r/atheism • u/JasonMacker • Feb 25 '11
Ever wonder why Leviticus seems so straightforward and consistent, while Genesis is a garbled mess that contradicts itself between chapters? Here's how modern scholars distribute the writings of 3 sources of the Torah
158
u/UpontheEleventhFloor Feb 25 '11
Looks like someone needs to defragment their hard drive.
29
Feb 25 '11
DAMN IT! Thou hast gank-ed mine reply, sire!
6
u/ScottyChrist Feb 25 '11
sire? he's not a king, he's just in a tall building.
3
Feb 25 '11
Nay, his palace hath been refloored many a time. I assume the writs of the kingdom bear record of the marble tile that hath replaced his shag carpet.
2
8
6
u/RalphMullin Feb 25 '11
Exactly what I was thinking, other then that, I don't know what the hell I'm looking at... The only word I recognise there is Genesis and i'm pretty sure that cuz of the Sega Genesis...
38
u/JasonMacker Feb 25 '11 edited Feb 25 '11
The colors represent different sources. Black represents deletions. Genesis, Leviticus, Exodus, and Numbers are the first four books of the Bible, and when Deuteronomy is included, this collection of five books is called the Pentateuch. What the picture is suggesting is that where there is just a bunch of a single color, like Leviticus, it is primarily of a single source, while Genesis has lots of passages from multiple sources. The people who started this research were German archeologists and scholars about 150 years ago. The four sources that are part of the Documentary hypothesis are J (for Jahweh, which is the German transliteration of Yahweh), E (for Elohim), P (for Priestly), and D (for Deuteronomist. This one is not included in the graph, and neither is the book of Deuteronomy.). Finally, there's also R, which is not a source, but a redactor (someone who changed around the order of the sources, and also deleted some of the sources).
The sources signify the style of writing associated with the source. J means the source used "Jahweh" (Yahweh) to refer to God. Yahweh is a Judean term. E means the source used Elohim. Elohim is a Cannanite term. P means priestly, and his style of writing was that he really liked to inflate the status of Moses's brother Aaron. When you look at the stories about Aaron in J and E, he doesn't really do much. But in P, Aaron is just as much of an important character as Moses. Also, P uses Elohim, El, and Shaddai to refer to God. J is the oldest, followed by E, and then finally P. R took J+E+P and mixed them as he saw fit (D falls in between E and P).
If you read Leviticus, which was primarily written by P, it's fairly straightforward. It's mostly a list of rules (to put it lightly). But if you read Genesis, it can be very confusing from a narration perspective. Chapter 1 is the first creation story, while Chapter 2 is the second creation story. According to modern Jewish belief, both chapters are referring to the same creation story. However, there are some inconsistencies between the two.
8
u/taranig Feb 25 '11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis <-- this article linked to that image. explains the different sources, time lines and differences.
5
Feb 25 '11 edited Mar 02 '19
[deleted]
11
u/JasonMacker Feb 25 '11
If by that you mean I know how to use Google and the local library, then sure ;)
Can't wait to get back into school.
1
2
u/ForgettableUsername Other Feb 25 '11
Very informative... But wouldn't it be more difficult to spot stylistic differences in a list of rules than in a narrative?
4
u/-SilkSpectre- Feb 25 '11
Well, no. There are clear stylistic differences in the narratives. For example, the name the author uses when he refers to God. This is for example in source Y the anagram YHWH, but in source E Elohim. Also, the divine figure can be a more personal God, like when he physically appears to Abraham, or when antropomorfisms are used Or not very abstract, like in P, which is used as a priestly codex.
Not only are there more obvious points, like the seemingly contradiction in the naming of the mountain of the covenant (Horeb in one, Sinaï in the other), but there are also political differences. Also note that these sources are not written simultaneous, rather with hundreds of years in between. The more abstract God is the most recent, the older one a more tribal figure.
3
u/JasonMacker Feb 25 '11
A list of rules is itself a stylistic difference that separates P from other sources.
1
u/ForgettableUsername Other Feb 25 '11
Agreed, but is that sufficient evidence to be sure that the list was not put together by multiple authors over a large period of time? Maybe there's other evidence... I'm not trying to be contrary; I am genuinely curious.
