9 ms·

So the large takeaway is that people in further back ancient Israel were more literate than originally thought, opening up the prospect that the Bible could eas

by brink 11y ago

So the large takeaway is that people in further back ancient Israel were more literate than originally thought, opening up the prospect that the Bible could easily have been written earlier than what some scholars speculated. Correct?

jbkly7 11y ago
Correct.
baldfat 11y ago
> Prof. Edward Greenstein of Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. “The process of transmission was much more complicated than scholars used to think.” Theology Student Here - MY TAKE This is pretty Bogus Study in terms of these are Statisticians' work based on one outpost on one piece of pottery. Someone had to publish something to make use of the research money. This is also out of their domain. Seems like trying to try a new approach and this is all we get? It is MUCH more complicated and the Oral Tradition of ANE (Ancient Near East) is pretty amazing. This also is not taking up the fact that the majority of the text have very different vocabs, writing styles and different mediums for delivering ideas (Think Epics like Noah and personal stuff like Job and politics like the kings) All very different writings. I would say that Theology and Archeologist and other disciplines are more and more agreeing that the scriptures have more evidence for a much later date then 300 - 50 year ago "liberal" scholarship believed. Heck I remember old Priest saying the Gospels were written in 250 AD and nothing was written in the first century (To bad we have a bunch of manuscripts from the first century now) Heck Pontius Pilot (The Roman leader who sent Jesus to the cross was believe to be made up until 25 years ago when they found his name inscribed in an unearthed building. This is interesting times. TL:DR Bad statistical work and very little meat. Nothing to see here.
- partiallypro 11y ago
  I think the study has very little to do with different vocabs, most people agree that the Torah had multiple authors, JEPD for instance is widely accepted...though perhaps not as it once was. Either way, in the documentary hypothesis or other non-Mosaic origin theories, the books were written separately, from different people and revised over hundreds of years. This study doesn't really refute that. The oral history is much, much older; the question is when could this have begun to have been written down? A lot of scholars have the Torah being penned closer to the 600BC time frame.
  - davemel37 11y ago
    > most people agree that the Torah had multiple authors Source? From what I can tell, most religious people disagree with this point.
    - duaneb 11y ago
      I have no firm source as the arguments are scattered over the last three decades. I can summarize the current viewpoints: Pro-JEPD camps point towards style analysis, dividing the pentateuch into four distinct dictions, each with their own (hypothesized) time frames. Anti-JEPD camps tend to a) pick apart style arguments (with mixed success) and b) argue for a cohesion of content. I tend to give the Pro-JEPD camps slightly more credit for their empirical approach; this is entirely my point of view. In any case, "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety. AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. In fact, the strongest evidence is put forth by the Anti-JEPD camps themselves. Contrast this to the Quran, which has cohesion of support around authorship by Muhammad (or in a religious context, transcription of the word of God via Muhammad) in its entirety; argument around authorship tend to revolve around modifications during oral propagation between Muhammad's lifetime and the earliest fragments we have (notably the Sana'a manuscript and the slightly later Uthman standardized version). There is simply not as much evidence for multiple authorship of the core text here, though not as much textual analysis has been performed here as the time period for revision is tiny compared to the bible and the torah.
      - davemel37 11y ago
        > AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. > "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying the Talmud in it's entirety. Why not defer to those Rabbis who have spent their lives studying the talmud instead of scientists who choose to ignore a massive body of research and discourse that is highly relevant.
- duaneb 11y ago
  I think this is the strongest statistical work possible given the dearth of physical evidence. I do agree that a) the grant money might have been spent better elsewhere and b) the conclusions are anorexic.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > work based on one outpost on one piece of pottery Well, 16 pieces. Although how it ties into Biblical dating I don't really follow.
Mikeb85 11y ago
Which is kind of a silly theory, since writing was invented in that part of the world circa 3500 BCE. It's more likely that their religious practices were limited to the priesthood, and it wasn't until the exile that they were written and compiled into a standardized format. In fact, this theory isn't foreign to Jewish tradition, nor to how other religions have operated throughout the years.
- thegenius2000 11y ago
  Exactly. In fact I have huge doubts about the usage of the term "evidence" here: literacy concerns cannot provide evidence on the time the Biblical texts were written, they simply shed light on the culture at the time. Real evidence in this context means uncovering early copies, comparing Biblical records of events with other accounts etc.

