Talk:Dating the Bible/archive

''This is an archive page, please do not update it. Text and history moved from the main talk page as it was 44 KB (see article size) and the last contribution over six months ago. All new discussion should go into Talk:Dating the Bible. Andrewa 18:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)''

I think this material would be better presented in the articles of the various books of the Bible, where in many cases, there is already a far more thorough discussion of the various thoughts on the authorship and timing of the Bible.


 * Amen! Talking about the 'date' of "the Bible' is not unlike discussing the 'date' of the 'library.' No sensible conclusions can be reached. (The proof is everywhere in Wikipedia.) By taking up individual books and looking at them the way one always looks at any ancient books&mdash; the relation of their manuscripts to one another, their sources as revealed in the texts and as illuminated by texts outside the manuscripts, and so on&mdash one can come to some reasonable, though still not unanimous, conclusions. Anything else is either theology and dogma (very interesting historical developments in their own right) or crackerbarrel religion, with a little crackerbarrel pseudohistory (less interesting, except to the arguers).


 * Sensible analysis of the textual traditions, book by book, should appear in the individual entries of each book and of the books that are variously judged Apocrypha, a term that itself is an opinion, and not NPOV).Wetman 01:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

''Some controversial Bible scholars think that Moses never existed. However the general consenseus it that the first part of real history is the story of Abraham. The real difficulty with this is that Abraham is the founder of the Jewish faith.'' -- I deleted this because (1) it concerns the accuracy of the Bible not its date, (2) the last part doesn't make any sense, (3) the claim about consensus is wrong. -- zero 10:37, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- I removed this: ''For another example, according to ?  the account of the Abram (Abraham) sacrifice of Isaac was revised after the original writer died. In the original account, Abram slew Isaac and was richly rewarded by YHWH for that sacrifice; an editor later inserted the divine intervention preventing the sacrifice. Note that after the revised part of the myth, no mention of Isaac is ever made: the editor didn't bother inserting him elsewhere.''

The story of the sacrifice is in Gen 22. While Isaac is a passive character he appears again in Gen 24-28. Danny 11:22, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Too much of the material here was literary analysis, and it has been removed for now. I think the focus should be the dates and ways they can be arrived at. As there are large scholarly articles on the various bits and pieces this article should point at those and it also should highlight the range of dates for the various books (i.e traditionally dated to X, but Scholar Y thinks it's Z). This article needs as well to focus on manuscripts and when they are written, as those provide an upper bound to the dating of manuscripts. This means as well this article needs to be aware of critical analysis by rabbis and Christian Church fathers, as their extant letters help to date documents to certain periods. I think the list of Christian Book dates can stay for now but over time those dates need to be tied to references and given a range of values (i.e. traditionally A but critically B, with some people the right date is C). Deuterocanonical works need to be dated in this article as well. Dwmyers 21:17, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good work on this page, Dwmyers. It really sucked before. Some stuff that is missing I think: the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums. Another thing, about the silver amulet. You seem to imply (as do others) that the Torah must predate the amulet. However, it is also possible that the amulet represents a now-lost source that was later incorporated into the Torah. Some specialists support that possibility. --zero 03:29, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * All I can imply is that the fragment quoted existed at the time dated. Feel free to rewrite that part if you want to normalize the language somehow. Frankly, the language that bothers me is the word "evolve" used to describe the Samaritan Torah. "Emerge" might be the better choice. Dwmyers 11:06, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * And the second point to be made, with a typical dating accuracy of +/- 50 years, dating the amulet to 600 BCE puts it anywhere from the reign of King Josiah to the exile itself. By virtually every scholastic standard other than the biblical minimalists, The equivalents of J, E, and D should be around. P source material may or may not be around, depending upon which scholar you believe. By even the most conservative scholastic standard (non-traditional) though, the Torah as currently found does not exist in 600 BCE. Dwmyers 15:28, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Bible. She isn't a cheap date, but when she puts out, she puts out. -BuddhaInside