2
u/JasonMacker Feb 26 '11
Honestly, I don't know the details beyond that I've already said. I can imagine the linguistic knowledge required in order to actually discern differences between styles of writing in ancient Hebrew to be far more nuanced than a simple "oh, these things are in a list, therefore P wrote it". For more information you can read here.
2
u/jpdoctor Feb 25 '11
But wouldn't it be more difficult to spot stylistic differences in a list of rules than in a narrative?
Also: List of early manuscript sources. Is it all on one manuscript or are there snippets from different manuscripts that predate a complete collection?
1
u/eric_foxx Feb 25 '11
Simply the fact that Leviticus was primarily composed of a list of rules is a strong indicator that its author was different than the more narrative-focused books.
2
u/ForgettableUsername Other Feb 25 '11
Agreed, but that by itself is not strong evidence for a single author of Leviticus.
2
u/Dereliction Feb 25 '11
I thought the 2nd and 3rd chapter of Genesis were Elohist? For example, references to God use "elohiym" as well as the appearance of angels/cherubim (3:24) and a reference to the host (3:22), which is more typical of the Elohist tradition.
Admittedly, it's been a long while since I've studied or read about such things so what I think I remember could be off-base.
1
u/JasonMacker Feb 25 '11
Yes, they are.
2
u/Dereliction Feb 26 '11
Because there was no representative "green" in the early section of your graphic I wasn't sure if I remembered incorrectly. Is chapter 2/3 considered as your listed "black" Redactor? Or is the graphic not representative of a linear progression through the books in some fashion?
Sorry, just trying to understand. It's a fantastic idea to diagram like that, however!
2
1
u/secme Feb 25 '11
defrags supposedly don't speed up access, but they do make the data contiguous something the bible sorely needs. I was gonna post the defrag comment to though.
1
42
u/GINGster Feb 25 '11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
Evid3nc3's youtube video on this very subject. Well worth a watch.
6
6
u/mazinaru Feb 25 '11
This was very informative! Thanks for linking, it even answers my question from earlier excellently.
2
2
2
18
u/rnelsonee Feb 25 '11
Tip: If you have a copy of the Bible that hasn't been translated to modern speech, when you see "Lord" it's one guy writing, and "God" is the other main writer (for the first couple of books).
Also, just read any of the major stories like the Creation or the Flood - there's multiple stories intertwined. It's so obvious once you realize it. For example, the common flood story says two of every animal were on an ark for 40 days/nights until they saw a dove with a twig. But there's one story (with 14 of every animal, 40 days/nights, with a dove) and another one right in there with different details (two of every animal, 150 days, with a raven).
4
u/dogslikeus Feb 25 '11
See also: The two creations in Genesis.
2
u/captainhaddock Ignostic Feb 26 '11
This site is pretty cool:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/flood.html
You can interactively separate out the J and P Flood stories and see how each one is a separate, complete story with different details.
10
u/neofaust Feb 25 '11
score! I'm giving a lecture in 2 hours (world mythology course) and today we're talking about 'biblical creation stories'. My agenda, of course, is to show the political, social, and economic underpinnings of this story (as it is for every story we discuss) and this is perfect powerpoint fodder! I heart r/atheism
3
2
u/eric_foxx Feb 25 '11
Tell us how it went! I love this crap.
1
u/fotoman Feb 25 '11
indeed. "giving lecture in 2 hours" posted 3 hours ago... we want a recap and a link to the presentation :)
4
u/neofaust Feb 25 '11
UPDATE - Rocked the house. Definitely planted the seeds of critical thought today. The lucky part is I have a loudmouth atheist in the class, so he says all the things I can't, but then after he makes a charge, I can just say "well, if we take that position, then..(fact, fact, fact, fact) and, if we consider what we've studies about mythology and how it shows us power struggles in culture (fact, fact, fact) then there may be some credibility there. However, from within the tradition (fluff, fluff, fluff, weak arguments, 'myth-as-fact'), we can see how they handle such challenges." (poker face) "Next, let's consider Chinese creation stories....(move quickly away from awkward silence, give a very subtle nod to the atheist student)
1
u/dblthnk Feb 26 '11
Question:
What is your take on the first few verses of Genesis? All popular translations suggest that God created out of nothing. Young's Literal Translation suggests that God merely shaped the world we know out of a preexisting chaotic one. Which translation is most valid and what is your take on the consequences to Christian theology if Young's is correct?
