Russians).
  • Others claim that "Darius" was another name for Astyages, the last king of Medes. The problem here is that there is no record of him ever gaining control of Babylon before Cyrus dethroned him.
  • Third alternative is that "Darius" was some Mede who became the viceroy of Babylon under Cyrus and who was lost to history. There are two main problems with this: Dan 6:29 that sounds quite a lot like the author considered Darius and Cyrus to have equal status and Dan 6:1 where Darius appointed 120 satraps to act as governors of his kingdom. A viceroy would himself be a satrap and not in a position to create satrapdoms.
  In my opinion, the most likely explanation for "Darius the Mede" is that the author of Daniel mixed up the early history of Persian Empire and confused the order of Cyrus and Darius the Great who usurped the throne from Cyrus's son Smerdis. He also mixed up the genealogy as Xerxes was the son of Darius, not father and they were all ethnic Persians. (BTW, the titulary of Xerxes was the first cuneiform text that was decoded).
• The name of King Nebuchadrezzar is spelled differently in Daniel (written with 'n' instead of 'r') than in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (whose books are roughly contemporary with the king himself). This might be a valid alternative spelling, a misspelling based on the Greek variant of the name, or a purposeful alteration that will make the letters of his name to sum to the same total as Antiochus Epiphanes.

Finally, the book contains anachronisms such as using "Chaldean" as a synoun for "Magi" and mentioning an instrument that was invented by the Greek several hundreds of years after Daniels time.