Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
LOL, what a spectacular non-sequitur! Whether you just don't understand your own sources or spin on purpose, this was on par with the work of creationists:
  1. You cite the very two 17th-century scholars who started the text analysis that led to the Documentary Hypothesis (which I quoted from Wikipedia).
  2. You quote Chouraqui regarding a passage in Genesis, whereas the discussion was about passages written by the Deuteronomist.
  3. You apply a sentence about a single chapter of Genesis, plagiarised by a late Bible author, to the entirety of the Old Testament...
  4. You present Chouraqui as an analyst of the origin of the OT, whereas in truth he is a translator who only summarized the research of others in a preface, and even indicated that while he acknowledges the fragmentary origin of the text, he concerns himself with the text itself...

Entête
   C'est alors que Baruch Spinoza et Richard Simon ouvrent la voie à un courant de pensée qui aboutira à la théorie documentaire, adoptée aujourd'hui par la quasi-unanimité des exégètes: le Pentateuque n'est pas l'oeuvre d'un seul homme, Moshè; c'est une collection d'écrits rédigés, au cours des siècles, par de nombreux écrivains. Les exégètes fondent leurs conclusions sur des anachronismes, sur l'alternance dans le texte de noms différents pour désigner Dieu, sur la diversité du vocabulaire, du style, et même de l'inspiration. Auprès d'un premier document dit yahwiste (J), il existerait une source élohiste (E), un document sacerdotal (P), et enfin une tradition deutéronomiste (D), tout entière contenue dans le dernier livre du Pentateuque.
     Si le morcellement de l'ouvrage semble indéniable quant à son origine, le texte, cependant, résiste à ce traitement de la critique. Il garde une incontestable unité et ne cesse de s'imposer à nous, tant par son contenu que par son style et sa composition.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<BLOCLQUOTE>2.You quote Chouraqui regarding a passage in Genesis, whereas the discussion was about passages written by the Deuteronomist.</BLOCLQUOTE>

I stand corrected.

<BLOCLQUOTE>3.You apply a sentence about a single chapter of Genesis, plagiarised by a late Bible author, to the entirety of the Old Testament...<BLOCLQUOTE>

LOL. No, I don't.

<BLOCLQUOTE>4.You present Chouraqui as an analyst of the origin of the OT, whereas in truth he is a translator who only summarized the research of others in a preface, and even indicated that while he acknowledges the fragmentary origin of the text, he concerns himself with the text itself...<BLOCLQUOTE>

LOL. I quote Chouraqui as opposed to Wikipedia. If you read the book Entête, you must have also read the "commentary" which relates to the language and substance of the text. Chouraqui goes way into the domain of interpreting.

by Lynch on Sat Sep 11th, 2010 at 12:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL. No, I don't.

LOL, everyone can see for themselves.

I quote Chouraqui as opposed to Wikipedia.

And dig your own grave doing so. Wikipedia summarizes research on the matter at hand with references, Chouraqui's unreferenced preface from over 60 years ago is not a summary of any research of his own and is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Chouraqui goes way into the domain of interpreting.

Which is irrelevant to the subject of the age of the text, but thanks for playing. It is now completely clear that you are out of your depth on all the subjects touched (the Koran, Egypt, Turkey, the Bible, etc.), and regularly confuse matters (Wahhabis and Iran, Turks and Muslims, Genesis and Deuteronomy and so on) but just can't admit it and learn.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Sep 11th, 2010 at 01:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, research moved on since Chouraqui's time, and even the plagiarised old Accadian text version was challenged:

Abraham in History and Tradition - Wikipedia

Abraham in History and Tradition (Yale University Press, ISBN 0300040407, 1975) is a book by biblical scholar John Van Seters.

The book was a landmark in Near Eastern Studies and Biblical archaeology, since it challenged the dominant view, popularised by William Foxwell Albright, that the patriarchal narratives of Genesis can be identified on archaeological grounds with the Mesopotamian world of 2nd millennium BC. Van Seters noted that many of Albright's parallels were vague, and fit other regions than Mesopotamia and other times than 2nd millennium. Specially devastating was his analysis of Genesis 14, where he pointed out that the political situation described in Genesis 14 - a Near East dominated by a coalition led by Elam and including Hatti, Assyria and Babylonia - is not confirmed by any monuments, king lists, or other historical and archaeological sources. Van Seters also pointed out that the ten kings mentioned in Genesis 14 cannot be found in any ancient documents outside the Bible.

The book was also a criticism of the school of Tradition history advanced most notably by Hermann Gunkel and Martin Noth: Van Seters "argues that Noth's (1948) idea of a "pentateuchal oral tradition" is flawed both historically (with respect to the history of Israel) and analogically (given Noth's comparisons with the development of Icelandic saga) [and] contends that traces of folkloric structure do not make it inevitable 'that the tradition as a whole, or even [certain] parts of it, derive from a pre-literate period'". [1] Van Seters instead proposed that Genesis was an essentially literary work, but one based on a process of supplementation by successive authors rather on a redactorial process (i.e., on the combination of separate documents by an editor or editors). This in turn amounted to a major challenge to the Documentary Hypothesis, the dominant theory concerning the origins of the Pentateuch.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Sep 11th, 2010 at 01:32:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now isn't this a much more appropriate (and civilised) way to engage in dialogue? Thank you for this pointer. You are clearly initiated in biblical studies... and as you know, one can spend an entire lifetime studying only Genesis... so there's no need to be arrogant with people who know less than you on a given subject.
by Lynch on Sat Sep 11th, 2010 at 01:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series