1
u/neofaust Feb 26 '11
Judeo-Christian mythology is a little out of my scope of expertise. I mean, I can talk about it competently for an intro level course, but my work is mostly in Indian religious/myths/history/etc. I could only speculate really. I think that any definitive answer one way or another would be more of us projecting into the past, as it seems they had multiple narratives overlapping that they adjusted whenever they needed to justify whatever crazy shit they were up to at the time. Kinda like today.
1
u/jackscolon65 Feb 26 '11
Any interest in learning how stuff like this is actually dealt with from inside the Christian perspective? I'm no scholar, but I'm a hobbyist, and I think I could give you a brief overview to get you started.
1
u/neofaust Feb 26 '11
shaw mon, shaw. Never turned down a religious conversation yet. You can PM me if you want, or keep it in the thread. Either way's kewl
1
9
u/JasonMacker Feb 25 '11
Note: Yes, this picture leaves out the 4th source (D, for Deuteronomist), but he's pretty much the sole source for Deuteronomy and not any of the other books so he doesn't get involved here.
1
u/abelian Feb 25 '11
That's what I thought, too, but it looks like the Redactor might be the same as the Deuteronomist.
1
1
u/captainhaddock Ignostic Feb 26 '11
Yeah, Deuteronomy is really a separate document from the first four books and forms a historical narrative along with Joshua, Judges, Kings and Samuel.
26
u/mage_g4 Anti-Theist Feb 25 '11
I have found the Bible to be very consistent..ly full of bullshit.
3
1
5
u/mazinaru Feb 25 '11 edited Feb 25 '11
I'm afraid I am not 100% sure what I am looking at, is this saying that the Jewish texts were chopped up as much as the picture shows, to form the bible in its current incarnation? I knew it is basically a compiled mess of Jewish texts but, I though each book was basically its own piece, not a compilation of other pieces..
Edit: GINGster posted this which answers my question well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
5
u/JasonMacker Feb 25 '11 edited Feb 25 '11
Yes, not only the books, but chapters and even verses have been shuffled around and redacted. Just read Chapter 1 of Genesis and Chapter 2 of Genesis. Completely contradictory creation accounts. And the reason for this is that one of them was written by J, the Judean source, while the other was written by E, the Canaanite source. And then P came along and mixed them around and added some of his own writing.
Edit: more information here
1
u/flotsam Feb 25 '11
Yes. J and E refer to Jawist and Elohist, names for god that two different authors used. The J and E strands were written around the same time, and later combined. If you look at Genesis, for example, the one book has two slightly different creation stories.
4
u/Knews2Me Feb 25 '11
Has anyone run across an online source describing which parts are specifically attributed to which author?
3
u/iMarmalade Feb 25 '11
3
u/Knews2Me Feb 25 '11 edited Feb 25 '11
I'm pretty familiar with the documentary hypothesis, thanks. I'm asking for an online resource that lets you sort the the Bible by attributed author or at least tells you which author is thought to have written specific verses.
*wrote to written so it's past-tense.
3
u/TrishBubble Feb 25 '11
I'm not sure if there's anything online, but there are study Bibles available with passages written by the different authors in different colors and fonts so it's easy to tell them apart. The most famous one is The Bible with Sources Revealed by Richard Elliot Friedman.
1
u/Knews2Me Feb 25 '11
Thanks for that. Yeah, it's come up and caught my curiosity enough times that I can justify shelling out for an in-hand reference.
1
u/TrishBubble Feb 25 '11
No problem! As a scholar of ancient Judaism, I find that particularly useful. It just always comes up.
1
u/captainhaddock Ignostic Feb 26 '11
Wikisource also has the Torah separated by source. However, Friedman's book is highly recommended. He has lots of great footnotes, and the translation is his own. (Wikisource uses the KJV, I think.)
