Interweaving historical and methodological chapters with detailed textual case studies, Baden provides a critical introduction to the history of Pentateuchal scholarship, discussions on the most pressing issues in the current debate, and a practical model for the study of the biblical text.
Joel S. He lives in New Haven, CT. Baden lays out the arguments of the theory in a clear manner, engaging in critical dialogue with alternate approaches while retaining the traditional source model in a refined manner.
A book for students and scholars who are interested in the ongoing debates surrounding the most important part of the Hebrew Bible. The tablet theory is considered a conservative alternative to the JEDP theory.
The tablet theory retains the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, although the tablet theory also sees Moses as a compiler of certain documents that he used as reference material. According to the tablet theory, the various tablets used by Moses are identified within Genesis by the words these are the generations of. Using this criterion, the following sections of Genesis become apparent: 1 The generations of heaven and earth Genesis In other words, it is found deficient, for one thing, by evidence; not inspiration at this point; not by a theological kind of dialog; but by the text itself.
Here are some questions. Five questions. These are not new. These have been on the deck for a while but no one has picked them up. I would think that they should have been picked up by now. Number one question: If Deuteronomy and the Law, like Judges , were written, as this documentary and liberal theory claims, during the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, why is the king not mentioned during the times of the kingdom?
It anticipates the time when Israel would have a king. I would have put myself as king in there a couple of times and made sure that my office was well protected. Deuteronomy 16 is meager pickings for being written that late. Jerusalem was taken by David in , so you would think that by the s and certainly by the s somebody would have remembered to put Jerusalem in the text as a good place to go to worship, right?
Especially since it was a point of tension between the north and the south. Put it in. Who bungled that one for being written so late?
They should have gotten that one. The third question that needs to be asked here: Why does the temple receive no consideration? Surely someone would have remembered. But instead, guess what was put? A mythical tabernacle which never existed, according to this theory.
The tabernacle is a myth. There never was a tabernacle. Remember when they went through the wilderness they put this thing up, constructed it?
That was a hypothesis. That was built off of the second temple, or some say the first temple. But they got the measurements wrong. They got the furniture wrong. They got the names wrong. These are poor writers, extremely poor.
It embarrasses the daylights out of them. And it needs to be let out. As a matter of fact, this mythical tabernacle is elaborated in great detail. Exodus 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, Would you believe, all the way to chapter 40? Well, Selah! And so it ought to be. A fourth question: Why all the emphasis in Leviticus on shedding of blood and sacrifice, especially since they were in exile; there is no sacrifice; and there is no shedding of blood? Now, who got that crazy idea and why?
A fifth question: Why was the ceremonial law written in a Hebrew so different in dialect from that which the Jews in exile, in Babylon, and those who were in exile at Elephantine, Egypt, which is down near where the Aswan Dam is now? And we have a large literature from them in Aramaic which is difficult and it is a different dialect of Semitic writing than Hebrew. So why did they write this stuff from that period of time in Hebrew? For every one of those stones, the names of them are so difficult that I take it that those who wrote them during this period of time forgot what the names were and no two of four Aramaic versions of the Targum agree as to their Aramaic equivalence.
I would think if they were thinking from Aramaic into Hebrew they would have remembered what the Aramaic was. More than that, one more embarrassment, and no one knows what the stones meant in any of the Aramaic versions.
That is a problem. That is a real problem. Well, you can see it goes on. It seems to me a third thing by way of explosive evidence.
We have said there are five embarrassing questions. The theory itself, as now practiced almost in detail, was in place by But we had not discovered yet one script nor had we made one scientific excavation of any site archaeologically. So we have now a theory that antedates all the evidence and since especially on through the present day we have just had on the level of something like, oh, with regard to scripts they would have to go into the hundreds of thousands, even getting up into millions of tablets in terms of inscriptional evidence alone.
We have never had that before. Never had that in any of the languages. So it seems to me that the archaeological and inscriptional data have established over and over again the historicity of innumerable passages. You understand that. Baalim, you remember, had quite an experience. Not as wise as his donkey, but certainly he was taught there. Now, most people say there is a myth. There is no historical evidence for Baalim, the son of Beor. In the Jordan Valley in and then published in , what do we find?
A Deir Allah. What did we dig up but an inscriptional evidence, by the way, in columns. I think that to find the guy turning up like, and it has been in the ground from that period dated by carbon 14 to BC. The inscription therefore comes, I would say, about to years after the event itself. Very, very impressive. What about the names, the places, the institutions of the patriarchs?
And so much for Jerusalem; so much for Ashkelon; so much for Gaza. And they go on and on. Guess what? Those are the cities that are being talked about in the biblical evidence. In other words, they were existing at that period of time. Right now there are certain names which parents are naming their children.
You get a whole spat of them. They go in cycles. So it was in those days. These are good names. These are very good names. And we find them scattered all through these documents. So not only the names but the customs, too. What corn is that? How can you sell that? And the same thing with oral blessings.
And the same thing, too, when the text changes, when you are in the earlier part of Genesis it is supposed to be in Sumer, in Babylon, present-day Iraq; southern Babylon there, southern Iraq. And what do you find? Do they have rocks and stones that they can build things out of? They must make brick. So they make brick. And what do they put them together with?
You must put them together with bituminous material. The background is that Joseph has gone to Egypt. Does it change? It does, again, repeatedly. The titles for Joseph in Genesis 41 and 45, six of those titles are Egyptological: they come straight across.
So the point is not a point about inspiration at this juncture, it is a point about the text qua written; that is, the text as written must come from the second millennium, that is, from the approximately BCs, and not from or even , which is the dominant theory of the day. More than that, one more embarrassment, and no one knows what the stones meant in any of the Aramaic versions.
The second part of the definition is that religion institutions of Israel passed through three Hegelian stages of evolution. Multiple lines of independent evidence, including isotopic analyses of teeth and bones, osteology , archaeology , and historical documents make this clear. My whole culture and advertising is geared to me.
It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing. They got the furniture wrong. I would think if they were thinking from Aramaic into Hebrew they would have remembered what the Aramaic was. When I did my premedical studies at the College of Wooster, I was taught this theory as truth. How convincing is their evidence for multiple authors?
Another reason that it is disconcerting is that it foretells things which did not happen until Christ came and ascended into heaven. I like that and I was taught that basis and, therefore, we were told you must control the original languages.
It was thought to be much too elaborate for the time of Moses. In other words, since miracles are impossible, Daniel cannot have prophesied the future, and the book called by his name is a forgery. Another problem is simply that the tablet theory is not necessary. The last assumption mentioned was that Dr.
In addition, whether they stated it or not, the men who first proposed this theory did not believe in miracles.