Biblical Authorship

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The Documentary Hypothesis, as I understand it, is based on a lot more than just name usage, although name-usage is one tip about authorship.  According to the ways it is described in in old textbook of mine, Lawrence Boadt's Reading the Old Testament, the hypothesis revolves around general ways that stories are told, how God is described, what diction is used not just for God but lots of things like place-names, ect.  According to the hypothesis, J only uses YHWH (a proper name, and not a generic term, for God), contains narratives of God talking directly and intimately with people, tells intimate stories about leaders, is focused on the concerns of the kingdom of Judah, always uses the term Sinai and always refers to natives as Canaanites, while E always uses only "elohim," describes God as majestic and far often, often has God speaking to people in dreams, stesses prophecy, stresses concerns of northern kingdom of Israel, always uses the term "Horeb" and describes natives as Amorites, and P at times uses compound names for God (YHWH-Elohim) and writes a lot of lists and details about ritual schemes.

This is about as convincing as going through the posts of jmfcst, separating the distinct themes, and dealing out those distinct themes to a group of imaginary authors, thus claiming convincing evidence of multiple authors.

---

So, some examples of these different themes other than the two Genesis creation stories are the three different stories of how the patriarch les about his wife being his sister in Gen. 12, 20 and 26 or the two stories about how Abraham sends Hagar to the desert in Gen. 16 and 21 or the two stories of Moses' commission in Exodus 3 and 6.

Ok, this has officially descended into utter stupidity. 

How in the world is it not conceivable that in those lawless times, a man with a beautiful wife would be killed by lawless men because the lawless men wanted the man’s beautiful wife?  And how is it not conceivable that Abraham would tell a lie (that Sarah, his wife, was only his sister) in order to protect his own life, and once the lie worked in one country (Gen 12), Abraham repeated the lie in another country (Gen 20)?  And how is it not conceivable that Isaac would take after his father Abraham and repeat the same lie (Gen 26)?

How in the world does Abraham and his son conducting the same simple scam multiple times mean that there must be multiple authors?! 

Seems pretty clear to me that a man traveling with a beautiful wife in those days would face the same danger in a lot of different towns, so you simply claim she is not your wife, and in order to answer “If she is not your wife, then why are you traveling with her?”, you simply claim that she is your sister.  It is also clear to me that there would be no need to come up with a different scam for each instance. 

[anvi]

This is about as convincing as going through the posts of jmfcst, separating the distinct themes, and dealing out those distinct themes to a group of imaginary authors, thus claiming convincing evidence of multiple authors.

Your posts don't exhibit as much literary diversity as books of the Bible do.

Ok, this has officially descended into utter stupidity. 

Your kindness and civility are, as always, appreicated. 

How in the world is it not conceivable that in those lawless times, a man with a beautiful wife would be killed by lawless men because the lawless men wanted the man’s beautiful wife?  And how is it not conceivable that Abraham would tell a lie (that Sarah, his wife, was only his sister) in order to protect his own life, and once the lie worked in one country (Gen 12), Abraham repeated the lie in another country (Gen 20)?  And how is it not conceivable that Isaac would take after his father Abraham and repeat the same lie (Gen 26)?

How in the world does Abraham and his son conducting the same simple scam multiple times mean that there must be multiple authors?! 

Seems pretty clear to me that a man traveling with a beautiful wife in those days would face the same danger in a lot of different towns, so you simply claim she is not your wife, and in order to answer “If she is not your wife, then why are you traveling with her?”, you simply claim that she is your sister.  It is also clear to me that there would be no need to come up with a different scam for each instance. 

Well, your argument here is based on "conceivability" and what "seems pretty clear" to you.  So you, like the supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis, are appealing to subjective standards of plausibility.  Interpretation involves conjecture, no matter who is doing it.