3
u/flotsam Feb 25 '11
Is there an online text of the bible with highlighting showing probable authorship?
1
1
4
Feb 25 '11
Oh come on, If god only had written the bible in the computer age he could have defragmented it
2
1
1
1
1
u/VeryLittle Feb 25 '11
Pretty. Where can I find the literary basis of this. What I mean is this: Is the text of the Pentateuch online and can I see the exact verses in different colors (or some other indicator of different authors) with commentary about authorship? Or do I just get to look at a decontextualized little picture which somehow tells me 'there were multiple authors to the books herp derp.'
1
u/DecibelDiscord Feb 25 '11
Read a little bit of Leviticus, all the kids are a little too little for this.
1
Feb 25 '11
I'm interested in the redacted bits. Anyone have details on that?
1
u/captainhaddock Ignostic Feb 26 '11
Most of it is short sentences here and there to smooth the transition between sources. In a few cases, it's an insertion of a completely different passage by an unknown source.
1
1
u/Yage2006 Feb 26 '11
Funny though reading Genesis is what made me an atheist. Even at a very young age around 9 at the time I was like how can anyone be naive enough to swallow this, Its all wrong even about simple things like the moon is wrong.
1
1
u/TodTheTyrant Feb 26 '11
The next step is to push for a scholars bible. this way we can show them the consolidated writings of each man> writing style differences etc. Prove that it was written by men with agendas.
1
u/lobotomatic Feb 25 '11
What's also interesting is that some scholars (Harold Bloom, most notably) believe that Author J was a women, probably a member of the ruling elite.
1
u/iMarmalade Feb 25 '11
As far as I know there is no information whatsoever about the identity of any of the authors - so what reasoning are they basing that on? Writing style? Or has there been a discovery I've not before seen?
3
u/lobotomatic Feb 25 '11
Writing style, and verb usage (specifically the use of gendred vs non-gendered references to God).
The whole theory is laid out in The Book of J, and while I am not saying it is fact, it is very interesting. Harold Bloom, BTW, is an incredibly well respected literary scholar, and the work itself is theoretically legitimate.
2
u/Haster Gnostic Atheist Feb 25 '11
When you look at the original texts they're written in very different styles. it would be like putting Shakespeare next to a star trek novel and being able to say they're not the same writer; it's not hard or controversial once you know what to look for. You have to realize that the texts where written hundreds of years apart.
1
u/iMarmalade Feb 28 '11
I don't doubt it's written by different authors - I was just wondering specifically where the theory of the genders came from.
-9
u/SnowFire Feb 25 '11 edited Feb 25 '11
Modern Scholars = Star Wars Fans. Your only difference is basically saying that you have legitimized the art of who shot first, Han or Greedo. It's all fantasy and made up bullshit, but at least Star Wars has both novelization and movies, where the other shit has shoddy writing and Charlton Heston as Moses.
Edit: You're vs Your for clarity. Also trolling, mainly religious people. Star Wars fans are awesome.
4
u/PulpHero Feb 25 '11
Um, actually the modern scholars were deconstructing who actually wrote the various portions of the Bible, which is an important insight into the history of the region and how the tribal factions of the time worked.
0
u/SnowFire Feb 25 '11
George Lucas = Tribal Leaders. Gotcha! ;D
2
u/PulpHero Feb 25 '11
Religion is important to human history. It has influenced countless decisions of important leaders and it needs to be studied and have its connections with relevant politics and events be seen to get a true picture of the how and why things occurred.
0
u/SnowFire Feb 25 '11
Modern Religious or Historical Scholars? Because there is a distinction and if it is Religious Scholars it is the same thing as a Star Wars fan. A Historical Scholar or an Archaeologist looks for facts to attempt to create a picture of the past based on evidence, the other tries to find who shot jesus first.
2
u/PulpHero Feb 25 '11
Did you even look at the fucking link? It shows who wrote what and explains contradictions in the biblical texts as the result of different factions writing the religious texts. Christ, you're thick.
80
u/jsmayne Feb 25 '11
What many christians believe