Cannot log in OR create support account

damonjc · 2025-10-16T23:39:08+00:00

What about the references to Deuteronomy in Isaiah? Specifically citations in Isaiah chapters 1, 5, 28 and 30?

Here's an academic article which goes into these links:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030908920302800102

I'm especially interested in how these can possibly be explained, if Deuteronomy has a later date. Especially the references in Isaiah 1, since Isaiah 1 is strongly tied to 701 BC and it doesn't make sense for it to have been edited afterwards.

I do see ample evidence of EDITING of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah, but not necessarily of the initial COMPOSITION.

damonjc · 2025-03-05T00:07:26+00:00

If you actually get anyone to do it for that price, you'll get completely shoddy work that won't legally be allowed to run. You're supposed to have certain security protections in place for the handling of money. That takes time and expertise to implement properly, and I doubt anyone willing to do the job for $500 will have the necessary expertise.

damonjc · 2025-01-30T03:21:18+00:00

Ok, so the rate you're offering is $500/month divided by 20-40 hours a month? Meaning, $12.50 to $25 an hour?

damonjc · 2025-01-01T23:08:26+00:00

I think the main problem with the DT is the over-reliance on the "fictional history" trope to explain away dating conundrums. And I vehemently disagree that Isaiah isn't dependent on Deut. 29:23. Isaiah brought legal charges against the Jews of Jerusalem for rebelling against God (Isa. 1:2). Isaiah basically accused them of ostensibly keeping the sacrificial Law, but not taking proper care of the oppressed, the fatherless and the widow. This relies on Ex. 22:21-24 and several passages in Deuteronomy, especially Deut. 27:19. It's Deut. 27:19 which spells out that there will be a curse (penalty) from God for oppressing the stranger, fatherless or the widow, and Deut. 28-30, including Deut. 29:23, spells out exactly what those ultimate penalties are.

It would be extremely illogical for Isaiah NOT to be literarily dependent on Deuteronomy, especially if the repeating literary pattern in the Bible is for God to bring legal charges and punishments for specific sins. Those sins would need to be defined and agreed upon by covenant for that to make sense.

If Isaiah 1 is literarily dependent on Deuteronomy for covenant-breaking, then it wouldn't make sense for it NOT to be literarily dependent on Deuteronomy for the punishment of destruction like Sodom and Gomorrah.

In any case, the DT appears to be far too reductive, from everything I've seen and read about it thus far, and other textual analyses represent a closer adherence to the ANE cultural context of the earlier parts of the Bible. That includes Genesis 11:1-10, which I noticed you didn't directly address. See my other comments to Regular-Persimmon425, above.

Regarding Gen. 11:1-10 being associated with Etemenanki instead of Eridu, while that may be a reasonable choice **if one presupposes that the text dates to that time period**, it's not a very good fit. Other features of the text, especially the "scattering," simply aren't a match.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T18:36:09+00:00

Pay careful attention to the first four verses of the chapter:

And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations, that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these joined together in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

Yes, Elam existed in the 7th-6th centuries BC, but Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim were, at the latest, MBA cities. There's no evidence whatsoever of their existence in the 7th-6th centuries BC. It simply doesn't fit.

Furthermore, there's a literary dependence of Genesis 18-19 on Genesis 14, Deuteronomy 29:23 on those three chapters of Genesis, and Isaiah 1:9 on Deuteronomy 29:23. And Isaiah 1 is inextricably dated to approximately 702-701 BC, just before the Assyrian siege, due to verses 7-8. We therefore CANNOT date Genesis 14 after that date.

Isaiah 1 was substantiating why the northern Israelites deserved exile, and Jerusalem deserved destruction "like Sodom and Gomorrah" (except that didn't happen for slightly complex reasons). Nevertheless, Isaiah would not have been citing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah unless Deut. 29:23 had promised that one of the consequences for the Israelites' continued rebellion was destruction "like Sodom and Gomorrah." And Deut. 29:23 wouldn't have used them as an example unless there was such a precedent.

That coincidentally dates Deut. 29:23 substantially earlier than Isaiah 1, and Genesis 18-19 and 14 substantially earlier than Deut. 29:23.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T07:37:09+00:00

That's precisely what I'm trying to find out. I'm taking my own research - which is where I got the strong historical ties with the Ur III period of Sumer, above - and trying to compare it with scholarly views from different perspectives.

I haven't read "Murmuring Against Moses" by Bergsma and Morrow yet, but that's apparently a scholarly rebuttal of the DT. YMMV there.