Anyway, I'm puzzled why a multiple authorship hypothesis is so threatening.  For someone who has faith in the divine authorship or inspiration of Biblical texts, what difference does it make whether God inspired one author or several, or whether God inspired one author to tell a story in several different ways or multiple authors to tell a story in different ways?  It seems to me that if one believes a text is divinely inspired, it doesn't really matter how many transcribers were involved, since the issue of inspiration is a matter of faith in the first place anyway.

Look, I'm not particularly committed to the Documentary Hypothesis.  Like I said, I don't know who wrote the Bible, how many people were involved or exactly when.  Actually, in my own work, I translate texts from Sanskrit and Chinese and work with other scholars who do too.  When we look at very ancient texts that have been copied and transmitted for hundreds of years, like Biblical texts were, and we notice different diction used that seems, based on other texts of similar time periods, to come from different centuries, when we see the same or similar narratives told in completely different literary styles in the same work, and so on, we often conjecture that different authors wrote or edited different parts of texts, we disagree with each other, and lots of conjectures are bandied about regarding authorship.  If you were given one long English text, and you saw in it a Biblical story first narrated in Shakespearean English, then again in prose and diction comperable to Mark Twain, then again in language that looks like it was drafted by a modern-day lawyer, one of the first possibilities that goes through you're mind is multiple authorship.  That's often exactly what reading ancient texts is like.  No one really knows who authored most ancient texts, scholars come up with hypotheses, and they are called hypotheses for a reason, because they are contestable guesses based on debatable evidence.  In my experience, any scholar claiming to know the ancient world very intimately and precisely is like someone taking a pen light and shining it into outer space and claiming one knows the universe to every last astronomical detail.  Interpretation is always conjectural, and one rarely goes wrong exercising some intellectual humility.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How in the world is it not conceivable that in those lawless times, a man with a beautiful wife would be killed by lawless men because the lawless men wanted the man’s beautiful wife?  And how is it not conceivable that Abraham would tell a lie (that Sarah, his wife, was only his sister) in order to protect his own life, and once the lie worked in one country (Gen 12), Abraham repeated the lie in another country (Gen 20)?  And how is it not conceivable that Isaac would take after his father Abraham and repeat the same lie (Gen 26)?

How in the world does Abraham and his son conducting the same simple scam multiple times mean that there must be multiple authors?! 

Seems pretty clear to me that a man traveling with a beautiful wife in those days would face the same danger in a lot of different towns, so you simply claim she is not your wife, and in order to answer “If she is not your wife, then why are you traveling with her?”, you simply claim that she is your sister.  It is also clear to me that there would be no need to come up with a different scam for each instance. 

Well, your argument here is based on "conceivability" and what "seems pretty clear" to you.  So you, like the supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis, are appealing to subjective standards of plausibility.  Interpretation involves conjecture, no matter who is doing it.

no, my argument is based upon common sense:

1) it is common sense to realize that in the lawlessness of that day and age, murdering a husband in order to steal his beautiful wife was a real threat.

2) it is common sense to realize that Abraham gave the most plausible deception (that she was his sister).  The bible states that Abraham was 9 years older than Sarah; so, claiming that she was his daughter wouldn't work, nor would claiming that she was his mother.

3) it is common sense to realize that people reuse methods that have previously worked, and that there was absolutely no reason for Abraham to come up with a different deception when the original one worked fine.

---

This is about as convincing as going through the posts of jmfcst, separating the distinct themes, and dealing out those distinct themes to a group of imaginary authors, thus claiming convincing evidence of multiple authors.

Your posts don't exhibit as much literary diversity as books of the Bible do.

Nor do I have the vocabulary of God.  Nor can I stitch together a plan that is both as simple and profound as God can. Nor can I speak multiple languagues as many of the biblical characters could do.

---

Ok, this has officially descended into utter stupidity. 

Your kindness and civility are, as always, appreciated. 

Then give me a single solitary reason why the same simple deception used by Abraham twice and his son once raises suspicion that multiple authors are at work?

I could understand if it was an intricate original scheme used by two different people who never had contact with each other, but this is a very simple lie shared by a father and a son.

