By whom and when was scripture written?

[Socrates]

For Ratzinger's critique of of modernist methods of exegesis, go [url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/biblical-crisis.htm"]here[/url].

[Didacus]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:27 PM']RESPONSE:

We're going a bit afield here. But does Ratzinger produce any evidence that Bultmann is in error?


[right][snapback]619502[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

On the contrary, properly placed, I believe it is perfectly relevant as a basis to this discussion.. Have you read it... me thinks you should...

Other than that... NOTICE MY NEW AVATAR!!!!

{Dudette made it for me, she's so sweet!....and }

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:24 PM']On the contrary, properly placed, I believe it is perfectly relevant as a basis to this discussion..  Have you read it... me thinks you should...

Other than that... NOTICE MY NEW AVATAR!!!!

{Dudette made it for me, she's so sweet!....and  }
[right][snapback]619635[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Which of Cardinal Ratzinger's arguments are you supporting exactly and why? Or do you just like his writing in general without analysis of his content?

And which form of historical criticism is he talking about? All of them? Or only a few in particular?

If all, then he is in disagreement with Pope Pius XII:

" In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles."

[LittleLes]

The following dates have been suggested for the writing by the four authors of the Old Testament:

1. The Elohist wrote between 922 and 722 BC (the date of the fall of the norhtern kingdom).

2. The Jahwist wrote between 848 and 722 BC.

3. The Deuteronomist wrote about 622 BC. (His manuscript was mysteriously discovered in the Temple).

4. The Priestly source dates from about 539 B.C.

And a redactor (or editor) is thought to have assemple these writings sometime during the Babylonian Captivity.

[LittleLes]

Descriptions of events in the Old Testmant sometimes give a clue as to when these passages were written.

For example, in the 11th century, the camel begins to appear in cuneiform texts and reliefs from the area.

Gen 37:25 in describing the kidnapping of Joseph reports thus:

"They then sat down to their meal. Looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, their camels laden with gum, balm and resin to be taken down to Egypt. "

Joseph in Egypt is suppose to date from about 1700 B.C., but at that point camels hadn't been introduced to the MidEast.

So if camels are described so matter of factly, it seems that this account had to have been written sometime after the 11th century B.C.and the introduction of the camel.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:23 PM']As we get into the "when" of scripture, may I suggest this very general timeline of events in the Old Testament to compare with the scripture.

Creation and Adam 6000 BC
Noah and the Flood 3000 BC
Abraham 2000 BC
Joseph (Egypt) 1700 BC
Moses 1500 BC
Conquest of Canaan 1400 BC
Saul, David, Solomon 1000 BC
Assyrian Invasion of Judah 700 BC
Babylonian Captivity 600 BC
Rebuilding of Temple 500 BC
Greek occupation 300 BC
Roman occupation100 BC,

Dates are only approximate and have been rounded off.
[right][snapback]619494[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, that clearly cannot be trusted....how do we know when it acutally happened....you may be off by at least 10 years. And that is far to long a time for accuracy's sake.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:33 PM']Well, that clearly cannot be trusted....how do we know when it acutally happened....you may be off by at least 10 years.  And that is far to long a time for accuracy's sake.
[right][snapback]619754[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. I think the rounded figure is sufficient for the reader to get an idea of the timelines involved. If the need arises, then we can try for more specific dating, if this is even possible.

And please note that not all the events listed may have even happened or happened as described in scripture. For example, do you think that Adam and Eve were really created in 6000 B.C.?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 07:26 PM']RESPONSE:

No. I think the rounded figure is sufficient for the reader to get an idea of the timelines involved. If the need arises,  then we can try for more specific dating, if this is even possible.

And please note that not all the events listed may have even happened or happened as described in scripture. For example, do you think that Adam and Eve were really created in 6000 B.C.?
[right][snapback]619883[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.....wasn't it you who were quibbling over 13 years of separation on another thread not so very long ago? I believe that you were.