-

Where else, in a historical entry, would one begin by characterizing conclusions as 'positions' and giving those positions labels? (aside from Marxism). Where else, in a genuine historical survey, one would decide at the outset which historical texts were canon and which were apochryphal? And where else would one invite into a historical analysis, a category of non-historians that deny the relevance of historical analysis altogether? This approach will attract fanatics, I predict. I have entered an excellent, disengaged account by Fox. I watch but will not otherwise be posting. User:Wetman
 * I don't consider this article to be purely history or purely for the historian. If that's the standard you intend on applying to what is written here (and especially if you're using Fox as a standard) we will have problems. Fox is excellent, I've read him before. But the comparison between what enthusiastic amateurs can do in their spare time, and Fox, who is being paid to do it, is asanine. And I think you know that. Dwmyers 21:34, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Someone, I think, called the Gospels drawing on earlier sources 'a belief'. I thought it was pretty much an uncontested view, even among the most conservative scholars? Anyone disagree? DJ Clayworth 13:15, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * DJ, As far as the Gospels go, there are many theories of synoptic ordering, with a good overview given here (This link cribbed from the New Testament page). See also the link Markan priority, which we may want to use as a reference point. I agree that calling it a 'belief' is unnecessarily weak, though what the various Gospels draw on is open to debate. Feel free to rewrite, and please reference articles that already exist in the Wiki :). Dwmyers 17:46, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will. I only meant to mean that some prior source was used, not what it/they were. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I see that even though I started the page, not even a single sentence I wrote has been included, even though I think it was very worthy of inclusion. Why the fuck should any one bother if later redacters are going to censor unpopular facts?

Concerning the "near-sacrifice" of Isaac.

Bible scholars [see for instance "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Last Trial" by S. Spiegel, and "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," notably the entries by William H. Barnes] recognize two authors of the "Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac" myth in the Hebrew Testament (starting at Genesis 22:2). The first author is identified as "the E source," which stands for "The Elohists." (From the word Elohim / Elohiym which means "the male powers." The Hebrew word for male and female "powers" (gods and goddesses) combined is "Elohin / Elohiyn.") The Elohist verses starts at Verse Two, and continues to Verse Ten. The later insertion of four or five verses, Verses Eleven to Fourteen or Fifteen, were added by "the J source," known as the Yahwehists. The Elohists account then continues at Verse Sixteen wherein the gods (Elohim) reward Abraham for "his" sacrifice of Isaac (though obviously it was Isaac who could be said to have made the sacrifice).

It is precisely this change in the name (and thus nature and gender) of the god(s) in question that have convinced Bible scholars of the two distinct authors of the Isaac sacrifice myth: the Yahweh-centric addition of the four verses refer to the desert war-air god YHWH singular, while the rest of the account refers to the plural male gods known collectively as "Elohim." (Young's Literal Version incorrectly translates the name "YHWH" to "Jehovah," which is consistent with the Jehovah's Witness version of the Bible). Friedman points out that it was probably the later doctrines prohibiting human sacrifice that caused the Yahwehists to make the insertion into the earlier Elohist myth.


 * To Desertphile: The difference between what you originally wrote and what you write in the last two paragraphs above is pretty profound. You started off the dating article with an unprovable claim on the number of authors involved, did not include a single reference source for your claims, continued with the assertion that Moses never existed (considering that a group of Levites thought they were descended from Moses, it's terribly hard to prove this comment. Further, Friedman, who you quote as a souce, speaks of the Mosaic priesthood, and a major theme in Friedman is the friction between the Mosaic priesthood and the Aaronite priesthood). The article was shot through with one unprovable after another and no effort was taken to authenticate any of those comments. Your lack of references in your original article killed you. Plainly spoken, if you make extravagent claims and don't reference them, don't expect them to survive. Next, if you break neutral POV with your claims (for example, are you blaming the phrase Jehovah on the Jehovah's Witnesses??), they won't survive the main text either.  Let me ask one other question: what is so unique about the story of Isaac, in having both J and E text components, that needs comment here and not in an entry on Isaac and/or Genesis? The existence of J and E as sources is covered ad nauseum in other articles. Dwmyers 19:31, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Better yet, there is a large entry in the 'pedia on the near sacrifice of Isaac. Unless your literary analysis has any use in terms of dates, you should be working there. Dwmyers 19:46, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Who was the wonderfully "brilliant" scholar who removed all the comments about the Nag Hammadi scrolls, and left a stupid < >ing ? mark in its place?