So, yes, I think not only using this as evidence of DH is stupid, but it also demonstrates desperation.  I mean, where is the pride of the people who came up with this?  Even I could come up with something 1000 times more convincing than attempting to raise suspension over the fact that a simple deception was used multiple times.

---

Anyway, I'm puzzled why a multiple authorship hypothesis is so threatening.

Dude, don’t think just because I stoop to refute a stupid theory, that I find the theory itself threatening.  Refuting the theory was trivial.  The stupidity, on the other hand, is an absolute monster, because it's source of strength is NOT from making convincing arguments but rather from the desperate desire to dismiss God!

[anvi]

Nice.

[anvi]

There are several reasons scholars suspect multiple authorship of a story in Genesis 12, 20 and 26.  You find the sequence of stories entirely credible, and that's one possible view of them.  But other scholars have some basic questions about the sequence of events as told, and they go something like this:

Firstly, why would Abraham pull the same scheme in Genesis 20 on king Abimelech that he did to Pharaoh in Genesis 12 when the scheme didn't work the first time and endangered the family and the covenant?  In the Gen. 12 story, Abraham gets Sarah to tell Pharaoh she is his sister, and since Pharaoh finds her beautiful, Pharaoh takes Sarah into his palace.  God, very displeased, sends plagues on Pharaoh and his family because he doesn't want Sarah there.  Pharaoh figures it out and then has Abraham and his family escorted back to the Negreb, where Abraham had fled to Egypt from in the first place because there was a famine.  So, Abraham's scheme in Genesis 12 put the covenant in danger and failed.

So then, we are to believe that, after the scandalous events that close Genesis 19, Abraham goes to Negreb, and tells Abimelech the same thing, that Sarah is her sister.  God warns off Abimelech in a dream, but makes all the women of his family barren until he returns Sarah to Abraham.  Abimelech does so, returns Sarah, gives Abraham gifts and settlement privileges in order to heal his own family.  God prevents disaster again, but only after Abraham has supposedly pulled the same very unwise scheme twice.

Then, in Genesis 26, another famine strikes the land, as in the first story, so Isaac flees the and goes again to Negreb, to the same king in the second story, Abimelech, and spreads the story that Rebekah is his sister.  The king catches Isaac in the lie and scolds him for threatening the whole land with God's punishment had any of his subjects taken Rebekah for themselves. 

So, I guess scholars who read these stories together find the sequence of events improbable as told.  First Abraham puts his wife in another man's court and endangers both the land and the covenant, the king throws him out and back into a terriory from which they were fleeing famine in the first place.  A little while later, Abraham supposedly does the same thing despite the almost disastrous consequences, and God's displeasure, the first time he tried it, and he is again caught.  One generation later, Abraham's son pulls the same scheme after a famine with the same king on whom Abraham pulled the second scheme.  So, what are we to assume if all these events happened as told, ask some readers?  First of all, Abraham must be an extraordinarily reckless, foolish fellow for continually putting his own and his family's welfare in danger, not to mention the welfare of the covenant and the continual risking of God's displeasure.  And supposedly, Abraham and Isaac must not have spoken that much, at least not enough for Abraham to have warned Isaac: "hey, don't tell these kings that Rebekah is your sister; I got caught doing that twice and it caused me a lot of headaches and God got pretty angry about the whole thing.  And especially don't do it with Abimelech, because I already tried it on him."  And what of this king Abimelech; he must be rather slow given the fact that he is taken in by the same lie all the time and it always puts the welfare of his family and land in jepordy.  Why doesn't Abimelech ever say to himself: "Gee, I'd better be suspicious about the patriarchs of this tribe telling us that their beautiful women are sisters."  This all seems rather incredibly unlikely to some readers, so they look at the three stories, notice some very similar cycles and details but different ways of telling the story, and they suspect that a basic narrative is getting rehashed. 