[quote name=' Who was Paul: Cam42'] I have offered proof that is contemporary to the Ebionite sect and you poo poo it for being too modern, because it 13 years outside your ridiculous criteria.[/quote]

That was in response to your nutso claim that St. Iraneus' works were too modern, because they were written 13 years after some arbitrary number, which apparently you can change when you feel the whimiscal need.

Not very scholarly.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 08:36 PM']Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.....wasn't it you who were quibbling over 13 years of separation on another thread not so very long ago?  I believe that you were.

[quote name=' Who was Paul: Cam42'] I have offered proof that is contemporary to the Ebionite sect and you poo poo it for being too modern, because it 13 years outside your ridiculous criteria.[/quote]

That was in response to your nutso claim that St. Iraneus' works were too modern, because they were written 13 years after some arbitrary number, which apparently you can change when you feel the whimiscal need.

Not very scholarly.
[right][snapback]619996[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Perhaps if you can recall what was involved, we can deal with it.

In some cases a decade can make a difference. An example is the decade between Herod's death in 4 B.C, and Quirinus becoming governor of Syria in 6 A.D. evidencing that Luke's narrative is incorrect.

But whether Adam and Eve were created in 6000 B.C or in 6010 BC really wouldn't be significant since the date is spurious to begin with.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 09:13 PM']
That was in response to your nutso claim that St. Iraneus' works were too modern, because they were written 13 years after some arbitrary number, which apparently you can change when you feel the whimiscal need.

Not very scholarly.
[right][snapback]619996[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Perhaps if you can recall what was involved, we can deal with it.

In some cases a decade can make a difference. An example is the decade between Herod's death in 4 B.C, and Quirinus becoming governor of Syria in 6 A.D. evidencing that Luke's narrative is incorrect.

But whether Adam and Eve were created in 6000 B.C or in 6010 BC really wouldn't be significant since the date is spurious to begin with.
[right][snapback]620027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You know exactly what I am talking about....you are caught.....sorry....you can't have it both ways.....you are right, it is spurious....on your part.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 09:15 PM']
RESPONSE:

Perhaps if you can recall what was involved, we can deal with it.

In some cases a decade can make a difference. An example is the decade between Herod's death in 4 B.C, and Quirinus becoming governor of Syria in 6 A.D. evidencing that Luke's narrative is incorrect.

But whether Adam and Eve were created in 6000 B.C or in 6010 BC really wouldn't be significant since the date is spurious to begin with.
[right][snapback]620027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You know exactly what I am talking about....you are caught.....sorry....you can't have it both ways.....you are right, it is spurious....on your part.
[right][snapback]620028[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

No CAM. As usual we don't know what you are talking about. But since you are off topic, I'll press on with mine.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 06:39 AM']You know exactly what I am talking about....you are caught.....sorry....you can't have it both ways.....you are right, it is spurious....on your part.
[right][snapback]620028[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote]RESPONSE:

No CAM. As usual we don't know what you are talking about. But since you are off topic, I'll press on with mine.
[right][snapback]620309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You may not, but ignorance is not above reproach, especially feigned ignorance.

[quote name='LittleLes @ Mar 7 2005' date=' 06:57 PM']Ah Yes. It is alwyas "an indisputable fact..." according to the Catholic Encyclopedia when they have no evidence to support their "party line" position.

It's really very simple.

Please provide a reliable citation written within 100 years of Peters death that establishes that he was ever the bishop of Rome.

Claims from the third, fourth or fifth century are not reliable historically.

LittleLes[/quote]

I provide proof that Peter was Pope based on documents which were written 113 years after his death.

You go on to say:
[quote name='LittleLes @ Mar 8 2005' date=' 01:43 PM ']Sorry Cam,

Over a hundred years and legend has had plenty of time to develop. And if you examine the original text, the names Peter and Paul do not appear in the section of AH 3.3.3 which you quoted. Nor does the word "Rome" appear before the word church.

This is a good example of the practice I mentioned earlier about implying something the text does not really say.

And, of course, Iranaeus wrote in Greek, and only later Latin translations survive. Where do you suppose they came from?