Let me be blunter. I think JeMa  has pretty well butchered this article and I'm giving myself 24 hours to calm down. If I haven't, I'm reverting it to the last sane edit. Dwmyers 22:50, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've removed JeMa's butchery of the Old Testament portion of this document and reverted. He doesn't understand what an example is, he removed everything about authoritatively dated texts and placed it nowhere to be found. Dwmyers 13:20, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So why not try talking to me? Other people noted that this group of articles was overlapping and poorly organized. We agreed that some material in this article belonged in another article, and vice-versa. So some material on the documentary hypothesis was moved there. It is no big deal. I really would like to address your specific criticisms, but aside from labelling my edits as "butchering" you haven't made any. Please offer us specific criticisms and offer alternatives, instead of making a blanket revert on a large amount of work. JeMa 17:39, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

The title of this article indicates that it should be about how to date books in the Bible. Previously, it was a confusing mishmash which briefly discussed this topic, and then delved into the documentary hypothesis, which has its own article. I just wish to differentiate between the two. JeMa 17:39, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Dwmyers writes "I wish JeMa would stop cutting out useful material and then bleat like a sheep about its absence." He then writes "an attempt to reconcile JeMa's revision with previous, and somehow maintain NPOV."


 * I am sorry, but I do not know what you are talking about. I would be more than happy to work with you; feel free to discuss your specific concerns. For instance, you state that I made a NPOV violation. Ok, maybe I did, but I don't know where, and what subject you are talking about. Just let me know what you are thinking, ok? JeMa

It's much easier to revert a whole section of work than go line-by-line through a mass deletion (including the entirety of the section on extant texts) especially when the edits of the work look to have been done by someone who doesn't seem willing or able to differentiate essential information from unessential information. I'm sorry, but if you cut into the bone of this article and offer nothing in return for your deletes, I will revert your work. If, however, your edits clearly enhance the product, I'll not complain.

Let's go through some things I disliked: 1. The section on Daniel was never intended as a stand-alone - it was an example, but your edits made it into something bizarre, removing materials both in front and in back of the Daniel section that set it apart as a working example. The parts you removed past the Daniel article never made it into the documentary hypothesis article, despite your claim to the contrary. This is an aside, but I examined the documentary hypothesis article and this one, and NOT ONE WORD WAS MIGRATED DESPITE YOUR CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY. 2.


 * I don't understand; I never claimed that the section on Daniel was some kind of stand alone. I also don't see how my edits made it "bizarre". I simply used it, as you did, as an example of dating the Bible. Also, you are misreading what I said. I never told anyone that I moved material on Daniel to the article on the documentary hypothesis. Why would I say that? Why would anyone do that? They have nothing to do with each other. I did edit the material on Daniel, and it now is clear that you are very angry about this. But why explode at me?  I kept on asking you to talk about this, but you refused. JeMa 17:14, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

The section on extant texts was deleted and was not placed anywhere. You just removed it and claimed it was placed in documentary hypothesis. You did no such thing. Extant texts are extremely pertinent to dating arguments but you removed all references to them like a butcher with cleaver-envy. 3. You simply can't make the claim that the Nag Hammadi documents are rejected by all denominations of Jews and Christians. There are people, such as theosophists, who may well consider themselves Christian and accept Gnostic texts, because they themselves believe in those kinds of ideas. Think of the 19th century spiritualists. Did they consider themselves Christian? If they did, then your claim is a NPOV violation, and further, a lie.


 * Wow! Your false accusations of me lying, and your distortion of Judaism and Christianity, make me suspect your motives and your edits. You obviously are too upset to think clearly. I am going to revert your edits, because you should not be allowed to push a pro-Gnostic religious agenda. In the real world, Jews and Christians do not accept these works as part of the Bible. In fact, none could have, because these works were buried and hidden for over a thousand years. The only people who accept them as part of their Bible are new groups accepted by only a very tiny group of people.  So please stop your scary attacks and accusations. I reached out to you in good faith, many times, and you only responded with personal attacks. JeMa 17:14, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * If you start deleting my stuff, particularly things that belong in this article, you are one foolish man. After your reverts, I'm putting things you remove in evil ill faith right back. You have no business removing things that belong in this article. More so, as others become aware of your deletions, the only reputation you're going to sink is your own. Dwmyers 20:21, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You have revealed yourself to be overly emotionall and angry. Previously, you have called me a liar. Now you cal my edits "evil". You are out of control, and I will have to revert your serious edits until you stop this harassment, and learn to behave in a civilized manner. I am sorry. JeMa 16:51, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between saying "These documents were not accepted by Josephus or such-and-such a council as canonical" and claiming, more or less, that every Jew and Christian rejects them. Let's be plain. Portions of the Gospel of Thomas are accepted by some scholars as having genuine sayings of Jesus. To say what you originally claimed places this encyclopedia into the business of defining what a denomination is, what a Jew is, what a Christian is, and that's NOT the business of the Wikipedia. I also seriously doubt that the Nag Hammadi scrolls are "better known" as the Gnostic Gospels. Also known? maybe. Better known? That's a POV. Dwmyers 16:44, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think you are confused. The Gospel of Thomas is not synonmous with the entire Gnostic scriptures, or even most of it. JeMa 17:14, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * So the fact that a collection of scrolls may have different values to scholars is reason enough for you to blanket condemn all of them? For you to label all the Nag Hammadi documents as Gnostic and all of them as being disowned by all denominations of Jews and Christians? Let me repeat: what magic crystal ball lets you know everything about every denomination of Christians, past and present? Dwmyers 20:13, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That is not what I said. You are using straw-man attacks to criticise things I never added to this article. And your claims about Judaism and Christianity are so confused as to be laughable. Your angry emotional state, your attacks on me as evil and a liar, make it clear that we cannot talk about this at the moment. After you calm, we can talk. I am sorry. JeMa 16:51, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

JeMa: Dwmyers appears to be right when he says that there is a lot of stuff you have removed from this article that does not appear in documentary hypothesis. Maybe you should explain why you have deleted it, or what you have done with it. I found explanations of how dating might be done to be useful. It doesn't appear to be about the documentary hypothesis, and so shouldn't appear there, but it is useful here. DJ Clayworth 18:00, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I am very willing to explain my edits, and to compromise with others. I have tried to do so repeatedly. Please read my above comments; I want to talk about this issue with other. However, for two weeks Dwmyers refused to talk with me at all. Then he attacked me repeatedly in the edit lines to the article, and refused to make any statements here. Finally, starting yesteday, he called me a liar, and now has proclaimed my writing to be evil. Obviously, he is so emotionally upset that no discussion with him is possible. I would be happy to talk about this issue with you and work with others. I can work with anyone, anytime, as long as they are not lashing out. JeMa 16:51, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * No way in hell have you been trying for two weeks to discuss anything with me. Your reply to me the moment I explained what I didn't like about this aricle was to revert the text. No amount of spin can change that JeMa, and anyone with a will to go through the talk pages and your reaction on the main pages (they do time stamp our edits here) will find that your two weeks of trying are the biggest bald faced lie you've come up with yet. You might have given me 10 minutes bfore you threw a cheap 3 year old fit (and like most good liars, accused me of doing the very thing you are; not only are you a liar you're rather gifted at typical liar's tricks). Now, I =admit= I'm mad at you, I admit I think there are vegetables and tree stumps smarter than you are, but none of that gives you the right to become a little mole, constantly reverting the text back to your horrible edit. This is especially true when I've gone point by point (see below) over every objection I have to your work, including the most salient one, which is that you raped this whole document of the section that discussed the oldest texts found. And if you wish to lie about that, I'll start really looking to call you names. Dwmyers 17:57, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Please stop slandering JeMa as writing "the biggest bald faced lie yet". You are plainly out of control, and I will also support reverts of your edits. You cannot force compromise on a Wikipedia article by threats, slander, intimidation and insults. He has repeatedly asked to work with you, yet each time you respond with more rage. I think he's being too polite with you. Personally, I think you shoule go away. RK 01:11, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

It goes deeper than that DJ. The stuff he claims was duplicated in documentary hypothesis isn't in documentary hypothesis at all. I have repeated material from The Bible and history re: biblican minimalists and biblical maximalists in order to create background in which to discuss dating in the first place. So the entire premise of his editing is based on a kind of lie in the first place. Dwmyers 20:13, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I'm asking User:Ed Poor to assist on this issue. I think JeMa is an excessively heavy handed editor and we may need someone to shut this article down till cooler heads can prevail. I don't like seeing this article gutted and abused by a a man I am beginning to disrespect. I don't think JeMa is much of a scholar (I suspect these days that he's quite immune to scholarship), but he is very talented at bowdlerizing text. Dwmyers 21:04, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Nag Hammadi Library and the Gnostic Gospels
We're going to take on JeMa's comments about Nag Hammadi, piece by piece. We're going to first put a copy of it down here, so it is preserved, in all its inaccurate glory, and then deconstruct it:


 * The Nag Hammadi collection, more commonly known as the Gnostic Scriptures, are not accepted as part of the Bible by any denomination of Judaism or Christianity. They were written in Coptic, and are generally dated to the third and fourth centuries CE.