So, it doesn't seem unlikely to you.  Good for you.  But the reasons some scholars come up with such interpretations are not because they want to attack God (many of them are believers), and it's not because they are "stupid," but they are puzzled by some things that they read in a text and they try to figure out how to explain it.

Anyway, I'll end my participation in this discussion at this point, and you can have your territory back and go right on being nasty to people, inspiring example of Christian love that you unfailingly are.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There are several reasons scholars suspect multiple authorship of a story in Genesis 12, 20 and 26.  You find the sequence of stories entirely credible, and that's one possible view of them.  But other scholars have some basic questions about the sequence of events as told, and they go something like this:

Firstly, why would Abraham pull the same scheme in Genesis 20 on king Abimelech that he did to Pharaoh in Genesis 12 when the scheme didn't work the first time and endangered the family and the covenant? 

This scheme didn't work in Gen 12?!  How so?  Abraham and Sarah were brought under the protective orders of Pharaoh and Pharoah gave many gifts to Abramham "Gen 12:16 Pharoah treated Abram well for Sarah's sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels."  After God warned Pharaoh in a dream not to touch Sarah, Pharaoh sent them on their way with everything they had gained.

Seems to me like Abraham made out like a bandit because of the deception.

This scheme didn't work in Gen 20?!  How so?  God warned Abimelech not ot touch Sarah, so Abimelech gave Sarah a thousand shekels of silver and told Abraham that they could choose anywhere in the land to live.

Seems to me like Abraham again profitted from the same deception.

This scheme didn't work in Gen 26?!  How so? Isaac and Rebekah ended up falling under the protection by King Abimelech while they lived in the land because of the scheme.

Seems to me like Isaac profitted from the same deception.

---

Anyway, I'll end my participation in this discussion at this point, and you can have your territory back and go right on being nasty to people, inspiring example of Christian love that you unfailingly are.

Why wouldn't I be rude, for everything you say is a misrepresentation, for anyone with half a brain can see the schemes where highly successful for the scamsters and God took advantage of the scheme to protect and prosper his covenant!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There are several reasons scholars suspect multiple authorship of a story in Genesis 12, 20 and 26.  You find the sequence of stories entirely credible, and that's one possible view of them.  But other scholars have some basic questions about the sequence of events as told, and they go something like this:

Firstly, why would Abraham pull the same scheme in Genesis 20 on king Abimelech that he did to Pharaoh in Genesis 12 when the scheme didn't work the first time and endangered the family and the covenant? 

This scheme didn't work in Gen 12?!  How so?  Abraham and Sarah were brought under the protective orders of Pharaoh and Pharoah gave many gifts to Abramham "Gen 12:16 Pharoah treated Abram well for Sarah's sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels."  After God warned Pharaoh in a dream not to touch Sarah, Pharaoh sent them on their way with everything they had gained.

Seems to me like Abraham made out like a bandit because of the deception.

This scheme didn't work in Gen 20?!  How so?  God warned Abimelech not ot touch Sarah, so Abimelech gave Sarah a thousand shekels of silver and told Abraham that they could choose anywhere in the land to live.

Seems to me like Abraham again profitted from the same deception.

This scheme didn't work in Gen 26?!  How so? Isaac and Rebekah ended up falling under the protection by King Abimelech while they lived in the land because of the scheme.

Seems to me like Isaac profitted from the same deception.

---

Anyway, I'll end my participation in this discussion at this point, and you can have your territory back and go right on being nasty to people, inspiring example of Christian love that you unfailingly are.

Why wouldn't I be rude, for everything you say is a misrepresentation, for anyone with half a brain can see the schemes where highly successful for the scamsters and God took advantage of the scheme to protect and prosper his covenant!

Great balls of fire.

Jester's dead.

That just about covers the scholars! 

