Enigmatic Mirror
Mike Ash always has interesting insights on LDS apologetics. Well worth taking a look for those of you who don’t know his work. Read more
Mike Ash always has interesting insights on LDS apologetics. Well worth taking a look for those of you who don’t know his work. Read more
As I noted in DH-33, although there are various schools of thought, biblical scholars can’t agree on how many supposed sources contributed to the Pentateuch. Unfortunately, things are even more complicated. There is also no agreement concerning the date of J among those scholars who agree that there is in fact a J-source. (Here is a summary of views of this who dispute the nature or existence of J in various ways; and more fully Dozeman, Thomas B; Schmid, Konrad... Read more
The classical formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis posits four written sources for the Pentateuch, called J (Jahwist/Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly). Since its origin, the theory has morphed into many different variations. When we try to understand the Documentary Hypothesis, we need to recognize the extensive diversity in scholarly opinion regarding how many “documents” were supposedly used to form the Pentateuch. There is also disagreement as to whether these sources are authors, editors/redactors, or “schools”—that is groups... Read more
Modern scholars attempt to clearly indicate their sources by footnotes. Ancient scholars generally did not. The Pentateuch explicitly refers to earlier sources quoted within the text. For example, Genesis 5:1 describes a “Book (scroll/sefer) of the Generations of Adam.” Exodus 15 claims to be quoting a “song unto Yahweh” (15:1). Likewise, Deuteronomy 9:10 claims to be quoting tablets revealed by God prior to the final writing of the text. Other similar examples make it clear that the Pentateuch occasionally claims... Read more
Stephen Smoot made an insightful comment here: [Quoting Hamblin:] “But what they cannot do is avoid the logical and inevitable implications of what they believe. It is not bullying, insulting, nor demeaning to question and debate these matters.” This reminds me of the reaction some had to my article “The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon” (online here: http://www.mormoninterpreter.c…. I was accused by many of wanting to exclude members of the Church who disbelieve in the Book of Mormon’s historicity,... Read more
David Bokovoy sent the follow as a comment. So it doesn’t get lost in the background, I’ve decided to post it here. For clarity, I’ve put David’s new comments in red, the original question someone asked David in green, and David’s previous response to the original question in blue. My comments are in black. Since I don’t feel comfortable engaging in these types of personal exchanges, this will be my only post. The blog has been deleted. I’m posting the... Read more
Various people, both here, on Facebook, and on anti-Mormon discussion boards in the nether regions of the Internet have insisted that I have misrepresented David Bokovoy in my discussion here. The truth of the matter is that their opinions are irrelevant. Only David knows his position, and whether I have misrepresented him. I’d welcome his clarification on the matter, but David seems reticent. So be it. Ad hoc speculative justifications for David by other people are pointless, and I won’t... Read more
For those interested in questions related to “religion, philosophy, and the Public Square” I suggest to visit the John Adams Center web page. Read more
In response to my criticisms of his views (which I can’t directly access; indirectly here), David Bokovoy recently asked his friends to email the Patheos administration to complain. I find this rather odd. It is, of course, possible that I have misunderstood David. If so, I apologize. I have no reason whatsoever to intentionally misrepresent David’s views. I’ve asked him numerous times for clarification, which he refuses to give. Of course, he is under no obligation to answer my questions.... Read more
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In