The problems with this text are manifold. First, The Gnostic Gospels is the title of a book by Elaine Pagels that popularizes the Nag Hammadi library. So far as I can see, no one else uses the phrase to describe the Nag Hammadi library, including this own dictionary.


 * That's false. As you admit below, it is a popularly used phrase. JeMa 16:51, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * I diagree, I go to some trouble to prove that it's the title of a popular book, by Elaine Pagels. Does it occur to you that what I'm saying is that the prhase better known as is incorrect, but the phrase also known as might indeed be acceptable, especially if accompanied by a reference to the Elaine Pagels book? Or are you such a stupid clueless fuck that any suggestion other than your own is anathema to you now? Dwmyers 17:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * stupid clueless fuck ?!?! Dwmyers, you have taken an academic issue, and have turned it into an emotional obsession. I think we truly have reason to question your emotional and mental stability. Your behaviour is so outrgaeous that you may have to be banned. RK 01:11, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
 * RK, is it fair to ask, that as passionate as you are about all the issues you jump into, whether you are the best judge of sanity and/or the lack thereof? I'll tell you what my #1 error was. After asking Ed Poor to come into this argument, I didn't submit to reason and simply log off for a week afterwards. I stewed online for another day and that didn't help at all. If I don't learn, then yes, I agree, ban me. But personally I'd prefer to work some more, probably on a different article. ( I can gripe in talk here ;) Dwmyers 22:45, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no article within this doctionary on the Gnostic Gospels, yet there is an article within this encyclopedia on Nag Hammadi. Further, if you do a Google search on The Gnostic Gospels, the very first hit is Amazon and the Elaine Pagels book. Do a search on Nag Hammadi on Google and you get hits all over the place, including gnosis.org, which does *NOT* refer to these materials as the Gnostic Gospels.

So I ask, which is better known: the Nag Hammadi library or Elaine Pagel's book? If someone is going to use a goddamn book to reference a well known archeological find, shouldn't they have the good sense to reference it first?


 * I never talked about Elain Pagels' book. I was, and am, talking about the Nag Hammadi documents. Sometimes people refer to them as the Gnostic gospels, or by other names. Apparently this common useage makes you upset. I am sorry. I have no control over how many people speak. JeMa 16:51, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * JeMa, I have a suggestion for you: find a single reputable web page or book that uses your exact phrase, that the Nag Hammadi library is better known as the Gnostic Gospels (and I don't mean Chick Publications crap or Joshua McDowell, I mean real serious scholars) and I'll drop this point. Hell, I'll even add the reference to this article myslef. As it is so far, you have provided no evidence to support your case, whereas I have a (now butchered) paragraph in support of my point of view. Do you have a single fact to support your contention? I'll bet you don't, I doubt you can, but I'd be happy to see you prove it. Dwmyers 17:31, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Please stop your abuse. RK 01:11, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Second, the author of this text has an amazing power to know what all denominations of Judiasm and Christianity believe. This assertion on his part is a NPOV violation. It is easily cured, in a couple ways. You could say are generally not accepted by the major denominations of Judiasm or Christianity or you could reference the very councils and scholars where these books were rejected in the first place. Not only has JeMa not done either, he's used my complaints in this arena as an excuse to revert the text back to his piss-poor deleted text in the first place.


