Talk:Documentary hypothesis/Archive 2

message: The recent edits which place Rolf Rentdorff among the "oral traditionalists", are simply incorrect. Rolf is nothing of the sort. He believes in a more extensive breakdown of documentary sources, and not in that the souces have an oral character. Any reading of Blenkinsopp's book will show that clearly. Harold Bloom, likewise, is clearly not a student of Friedmann's, though the text seems to suggest that. Bloom is a literary critic, Friedman is a scholar in the area. Dwmyers 16:26, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing about Bloom's work, while he dwells on some points that were obviously available from Friedmann, is that he elaborates on the contributions of documentary hypothesis to literature. Where Friedmann discussed the Shakespearean qualities of J, Bloom's agreement breaks into several essays on how the documentary theory provides us with access to vibrant ways of thinking about J and the characters (s)he offers us. Many of the theological and doctrinal discussions that crop up with the combined JEPD texts (or JEDP, depending on who you're with), just don't come up when reading J alone. The 'Humanities,' of which Bloom is professor at Yale, seem to come to the fore. In many ways, it seems that Bloom was trying to stake a claim for literary critics among those interested in DH. I read that he was encouraging scholars to take a literary critic's approach to other religious texts, such as the Book of Mormon, for which empirical evidence other than the text itself is conspicuously absent--where the historical approach to biblical studies may never be available. This emphasizes his literary roots as opposed to biblical studies roots. Because Bloom does not "come from" the tradition of source criticism or documentary theory, but from literary roots harking to Northrop Frye and Kenneth Burke, perhaps an early link to literary criticism as one of the scholarly traditions involved would help organize things when it gets down to Friedmann and Bloom? The way I read it, Bloom is not a literary critic in the sense that biblical scholars seem to use the word--as a sub-heading of biblical studies--but a literary critic because he has a long-standing career in literature, who has expressed an interest in biblical texts. So I agree that he seems out of place under Friedmann's heading. Other thoughts? Jerekson 05:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oral traditionalists

message: Richard E Friedman has a new book out, called The Bible With Sources Revealed. The ISBN number is . It just came on sale on the 25th of November, and those who like this kind of scholarship may be interested in the book. It's on my Amazon wish list, for one. Dwmyers 18:46, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible Source book out

message: Hi! I think this sentence really needs to be reshaped:
"..are in fact a combination of documents from different sources rather than authored by one individual" - I think it would be proper to put "...rather than authored by one individual(or God)" or something like it. The Torah is held be Jews to be in fact authored by Hashem(God), and letter-by-letter copied by Moses(which I think is also the way the Chistians belive the 5 Books of Moses were written)
:::Don't individuals sign and date their conrtibutions here? PiCo 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  one "individual" 

message: This is the last sentence in the article:
:In this they are correct insofar as they see the challenge to the early dating for composition and the problematic control of documentary materials for which the literary evidence appears harder and harder to maintain.
If anyone can work out what it means, I'd be raetful if they could edit it in a way that makes that meaning clear. PiCo 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know what this means? 

message: The section "Background to the hypothesis" includes this: "In Num 12:3 Moses is described as the most humble man on the face of the earth, which would be remarkably hypocritical if Moses himself authored the statement." But it seems to me that no one claims Moses to have been the author of that statement - certainly not the supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis, and not even the supporters of the traditional view, which is that God dictated the text and Moses merely transcribed it. Therefore, this comment neither supports nor detracts from the hypothesis that there were multiple authors, and I propose removing this item from the list. --Keeves 13:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually supposed to be a support for non-mosaic authorship, per JDEP construction.Thanatosimii 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Most Humble Man 

message: Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  informal request for comment 

message: In the past few days the number of EL has grown. Do you think we can trim it back down again?Andrew c 00:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link farm 

message: "some historians and academics"?  It's probably closer to most.  The Documentary Hypothesis appears to be the consensus even among competing historical and academic Biblical scholars.--LKS 5/29/06
:The hypothesis was the consensus for a while, but it's falling quickly. I'm not an expert in the field, but apparently there's this problem with the five part suzerainity covenants used in the Bible, which would be 3 parts if it were composed in a post-assyrian timeframe.Thanatosimii 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some? 

message: The article says that there are accounts on the Bible for:
*the three strikingly similar narratives in Genesis about a wife confused for a sister; 
(...)
*three different versions of how the town of Be'ersheba got its name; 
Two Beersheba naming versions actually come from the wife-sister tales involving Abimelech. The other tale, however, involves the Pharaoh, and does not include the naming of Beersheba. What is the third account for how this city got its name? If there IS a third record, it should be added to the Beersheba page, and if there isn't, I think this comment should be excluded from this page. --Chalom 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Be'ersheba got its name 

message: This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 09:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA