The Documentary Hypothesis is Not Settled in Stone 

Do you think a theory that has any gaps or uncertainties in it should be thrown out entirely? Because I've got bad news for you about the Bible and the "supernatural worldview."

@@yohei72 Depends on the theory and what it purports to explain. Not every theory has to be fully alive or fully dead. In this respect, I subscribe to the partial zombie theory worldview.

Heiser's stance on JDEP is incredibly sloppy in and of itself.

It's actually not sloppy. Read the scholarly books for yourself instead of just being spoon fed what apologists say

@@Christian_Maoist. Dude, I'm getting a MA in Theological Studies. I've actually read the source material. You are being spoon fed by the literal Christian apologist.

​@@darkknightsdsOh you're getting a MA in Theological Studies? Well if you're a modernist then enjoy your deconstructing the Bible and if you're a fundamentalist, enjoy your blindly upholding doctrines of men. Mr Knight, A BA or MA or PhD means nothing if it is in textural criticism or modernism. I know men who have entered the ministry and only become more milktoast since arriving at their MA. Seminaries in the US were almost all founded and funded by John D Rockerfeller to teach his theology, not Bible Truth. Ignorance and arrogance dominate the seminaries where man denies biblical cosmology, biblical creation, the truth of 1st Enoch, ...etc. Textural criticism may have been one of the best tools Satan ever made. I urge you if the above statements describe you or your school, repent. If they do not, then consider this an affirmation if you will. Modernism is a disease, the Ancients were wiser than we.

Lol ok buddy@@your_name_here2158

Rev 2.9, 3.9, 11.8, Isaiah 1.10 comes to mind.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 teaches that the people broke their COVENANT with YAHWEH. This means they have NO claim to the land. Anyone who supports the state of Israel is in Bible terms a FALSE WORSHIPER!!! They are complete devil worshiping scammers!!!

It's not being overriden by skepticism. Why don't you actually read a book on JEPD like by Richard Elliott Friedman? The DH is widely accepted because there are multiple patterns of evidence that all fit nicely in place. Stop getting all your information from apologetics

Exactly

Can you link any information about this?

@@Christian_Maoist. You will have to do a search, as YT will delete the links thetorah Differing Conceptions of the Divine Creator Documentary Hypothesis: The Revelation of YHWH’s Name Continues to Enlighten A Textual Study of Noah’s Flood

thetorah is a website

In other words, any serious scholar. Once your answer is "it's magic/the supernatural," literally anything can be true. You could "prove" Abraham Lincoln never lived by claiming any accounts of him and any supposed photographs were created afterwards by a demon and give the theory a pseudo-academic name like "plenary demoniac fabrication." Also if every word was written and/or approved by God, why are there so many internal contradictions and direct contradictions of the historical evidence for what actually happened? If God is just a liar, why worship him?

@@yohei72 "Also if every word was written and/or approved by God," lol really dude ?

@@satriabatapink You'll need to be clearer and more specific if you want to get across an objection to my point (which I can't even see anymore for some reason - the RU-vid comments section moves in mysterious ways). Anyway, yes, that's my understanding of what "verbal plenary inspiration" means.

@@yohei72 "verbal plenary inspiration" same as "every word was written and/or approved by God" ? can u explain to me u mean by that ? or any source ?

Interesting view, where did you find this?

@@Christian_Maoist. About Moses possibly using various scribes? The channel Inspiring Philosophy has some good material about the documentary hypothesis.. that the way the Torah was written was just how people wrote in the old days (seemingly by multiple sources), not just Jewish authors, giving a multitude of examples. But if you’re a Christian you should have no reason to doubt the validity of ancient Jewish scripture if God Himself didn’t say anything about it. At the end of the day, who do you trust to tell you the truth?

Out of any human being that ever lived you're going to trust someone about whom we know almost nothing, and for whom we have no way of knowing what they really said?

@@AlexanderThePilgrim "God Himself didn’t say anything about it. At the end of the day, who do you trust to tell you the truth?" Your argument is circular. The documentary hypothesis holds that these scriptures can't be the literal and infallible word of an omnipotent God, for various reasons. Your response is essentially, "But this is the word of God and it doesn't say anything about that," or boiled down a little more, "This book is true because it says it is."

Impressive that one person could figure out all these things, AND forget to specify any of his theories, AND forget to provide any argument or evidence for them.

@@yohei72 Agreed. Those are the limitations of the spoken word - even the scriptures. Love has no limits, save refusal to hand it out freely. Musanté 2024

@@ChrisMusante Hard to tell if you're being ironic. In any case, we are not in agreement.

@@yohei72 - that's fine, expected, your choice, accepted. Paul speaks of these times - minds 'sealed' and having a form of godliness with 'no power'. Everything as planned, right down to the doctrine of demons and such. Paul saw it 'coming'.

​@@ChrisMusante Same old same old. No evidence or reason to back your claims, just vaguely phrased declarations that it's all about magical intervention in human cognition.

He is talking about the proposed writers or schools of writers who preserved the scriptures. J would be the Yawhist, E the Elohist, P the Priestly writer and D the Dueteronomist.

