seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Maldives
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from New Zealand
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from Russia
seen from France
seen from Brazil
What theory for the origin of the Torah do you find most likely? I’ve heard the old J and E sources are now doubted, but where does that leave the parts which aren’t P and D?
It's been a long time since I engaged with the literature on source criticism. The documentary hypothesis is definitely out-of-date, but as I understand it that's because it postulates too few sources.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I’m surprised how often I read online someone making the assertion that the Documentary Hypothesis is dead.  “The JEPD theory is no longer
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/01/the-death-of-the-documentary-hypothesis/
My new queue tag is #JEPD Q
i might be In Too Deep but: Genesis 2:4 reads "This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created, when Yahweh Elohim made the earth and the heavens." The second clause uses the name Yahweh, so is probably its own sentence introducing the Yahwist creation story - Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, yada Yahda - that goes until the end of chapter 4. The word "account" in the first clause is Hebrew "toledot", which is also used to introduce all the genealogies, e.g. Gen 5:1 "This is the account of the generations of Adam". These are supposed to be trademark Priestly material, so source critics, including the book I'm reading now, assign this first clause to the *end* of the Priestly, seven-day, "let there be light" creation story starting in Gen 1:1. But (afaik) every time "toledot" shows up, it's at the beginning, not the end, of the account. It wouldn't make sense for Gen 2:4a to have been moved up out of place, since the next Priestly text is the account of the generations of Adam which has its own, introductory statement! Is this just the Priestly writer bowing to style, "when God began to create..." being a better lede than "This is the account..."? Or what's going on?
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
A brief overview of some key factors in the Documentary Hypothesis, which uses textual evidence to identify some of the composite narratives which make up the books of the Torah.
Book of J
"According to Bloom, the J writer did not treat Yahweh strictly as a being to be held in awe and worshipped.  J's Yahweh is certainly not the transcendent God later worshipped by Christians and Jews."
via LINK
The Book of JÂ Harold Bloom
The Hidden Book in the Bible
"A great work lies embedded in the Bible, a creation that we can trace to a single author.  And I believe that we can establish that it is of great antiquity: it was composed nearly three thousand years ago--so it is indeed nothing less than the first work of prose.  Call it the first novel if you think it is fiction, or the first history if you think it is factual.  Actually, it is a merger of both.  But, either way, it is the first.  There is no long work of prose before this anywhere on earth, East or West, so far as I know.  We know of poetry that is earlier, but this is the oldest prose literature: a long, beautiful, exciting story.  And the astonishing thing is that, even though it is the earliest lengthy prose composition known to us, it is far from a rudimentary, primitive first attempt at writing.  It has the qualities we find in the greatest literature the world has produced.  Indeed, scholars of the Bible and of comparative literature have compared individual parts of it to Shakespeare and to Homer.  Those scholars were right, but they were barely at the threshold of the full work, a composition whose unity and brilliant connections have been hidden by the editorial and canonical process that produced the Bible."
Richard Elliott Friedman:Â The Hidden Book in the Bible
more HERE