 * I never wrote any such thing. Also, please stop slandering me as evil, a liar and "piss poor". You are extremely upset, and you seem to have some sort of huge emotional attachment to this issue. I have repeatedly asked to talk with you, and for two weeks you have refused to discuss any of these issues. Instead of explaining your position, you have made many rude personal attacks on me. This is not polite behavior. Please desist. JeMa 16:51, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * I have a huge emotional attachment to the truth. Start telling the truth, start behaving in ways that show an ounce of responsibility, and maybe I'll bend a little. Start trying to include materials that others think belong in this damned article and maybe we can see some constructive change for once. Dwmyers 17:12, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I will also note for the record that I wasn't the one who originally made the identification of the Nag Hammadi library with Gnostic literature because I don't know the contents of all the scrolls and was personally reluctant to say every scroll in Nag Hammadi was Gnostic. This also is an area of fact with which JeMa shows little reluctance to address. Dwmyers 15:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Since no denomination accepts the Nag Hammadi as part of the Bibile (until Dwmeyers finds one that does), why is this even mentioned in an article about dating the Bible? The Apocrypha at least are in some versions of the Bbile and so merit discussion which is so far lacking in the article. Rmhermen 16:39, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * For one, Mr Herman, I don't believe for one second that it can be proved that every denomination of Christian and Jew rejects the whole of the Nag Hammadi library. It's roughly equivalent to trying to count to infinity. It is likely that the vast majority of denominations reject this material, but it's quite an act of hubris to speak for all people who consider themselves christian. It is, quite simply, a non-neutral point of view, and proves that the author has a point of view on what a Christian is. Dwmyers 17:15, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide evidence of one example of a Bible that includes them. Note that it doesn't say a group that accepts them as useful for instruction. This is a simply way that you could move this conversation to practical issues. And I still wonder why this needs to be here at all. I say just chuck the section on the Nag Hammadi as no more relevant to the article than any other ancient writings that didn't make it into the Bible. This isn't an article on dating every text of the early church. Rmhermen 17:35, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * He can't do it. No such Christian denominations exist. RK 01:11, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Herman, it's this simple. Do you understand the semantic difference between an unprovable statement such as all Christains reject these documents and the statement These documents were not accepted as canonical by Jerome in the 4th century CE. Do you know the difference? One is conjecture, the other is a provable fact, does not represent a point of view and CAN be included in this encyclopedia. And if you DON'T understand the difference between the statements, then YOU have a problem understanding POV issues and YOU need to go into this pedia and read the sections ON neutral point of view. Dwmyers 17:47, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Dear Dwmyers, I suggest that perhaps it is best if you allow others to construct this article as it provokes you to so easily make personal attacks. There are many others here who can work on the article. I agree that some of your issues need to be addressed. I do not agree with your method of attacking people. As for the text in question I suggest it be removed because it isn't part of the Bible and so doesn't need discussion here. I never suggested that all Christians reject these documents should remain without qualification. I suggested that you research and prove the qualification instead of insisting one exists without providing proof of one. Rmhermen 18:19, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Look Herman, I'm not here to please you. I am here to do accurate work and I believe I have the right to expect accurate work from others. If accuracy is not your concern then you need to go. An encyclopedia that lies is no better than the politician who provide spin till the ends of time. Beyond that, you're entitled to your opinions and I will simply agree to disagree with you. Good luck. Perhaps you'll add something of importance to this article, something you've bothered to research. Dwmyers 19:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Finally, this *does* have to be added. If someone comes up with a compromise text that preserves materials I believe belongs here, more power to him. It's not the act of editing that bothers me, it's the excessively deep cuts into materials that matter to this article. For that matter, if JeMa reverts back to his last, and then incorporates the materials that speak of Torah dates, and the dates of the oldest texts, then I may crab about style issues, but those are style issues. But, to be plain, I'd be happier if there was more research, more work put into adding materials, than in mass wholesale deletions. In JeMa's edits, I'm not sure how deeply he has cut. And some of the things he removed do belong here. Does that make any sense? 208.17.215.244 19:23, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Materials that *Never* should have been removed in the first place
This is the text in question:

''There are fundamentalist scholars who follow the traditional assignments of authorship, and to them, the Pentateuch should have been written by Moses in the period of Exodus, ca 1280-1250 BCE. Other scholars (the biblical minimalists) would insist that the whole of the Pentateuch is a post-exilic construction, perhaps with material from an earlier oral tradition. A middle ground is held by people such as Israel Finklestein, whose archeological studies tend to suggest that a substantial portion of the Pentateuch is a seventh century construction, designed to promote the dynastic ambitions of King Josiah of Judah. A traditional strain of scholarship (the biblical maximalists) would assign portions of the Pentateuch (generally the J author) to the period of the United Monarchy in the tenth century BCE, would date Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic history to the time of King Josiah, and that the final form of the Torah was due to a redactor in exilic or post-exilic times.''

I'll note a few things. 1. There is no mention of the documentary hypothesis in this text, none whatsoever.There is a mention of biblical minimalists and biblical maximalists. This information is not found in documentary hypothesis, it's found in the article on The Bible and history. That's the foundation of why I assert that JeMa's reasoning for this edits have no merit at all. The stuff he's removing as duplicated in DH isn't there in the first place.