[© tweed]

he hasn't logged in since you posted that

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

he hasn't logged in since you posted that

Like a reply is needed?!  In any case, I was referring to the desperate "scholars"!  As always, they SUCK!  Any 4th grader reading the accounts can tell that the deception repeatedly and greatly profitted Abraham.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

anvikshiki,

hate to kick a dead horse, but I am truly shocked by the hackery of your post.  Anyone who could read those three accounts and NOT come away with the impression that Abraham and Isaac profitted greatly is really self-deceived.

very sad!

[anvi]

jmfcst,

You seem to think that, because Abraham was initially rewarded by Pharaoh and Abimelech for this lie, and that he was allowed to leave Egypt with his posessions and got money from Abimelech in the second story, that the scheme worked and Abraham got a good deal.  I think this interpetation confuses sequence for consequence.  You also seem to believe that Isaac's lie about Rebekah to Abimelech leads to his success.  In this case, no such consequence is suggested by the story.  You also overlook the fact that, in each story, not only are the patriarchs' lies revealed, but in the first two, it's God himself who puts an end to the lie.  Let's look at each of the stories. 

Abraham did not profit in Genesis 12 after Pharaoh found out he had been lying about his wife being his sister.  Pharaoh did give Abraham considerable livestock when he took Sarah into his court, but God's plagues reveal to Pharaoh that Abraham lied to him.  When Pharaoh found out, he had Abraham escorted out of Egypt.  Abraham is allowed to keep what he got before the lie is discovered, but he is also kicked out of the country and driven back to a land from which he had originally fled famine.  That doesn't sound like a reward for his behavior.  It sounds like a divorce settlement, where someone is told; "yeah, go ahead and take that tv I bought you, just get the hell out of here."  At the beginning of chapter 13, it says that Abraham was rich with "livestock, silver and gold" (13:2), but in the story about Pharaoh, we are told that Pharaoh gave Abraham livestock plus men and women-slaves, and no mention is made of silver and gold (12:16).  It seems then that not all of Abraham's wealth after returning from Egypt was due to the gifts he was given by Pharaoh upon the taking of Sarah, so we can't really automatically infer that all Abraham's good fortunes were due to this scheme.  The major result of the scheme in fact was that he got kicked out of a country he wanted to be in so he could escape famine.

In Genesis 20, Abimelech gave Abraham livestock and 10,000 shekels, but not as a reward for deceiving him, but presumably to acquire Abraham's assistance in bringing the curse off of his house after God has revealed to Abimelech that Abraham had lied to him.  The scheme does not work because Abraham plotted it all out that way; in fact, Abraham is given money not because the scheme worked, but because it didn't!  God himself came to Abimelech in a dream and told him the truth in order to prevent what would have been a grave sin, so it's not as if God is condoning the scheme!  Abraham is only compensated because God threated Abimelech with punishment for almost taking another man's wife; Abimelech is protecting himself by buying off God's punishment, he is not rewarding Abraham for putting his life and court in danger.  We are not given the impression that God is recommending or advocating Abraham's behavior, and I will return to this in a second.

In Genesis 26, Abimelech does not reward Isaac for having deceived his countrymen, he in fact scolds Isaac and warns the ciitzens to stay away from Isaac's wife.  So, once again, Isaac has been caught in the lie, and in this case, Abimelech does not give him anything.  Isaac does stay in the land and reaps great harvests the following year, but no indication at all is given that this good fortune has any causal connection with Abimelech's having been deceived; the good harvests are not Isaac's reward for the scheme, they are merely God fulfilling his covenent with the descendents of Abraham.  In fact, Abimelech asks Isaac to leave Gerar in 26:16 because Isaac has become more powerful than he.  If Isaac was Abimelech's beneficiary as a result of the deception incident, how could that happen?
 