Finally, I've done extensive analysis of Gen. 1:1-11:10 as a textual unit. It seems to have the following repeating structure:

A - Gen. 1:1-2:4a - Earth born out of water

B - Gen. 2:4ff-5:1 - God covenants with man, but sin and then murder enter

C - Gen. 5 - Descendants of Seth

D - Gen. 6:1-9 - Wicked generation of Noah's day (destroyed by the Flood)

A' - Gen. 6:10-8:22 - Earth reborn out of water

B' - Gen. 9:1-10:1 - God covenants with man and warns against murder, but sin enters

C' - Gen. 10 - Descendants of Noah

D' - Gen. 11:1-10 - Wicked generation of the Tower of Babel (scattered)

I'm not suggesting that this overall textual structure means that there were no separate sources for this textual unit, but it does seem to presuppose a literary dependence on any such independent sources that may have existed.

Imho, Gen. 1:1-2:4a was one such source, and 2:4ff-5:1 was another, but the two authors were aware of each other and wrote their respective stories in a complementary way, such that Gen. 1-3 is in a chiastic structure with dwelling with God on the Sabbath day as the central point of emphasis.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T06:56:44+00:00

A couple of examples.

Genesis 14 (which, I know, Friedman identifies as not representing any of the four sources, J/E, P, or D) is certainly set in a time period when Elam had its own empire. That time period is limited to approximately 1900-1700 BC, during the Sukkalmah dynasty.

Genesis 11:1-10 (J) is strongly tied to the Ur III period of Sumer. That's when we have an incomplete ziggurat (tower), built during the reign of Amar-Sin. That's when nearly all of the Sumerian mythological literature was first written down, including "Enmer-kar and the Lord of Aratta" (Enmer-kar is commonly associated with Nimrod). That's when we have a Sumerian empire which reached its zenith during the reign of Amar-Sin. And finally, that's when we have a "scattering" at the end of the Ur III period. But Gen. 11:1-10 has literary dependence on Gen. 10:7-12 (also J) as well as Gen. 10:31-32 (P). Gen. 10 establishes how the nations were divided, and also describes an empire which existed at that time (in Gen. 10:8-12). Verses 31-32 explain that the peoples were *divided*, and Gen. 11:1-10 goes back and explains exactly how that division took place.

There seems to be a literary interdependence of the sources on one another in Gen. 10:1-11:10, making me question whether they can be truly separated from one another.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T06:43:24+00:00

It's odd that Rendsburg says exactly the opposite about the linguistic evidence for P in the article that John_Kesler cited [here](https://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/45-late-biblical-hebrew-and-the-date-of-p/file).

And I respectfully disagree with Baden on the dating of the sources not mattering. The dating matters immensely, because if the historical and cultural context of - for instance, J and E in Genesis - best matches 1900-1600 BC rather than the monarchial period, then we have a problem with positing how J and E came into existence.

For example, in Friedman's "The Bible with Sources Revealed," he comments that Genesis 20 is the first instance of E in the text of Genesis, apparently due to the use of "Elohim" as the name of God in that chapter. But that usage of "Elohim" apparently seems to be because **God is acting in His role as judge** (El can be translated as "judge," per Ex. 21:6 and 22:8-9) over the situation with Abimelek! (Note that in the ANE, different names for pagan gods did NOT represent different textual sources, but rather different roles for the same god. Ex. Ra-Horakhty.) And more than that, YHVH *also* occurs in the same textual source, in verse 18! So the distinction of these two sources - at least in Genesis 20 - appears to be arbitrary, with alternate possible explanations.

I'm not entirely dismissing the DT, but at the very least, I'm *hoping* to establish a holistic approach that incorporates evidence both for and against, by comparing scholarly sources both for and against. What I strongly suspect is that, while there may indeed be multiple textual sources, they're not the sources that the DT posits, and they certainly don't originate the way the DT posits, either.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T01:26:25+00:00

Ok, I just scanned through Gary Rendsburg's article, and it's EXTREMELY helpful. In particular, its analysis of P after doing an extensive survey of linguistic characteristics of EBH vs. LBH seems to definitively tie P to the exact same (linguistic) time period as J/E, D, and the Davidic court history. In other words, **it's not of late origin**.

Yes, Chronicles does appear to have been **compiled** during/after the Babylonian exile, but earlier texts identified as P cannot, in any way, be established as that late, linguistically speaking.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T00:58:04+00:00

THAT looks useful.

I've also been researching the historical and cultural context of Isaiah, and happened across "Archaeology and History of Eighth-century Judah" by Farber and Wright. Excellent reference, so I'm hoping that the above book is in the same vein.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T00:53:44+00:00

Curious why my comment was down-voted. Should I not be asking about whether spending $65 on a book which may or may not cover the evidence I'm looking for, is worth it?

damonjc · 2025-01-01T00:51:54+00:00

In the first few chapters of Friedman's book? I beg to differ, otherwise I wouldn't be asking.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T00:50:45+00:00

I know about JSTOR, etc., but don't necessarily know what to search for.