by brink 11y ago

jbkly7 11y ago

Correct.

baldfat 11y ago

> Prof. Edward Greenstein of Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. “The process of transmission was much more complicated than scholars used to think.” Theology Student Here - MY TAKE This is pretty Bogus Study in terms of these are Statisticians' work based on one outpost on one piece of pottery. Someone had to publish something to make use of the research money. This is also out of their domain. Seems like trying to try a new approach and this is all we get? It is MUCH more complicated and the Oral Tradition of ANE (Ancient Near East) is pretty amazing. This also is not taking up the fact that the majority of the text have very different vocabs, writing styles and different mediums for delivering ideas (Think Epics like Noah and personal stuff like Job and politics like the kings) All very different writings. I would say that Theology and Archeologist and other disciplines are more and more agreeing that the scriptures have more evidence for a much later date then 300 - 50 year ago "liberal" scholarship believed. Heck I remember old Priest saying the Gospels were written in 250 AD and nothing was written in the first century (To bad we have a bunch of manuscripts from the first century now) Heck Pontius Pilot (The Roman leader who sent Jesus to the cross was believe to be made up until 25 years ago when they found his name inscribed in an unearthed building. This is interesting times. TL:DR Bad statistical work and very little meat. Nothing to see here.

partiallypro 11y ago
I think the study has very little to do with different vocabs, most people agree that the Torah had multiple authors, JEPD for instance is widely accepted...though perhaps not as it once was. Either way, in the documentary hypothesis or other non-Mosaic origin theories, the books were written separately, from different people and revised over hundreds of years. This study doesn't really refute that. The oral history is much, much older; the question is when could this have begun to have been written down? A lot of scholars have the Torah being penned closer to the 600BC time frame.
- davemel37 11y ago
  > most people agree that the Torah had multiple authors Source? From what I can tell, most religious people disagree with this point.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    I have no firm source as the arguments are scattered over the last three decades. I can summarize the current viewpoints: Pro-JEPD camps point towards style analysis, dividing the pentateuch into four distinct dictions, each with their own (hypothesized) time frames. Anti-JEPD camps tend to a) pick apart style arguments (with mixed success) and b) argue for a cohesion of content. I tend to give the Pro-JEPD camps slightly more credit for their empirical approach; this is entirely my point of view. In any case, "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety. AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. In fact, the strongest evidence is put forth by the Anti-JEPD camps themselves. Contrast this to the Quran, which has cohesion of support around authorship by Muhammad (or in a religious context, transcription of the word of God via Muhammad) in its entirety; argument around authorship tend to revolve around modifications during oral propagation between Muhammad's lifetime and the earliest fragments we have (notably the Sana'a manuscript and the slightly later Uthman standardized version). There is simply not as much evidence for multiple authorship of the core text here, though not as much textual analysis has been performed here as the time period for revision is tiny compared to the bible and the torah.
    - davemel37 11y ago
      > AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. > "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying the Talmud in it's entirety. Why not defer to those Rabbis who have spent their lives studying the talmud instead of scientists who choose to ignore a massive body of research and discourse that is highly relevant.
duaneb 11y ago
I think this is the strongest statistical work possible given the dearth of physical evidence. I do agree that a) the grant money might have been spent better elsewhere and b) the conclusions are anorexic.
mcphage 11y ago
> work based on one outpost on one piece of pottery Well, 16 pieces. Although how it ties into Biblical dating I don't really follow.

Mikeb85 11y ago

Which is kind of a silly theory, since writing was invented in that part of the world circa 3500 BCE. It's more likely that their religious practices were limited to the priesthood, and it wasn't until the exile that they were written and compiled into a standardized format. In fact, this theory isn't foreign to Jewish tradition, nor to how other religions have operated throughout the years.

thegenius2000 11y ago
Exactly. In fact I have huge doubts about the usage of the term "evidence" here: literacy concerns cannot provide evidence on the time the Biblical texts were written, they simply shed light on the culture at the time. Real evidence in this context means uncovering early copies, comparing Biblical records of events with other accounts etc.