One other common element from these stories is God's displeasure.  God is angry at Pharaoh for taking Sarah into his court, and he is angry with Abimelech for the same reason; he sends plagues to Pharaoh and threatens to kill Abimelech and his whole family.  If God wanted to enrich Abraham even further by means of this scheme, why didn't he let Sarah stay in Pharaoh's court even longer instead of slamming Pharaoh's land with disease and putting an end to the scheme?  If God's intention was to fulfill his covenent through these deception schemes, why didn't God just have Abimelech hand over the throne to Abraham or Isaac, while he was at it (he was after all being threatened with death in  the first story and dreaded grievous punishment in the second)?  Are we supposed to think that God not only condones but enables extortion schemes that involve placing your wife, by lying about her identity, in another man's court as long as you can get some cash out of it? 

I understand the Hebrew Bible to be teaching the lesson that God has made a covenent with Abraham, and when God makes a covenent, God fulfils that covenent out of "hessed," faithful love for those he has chosen, even when his chosen are not faithful to him.  This happens over and over again in the Bible.  But these stories don't give any indication that Abraham is rewarded because he schemed in this way and therefore it was a good sceme to perpetuate and pass on; they do give overt indication that God is not happy with this behavior and what it might have led to.  God blesses Abraham and his decendants because God made a promise, not because these schemes were anything God approved of.     

 

[anvi]

To get back then to the theme of this thread about Biblical authorship, everything above about the failure of each of the schemes as originally planned is precisely why some scholars suspect that this scheme being repeated three times, twice by the same patriarch and once by his son, is implausible. The stories all show that 1. the patriarchs are caught lying when the kings or people they lie to take or contemplate taking their wives, and in two of these cases, it's God who reveals the lie; 2. the patriarchs are in two of the stories punished in greater or lesser ways (exiled or scolded) and in one is bought off by a king who fears God will wipe him out if he doesn't; yes, the patriarchs come away in two of the stories with more cash and booty than they started with, but these are not evidence that the scheme was a great idea and 3. the lies lead to behavior that incurs God's displeasure in the first two stories.  So, the whole notion that the patriarchs would keep repeating these schemes despite the facts that their lies are exposed every time and the potentially grave outcomes of the schemes, emphasized in each version by the kings who were lied to and by God himself, are narrowly avoided seems pretty unlikely on the face of it.

Like I said before, I didn't get into this discussion for the purpose of defending the documentary hypothesis as it has been articulated.  As I've said, more than once, I don't know who wrote the Bible or when.  If God is the ultimate inspiration behind the Bible, which is a matter of faith, then it doesn't ultimately matter how many people wrote it.  All I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that even individual books of the Bible are compilations by many authors that were working with lots of different traditional oral narratives and weaved them together into what we now have as the present form of the books.  I don't think that hypothesis, in and of itself, does any danger to faith.

I think that dead horses should be buried decently, but may jesters never die!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I can not believe you are still pushing this.

You also overlook the fact that, in each story, not only are the patriarchs' lies revealed, but in the first two, it's God himself who puts an end to the lie.  Let's look at each of the stories.

God NEVER scolded Abraham, but instead used Abraham’s deception to increase Abraham’s blessing. 

---

Abraham did not profit in Genesis 12 after Pharaoh found out he had been lying about his wife being his sister.

Nice strawman you have there.  Who cares if the blessing came while the deception was in place or after the deception was revealed?.  Bottom line is that the deception provided the means for Abraham to become rich as well as protected his life.

---

Pharaoh did give Abraham considerable livestock when he took Sarah into his court, but God's plagues reveal to Pharaoh that Abraham lied to him.  When Pharaoh found out, he had Abraham escorted out of Egypt.  Abraham is allowed to keep what he got before the lie is discovered, but he is also kicked out of the country and driven back to a land from which he had originally fled famine.  That doesn't sound like a reward for his behavior.

There is NO MENTION of remaining famine by the time Abraham is escorted out.  Bottom line, the trip to Egypt and Abraham’s deception, allowed Abraham to ride out the famine and, in the process, protected his life and made him rich.

Any unbiased reader can see that Abraham benefitted from the deception.