As I make my way through the writing purported to be of the early church fathers, I may want to discuss this translation in some detail. I just started with Eusebius today.

LittleLes [/quote]

I hold to my original thought....
[quote]That was in response to your nutso claim that St. Iraneus' works were too modern, because they were written 13 years after some arbitrary number, which apparently you can change when you feel the whimiscal need.[/quote]

You can't even keep to your own criteria......so I will say this: Rounding the dates is not sufficient. That allows for plenty of time for legend to develop. And it is not very accurate.

I would suggest that if you are going to list dates, that you should be accurate....within 20 minutes of writing or so. I wouldn't want you to think that the texts are too modern.

[LittleLes]

Oh golly! Somebody created a thread titled "LittleLes"!

I'm so honored! But there are only two posts. The first poster evidently has an open mind. The second evidently does not!

But pressing on with the "who" and "when" questions about Genesis, we have these factoids:

(1) I listed the arbitrary date of the creation of man as about 6,000 B.C. Some references put this at 4000 B.C. A reoccuring figure is 5315 A.D., but I don't know how it is derived. Whatever the case, the existence of humans for 80,000 to 150,000 years although popular with scientists, seems to be in dispute. (Dating Abraham at about 2,000 B.C. is less controversial) .

(2) The creation account in Genesis is a doublet, ie., there are really two differing account, in Genesis chapter 1, and Genesis chapter 2. It is thought that the Priestly writer wrote chapter 1 and the Jehovist wrote chapter 2. And they were both retained by the redactor.

To illustrate, regarding the creation of woman, she was either created along with man: Gen 1:27:
"God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them."

or she was created later from man's rib Gen 2:22
"The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. "

(3) But the first four chapters of Genesis contain an interesting puzzle; We know that there were originally four people involved: Adam, Eve, and their sons, Cain and Abel. (Later other children). Yet:

Gen 4:13 -18:
Cain said to the LORD: "My punishment is too great to bear. Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight." Not so!" the LORD said to him. "If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold." So the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight. Cain then left the LORD'S presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. Cain also became the founder of a city, which he named after his son Enoch. "

Questions:
(a) Where did the "anyone" come from if they were not Cain's family members?
(b) Where did Cain find a wife in the land of Nod?

This strongly implies that there were other first parents besides Adam and Eve.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 23 2005, 07:07 AM']You may not, but ignorance is not above reproach, especially feigned ignorance.
I provide proof that Peter was Pope based on documents which were written 113 years after his death.

You go on to say:
I hold to my original thought....
You can't even keep to your own criteria......so I will say this:  Rounding the dates is not sufficient.  That allows for plenty of time for legend to develop.  And it is not very accurate.

I would suggest that if you are going to list dates, that you should be accurate....within  20 minutes of writing or so.  I wouldn't want you to think that the texts are too modern.
[right][snapback]620312[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Sorry CAM. There is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever a bishop of Rome. And, of course, Popes hadn't even been invented yet.

We'd agree to a point about legends . In the case of Genesis, there was plenty of time for a legend to develop. In fact, several different fables did. You aren't really claiming tht the creation of man as described in Genesis is historical, are you.

[LittleLes]

And in Genesis 6 and 7, we find another one of those doublets, two accounts of the Flood narrative which differ significantly in detail.

For example:

Gen 6::20 Of all other living creatures you shall bring two into the ark, one male and one female, that you may keep them alive with you.
Of all kinds of birds, of all kinds of beasts, and of all kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you, to stay alive. (Thought to be of Jahwist origin).

Or

Gen 7:2-3 Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate; likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female.(Thought to be of the Priestly Source).

And does this legend sound familiar?

‘O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.'

It's the Legend of Gilgamesh found at two locations on cruniform tables which are far earlier in origin than the Bible. Comparing the Gilgamesh legend to Genesis' Flood narrative shows that in may respects, they are identical.

And the Gilgamesh legend was developed by a Sumarian people which are Semites also.