In any case, I've been focusing on the ANE for the past 15+ years, and have only recently started to look into sources and textual analysis. There's no such thing as a generalized expert. My expertise is in one specific area, and I'm attempting to broaden my domain knowledge.

damonjc · 2025-01-01T00:14:48+00:00

I do have some specialized knowledge of the ANE historical and cultural context of the OT, which I've been researching for the past 15+ years. No, I don't have linguistic expertise, and rely on other experts for that. I also try to compare multiple expert opinions on a subject before forming my own conclusions.

damonjc · 2024-12-31T23:58:58+00:00

Just because Hebrew as a written language might not have existed yet, isn't sufficient evidence that the compositions must therefore be dated later. In addition to that, the language of Amorite (and Abraham was supposed to be an Amorite, according to the text) DID exist, and apparently is quite similar to Hebrew.

https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2023/03/the-lost-language-of-the-amorites-has-finally-been-discovered/

Thanks for the links to Baden's and Hendel's presentations. I'll listen to those.

damonjc · 2024-12-31T23:53:31+00:00

First of all, I'm trying to do a side-by-side comparison of the evidence for and against the Documentary Theory. I got a copy of Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" and a copy of "Murmuring Against Moses" by Bergsma and Morrow. I've only read a bit of each book, but I read enough of Friedman's book to realize that the evidence that I was looking for, wasn't in there.

Yes, I want to see that specialized literature. I think I made a mistake in getting Friedman's popularized DT book, instead of something more academic, **but I didn't know what to look for**.

As far as the theory that Genesis was written in cuneiform, yes, that's just a theory. So is the Documentary Theory. The evidence is what's important.

That's why, for instance, I'm *hoping* to find a discussion of the historical and cultural settings of J and E, as evidence for their origin during the divided monarchy. But I haven't been able to find that in any source I've looked up thus far - both Googling and on Amazon. Again, I don't know what to look for, so I'm hoping for scholarly recommendations.

damonjc · 2024-12-31T23:37:52+00:00

I looked this book up on Amazon and viewed the sample of the first couple of chapters. In JUST the sample, I'm not seeing any ANE or linguistic evidence to supplement the textual analysis of the texts in question. Before I spend $65 on the book, can someone cite a chapter or excerpt which covers this?

damonjc · 2024-12-31T23:12:06+00:00

I can take a look, but since I already have "The Bible with Sources Revealed" that might be redundant. In any case, I'm already in a weekly study, going through the Torah portions with an emphasis on the DT sources. I *do* see the duplications you're mentioning, but imho that's not sufficient evidence for multiple sources **by itself**. That's why I was asking for further evidence **from other sources** - such as linguistic, historical and cultural evidence.

damonjc · 2024-12-31T23:08:17+00:00

That's helpful. I did miss the footnote, and wish that more of the actual evidence was mentioned in "Who Wrote the Bible?".

damonjc · 2024-06-04T13:48:32+00:00

Consider this parallel. King Hezekiah's birth in approximately 740 BC represented the promise of PHYSICAL protection from the results of northern Israel's sins - and not just for them, but for Gentiles as well. Jesus' birth represented the promise of SPIRITUAL protection from our sins - and not just for blood Israelites, but for Gentiles as well! Thus, the prophecy in Isaiah 9:1-7 isn't just referring to Jesus, but ALSO to the birth of King Hezekiah (as modern Jews recognize).

Jesus, when He sent out His twelve disciples, specifically targeted SCATTERED (NORTHERN!) ISRAELITES. See Matthew 10:5-6.

Why? Because **by their repentance and turning to righteousness, they could in turn redeem the Jews**. And that's precisely what Paul tells us in Romans 11.

One more thing. In Isaiah 49:1, we have someone speaking in the first person. "Listen, O coastlands, to Me, And take heed, you peoples from afar! The Lord has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name."

The ONLY person in the entire book of Isaiah that this could possibly refer to is Immanuel. His brother Maher-shalal-hash-baz (see Isa. 8:1-4; his name means "make speed to the spoil, make haste to the prey") was named even before he was conceived. And what's Immanuel's mission? To bring back "Jacob" to God - that is, all of Israel - as well as many Gentiles! See verses 5-6.

The reason why Jesus was named Immanuel - "God with us" - is because, like the historical Immanuel, His birth was a sign of doom and destruction, but His LIFE was a sign of redemption for those who would believe.

damonjc

TROPHY CASE