This text has been consistently removed by JeMa, despite its clear utility to this article:

Documents, inscriptions, and objects that have portions of the Torah, or the whole of the text, allow researchers to place an upper bound on the date of a particular portion of text, or perhaps even the whole of it. If the portion of text is small, it can be argued that it simply is part of an oral tradition; for that reason whole books or substantially whole books are proportionately more meaningful in determining when the whole of the Bible was written. Also useful are documents, inscriptions, and objects that speak of the Hebrew Bible, or portions thereof, or of people, places and events that are in common with Biblical narrative.

The oldest known object with a fragment of Torah is a good luck charm, inscribed with Num 6:24-6:27, and dated to approximately 600 BCE (Dever, p. 180). Though whole copies of the Bible were not found at Qumran, the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls contained versions of many books of the Hebrew Bible. The Scrolls have been dated from the third century BCE to 68 CE.

In terms of the dating of complete authoritative texts, there are three main versions of the Hebrew Bible. There is the Masoretic text of the Torah, thought to be first assembled in the fourth century CE. The oldest known copy (the oldest is the Aleppo Codex, the oldest complete text is the Leningrad Codex) now dates to the tenth century CE. There is the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Torah, made under Ptolemy in the third century BCE. The oldest copy of the Septuagint is centuries older than the oldest complete Masoretic text, and fragments of the Septuagint date to the second century BCE. There is also the Samaritan Torah, which emerged after the Assyrian occupation of the northern kingdom of Israel. The Peshitta, a translation of the Christian Bible into Syriac, a variant of Aramaic, can be useful in determining authenticity of passages and hence help establish dates. The earliest known copy of the Peshitta dates to 445-460 CE. 

This gets clipped without any explanation whatsoever. He's never bothered to explain the deletion (which by my count, is 3x now). He just goes on about how others are on some kind of "pro-Gnostic agenda". I'm sorry, but the original dates of texts is important. In fact, 99.9% of my objections to JeMa's deletions are based on the removal of the above text. Dwmyers 17:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My rewrite of JeMa's Gnostic Scriptures section, into a fashion tht should be accurate and acceptable to the 'pedia, I will place here. I don't trust that reverting sob to even notice the critical changes.


 * First you ignored me. Then you insulted me. Then you called me a liar. Then you called me an evil skunk. Now you call me an SOB, son of a bitch. You clearly are too irrational to be trusted with editing this article. Your edits will be reverted. I hope you feel better soon. JeMa 16:47, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered that the *cause* of my so-called irrationality is the very deep and unnecessary edits that you were continually reverting to? 208.17.215.244 15:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Gnostic Scriptures ''The Nag Hammadi collection, also known as the Gnostic Scriptures (Pagels), were not accepted as canonical by Jerome in the 4th century CE. They were written in Coptic, and are generally dated to the third and fourth centuries CE.''

This should be followed by a reference to Elaine Pagel's book Dwmyers 18:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mediation Request
Dave asked me to take a look at Dating the Bible, but a quick glance at the edit history shows him calling JeMa "an evil little skunk". I must confess to being prejudiced against people who call others names. So, I doubt I'll be help resolve this conflict.