Same here 🤷🏼‍♀️

Yes! There's no issue with being a Christian and understanding that JEDP is accepted not just by skeptical scholars but most serious Christian theologians as well.

I too have benefitted greatly from DRMSH but he unfortunately stuck to American evangelical talking points far too often on anything that wasn't directly his specialty.

Difficult to accept or reject such claims if you're unable to read the texts and recognize crucial elements. Seems like 98% of people with an opinion on the issue don't know א from ב

Why there is no issue with being a Christian and accepting JEDP? I’m curious as a Christian to know that approach.

Hey, I’ve seen you in David Faulks live streams, also I’m interested in how you think the DH and Christianity are compatible. Really interested in seeing how that works out, as I personally don’t see how it could.

The only place to get a new body is the gym. You can get old bodies at the cemetery, if you're handy with a shovel.

Michael Jones made a thorough video series on it called "Challenging the Documentary Hypothesis" ru-vid.com/group/PL1mr9ZTZb3TW1wqlr40iQb0x4GzzbFott&si=0W41IIcVVY1CRrxF

Perhaps the reason why Mike rejects JEDP is because it pretty much makes Moses contribution to the Pentateuch irrelevant. For if your sources for JEDP are centuries after Moses even lived, why do you even need an historical Moses? To the contrary, the Supplementary approach acknowledges a Mosaic core while also accepting later editing, even into the time of the early post-exilic period.

Have you ever sat down and read Exodus in one sitting? Because if you have, you would recognize that it doesn't really matter if the story is historical or not, because the theological message contained in it is so profound. It's a story about how to make it possible for God to come live with you. Just think about that, it's amazing! That is the primary message. Worrying about if you can apply the modern definition of historicity to a literary work from 3,000 years ago is not the point. If you are reading it like it's a history textbook then you miss the entire point.@@clarkemorledge2398

@@clarkemorledge2398 The supplementary hypothesis doesn't have a mosaic core. Mike's version of the supplementary hypothesis has a mosaic core. The original version of the hypothesis by Van Seter was that Deuteronomy came first around Josiah and J and E were written later as supplemental material. Also you don't have to reject Moses historicity to believe in JEDP. Richard Elliott Friedman is a big advocate of JEDP, wrote some of the most important books on it and believes in a historical Moses and takes the view of the Levite Exodus

To be fair the video is 6 minutes long

Agree, it’s like some scholars would rather sit around and discuss and argue theories of biblical origins than actually teach the Gospel. I really don’t care who wrote it or when. What we do with what’s written is what matters. We don’t have original copies of any of the books of the Bible so why theorize about who wrote it? It’s a waste of time and should be relegated to a hobby.

@@bobthomas1536 Do you think all history and literary studies are pointless and should be relegated to a hobby, or just the bits that may pose difficulties for your religious beliefs?

@@yohei72 I guess I should have given more context, Mike Heiser is the kind of scholar I love. He transposes the Bible down a few octaves, plays it in a simpler key where most can not only learn but participate. It’s easy to play along but it’s still meat and Gospel. The scholars I’m referring to are the Jesus Seminar.( I think there are no longer together) They spend all their study on trying to prove the Bible wrong. You find their type everywhere. Heiser broke through the garbage and presented the Bible in its basic form and crafted a narrative that is not only true but beautiful. He likes the academic jargon but he also likes the story of the Bible. He is / was a great teacher.

@@bobthomas1536 That doesn't particularly respond to my question, although it does give a strong indication that the answer is "B." I don't know much about the Jesus Seminar in particular, but from context, I think I know what kind of scholars you mean - ones like Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Joel Baden, etc., who take an historical-critical approach to the Bible. These people aren't "trying to prove the Bible wrong." They're analyzing it with the same tools and methods they would any other document or work of literature to understand as much as they can about the context, the people who wrote it, etc. Just like other specialists do with the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the memoirs of Ulysses Grant, to give just a few examples. If, in the course of this work, they discover that a large part of the Bible cannot be taken as literal history, that's the way the cookie crumbles. If the Bible is reliable, it should be able to withstand that scrutiny. And while I'm not religious myself, I don't see why a person's faith would particularly have to stand or fall on the absolute literal reliability of one book. I get plenty of meaning and even a kind of truth out of various works of literature without having to think they're "true stories."

It's unfortunate that religious devotion so often fosters this kind of insecure anti-intellectualism and incuriosity. The scholars you're talking about are trying to understand the people and cultures of a long ago era with as much detail as they can. This can enlarge our imaginations, deepen our understanding of our fellow human beings, and strengthen our mental muscles. It's one of the most noble pursuits of the human mind. Yet your sneer at it with contempt, apparently because it challenges your settled understanding. You're missing out on a lot. On a more basic level, I'll point out that we have only a tiny portion of whatever letters Paul likely wrote, so who knows whether or not he had anything to say about a particular topic? In any case, "Paul didn't mention it, so it's unimportant" is a rather sad position for an educated adult to take.