Apologizing for the evil skunk remark would probably restore me to my original, unbiased state. :-) --Uncle Ed 15:34, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I admit that my language was extreme and full of hyperbole. However, it's hard to say that I actually like what the man did, and there is no question that I mistrust and disbelieve his stated reasons why he did what he did. This distrust and disbelief has not gone away. 208.17.215.244 15:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I reverted to Dwmyers latest version, which was more complete and thorough--and more scholarly. JeMa is insistent on taking the whole discussion to documentary hypothesis, though there is a distinct difference between these two articles--or at least there should be. Documentary hypothesis and dating the Bible are not identical. The former should describe what scholars perceive as the various threads that were merged together to give us the Bible as we now know it. It should explain the differences between these threads and show how they were redacted into a single coherent text. Inevitably, it will also discuss the origins and even the religious and political motivations underlying these texts. In contrast, Dating the Bible should focus on explaining when the Bible was composed, further discussing the evidence scholars posit to make these claims. Inevitably, it will also look for evidence regarding the ages of the various threads that were brought together by the redactor/s. Dwmyers seems to have done this. I don't understand why his material is constantly being removed, so I reverted. Danny 17:26, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Danny, there is no dispute about the content of this article. The dispute is over whether edits should be based on insults or based on discussions. JeMa has pleaded for discussion, but until now has received almost none. Abobe he writes that I am very willing to explain my edits, and to compromise with others. I have tried to do so repeatedly. JeMa wasn't arguing for specific cuts; rather he was adopting a conservative position; revert to an article state before the attacks took place. He did ask for further edits, as long as they were based on discussions. I can see that you have answered his call for discussion; that is great. If more people do so, this article will improve even more. But JeMa plainly does not trust the editing of a someone who refuses discussion, and instead calls him an evil liar and a "SOB".
 * (1) I never refused discussion, despite JeMa's claim to the contrary, and in fact there are a quite a few paragraphs of exhaustive discussion of my issues above. (2) There was more than enough name calling on both sides. Personally, as a member of the Churches of Christ, I found it pretty ironic to be accused of some kind of pro-Gnostic agenda. If you want another example that isn't even in this article, check the change log of documentary hypothesis. Now, was my name calling justified? Not at all, I admit to being excessive in that regard, but it is an act that *does* cut both ways. Dwmyers 22:00, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

JeMa might be a little over-zealous in moving and editing, but that's not a crime. RK 01:05, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
 * RK, I *explained* myself and my position thoroughly on the 26th of November, discussions of which now appear to have been edited. If people wish to claim I have *NOT* explained my position, I would ask them to look at my original edits in the history of this article circa the 26th, and not my articles as currently edited. Now, if after that, you feel that you can claim I have not explained my position, then I will be happy to post in depth the problems. However, it appears as if Danny has stepped in and done what I thought to be correct from the beginning. My objection is purely to the removal of text that belongs in this article. If that material is incorporated, my objections (and the reasons for my anger) are over. 208.17.215.244 15:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I myself am reluctant to add anything to this article, because I am only familiar with the documentary hypothesis, and can't add anything productive about books of the Bible other than the first six, unless I spend a few hours reviewing my Encyclopedia Judaica and other assorted titles. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that at the moment. Eventually I may try to contribute in the organization and flow of this article, and in linking to related articles, but these are pretty minor areas. RK 01:05, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

UserDanny writes: "I reverted to Dmyers latest version, which was more complete and thorough--and more scholarly. JeMa is insistent on taking the whole discussion to documentary hypothesis, though there is a distinct difference between these two articles--or at least there should be. Documentary hypothesis and dating the Bible are not identical.


 * This is fine by me. I am not really insistent on taking this whole discussion to the DH article. Maybe I did edit too much from this article. I was only insistent on not allowing this article to be hijacked by an emotional argument. I still do not see why anyone should be angry. I am of the opinion, and I think we agree here, that dating the entire Bible is not the same as the DH. That is all I was trying to do, separate the two topics. Well, I was also pointing out that Christianity and Judaism (and Unitarian Universalism) do not accept the Nag Hammadi scriptures as part of the Bible, no matter what Dmyers claims. Maybe he knows some individual persons who consider themselves Jews or Chrisitians, who do accept the Nag Hammadi scriptures as Biblical, but they are not part of any well known Jewish or Christian group. JeMa 17:34, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
 * JeMa, saying anything about an effectively uncountable group (such as all people who consider themselves Christians) is an unprovable. It's also disputable, in that some people who think of themselves as Christian or Jew might not be accepted by the majority of others, so speaking about all Christians and all Jews walks into the controversial questions of what is a Christian and what is a Jew. In contrast, that Jerome did not accept such books as canonical is a provable fact, and since Jerome is the author of the Latin Vulgate, his word on what is canonical has been accepted (by Catholic and Orthodox Churches) for the longest time. There are equivalant councils for the books of the Tanach, if my memory is correct, one in Alexandria (leading to the Catholic OT) and another in Jerusalem (leading to the Protestant OT). My point wasn't that the overwhelming majority of Christians/Jews/etc do not accept these book, the point is that rephrasing the argument in terms of the men and councils that did not accept these books makes it true and without controversy. 208.17.215.244 15:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The "evolution" and mention of "philosophical naturalism" would seem to indicate an anti-scholarly bias in this article. Anyone want to fix it? [Note: Fixed]