----

It sounds like a divorce settlement, where someone is told; "yeah, go ahead and take that tv I bought you, just get the hell out of here."  At the beginning of chapter 13, it says that Abraham was rich with "livestock, silver and gold" (13:2), but in the story about Pharaoh, we are told that Pharaoh gave Abraham livestock plus men and women-slaves, and no mention is made of silver and gold (12:16).  It seems then that not all of Abraham's wealth after returning from Egypt was due to the gifts he was given by Pharaoh upon the taking of Sarah, so we can't really automatically infer that all Abraham's good fortunes were due to this scheme.

The silver and gold may not have come directly from Pharaoh, but Pharaoh gifts of livestock and servants obviously seeded Abraham’s ability to profit and gain silver and gold.

---

  The major result of the scheme in fact was that he got kicked out of a country he wanted to be in so he could escape famine.

The result of the scheme allowed them to ride out the famine in Egypt while simultaneously making Abraham rich.  And Abraham getting kicked out of Egypt simply brought him back to the Promised Land that God gave him as an inheritance.

So, there was a famine, Abraham went to Egypt to escape the famine…after the famine Abraham returned to the promised land as a rich man.

End of story.

---

In Genesis 20, Abimelech gave Abraham livestock and 10,000 shekels, but not as a reward for deceiving him, but presumably to acquire Abraham's assistance in bringing the curse off of his house after God has revealed to Abimelech that Abraham had lied to him.  The scheme does not work because Abraham plotted it all out that way; in fact, Abraham is given money not because the scheme worked, but because it didn't!

Again, this is a complete strawman, for it doesn’t matter if the gain came while the deception was in place or as a result of the deception being revealed.  The point is that the RESULT of the deception was riches.

---

In Genesis 26, Abimelech does not reward Isaac for having deceived his countrymen, he in fact scolds Isaac and warns the ciitzens to stay away from Isaac's wife.  So, once again, Isaac has been caught in the lie, and in this case, Abimelech does not give him anything.

Abimelech provided for Isaac’s protection as a result of the deception, and that protection was part of God’s plan to make Isaac rich:

Gen 26:11 “So Abimelech gave orders to all the people: "Anyone who molests this man or his wife shall surely be put to death." 12 Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the LORD blessed him. 13 The man became rich, and his wealth continued to grow until he became very wealthy.”

Any unbiased reader can see that Isaac benefitted from the deception, for he would NOT have had Abimelech’s protection without the deception.

---

  Isaac does stay in the land and reaps great harvests the following year, but no indication at all is given that this good fortune has any causal connection with Abimelech's having been deceived; the good harvests are not Isaac's reward for the scheme, they are merely God fulfilling his covenent with the descendents of Abraham.  In fact, Abimelech asks Isaac to leave Gerar in 26:16 because Isaac has become more powerful than he.  If Isaac was Abimelech's beneficiary as a result of the deception incident, how could that happen?

Obviously, Abimelech's protection aided Isaac to profit in his business.

---
 

One other common element from these stories is God's displeasure.  God is angry at Pharaoh for taking Sarah into his court, and he is angry with Abimelech for the same reason; he sends plagues to Pharaoh and threatens to kill Abimelech and his whole family.

But God never scolded Abraham or Isaac, rather the deception aided in building their wealth.

---

If God wanted to enrich Abraham even further by means of this scheme, why didn't he let Sarah stay in Pharaoh's court even longer instead of slamming Pharaoh's land with disease and putting an end to the scheme?

So, now you’re arguing that God enriched Abraham through these schemes, but that didn’t enrich Abraham enough?

---

If God's intention was to fulfill his covenent through these deception schemes, why didn't God just have Abimelech hand over the throne to Abraham or Isaac, while he was at it (he was after all being threatened with death in  the first story and dreaded grievous punishment in the second)?

Well, God could had done it anyway He chose, but this is the method He chose in this instance.

---

Are we supposed to think that God not only condones but enables extortion schemes that involve placing your wife, by lying about her identity, in another man's court as long as you can get some cash out of it?

Dude, have you not read in the account of the Exodus of how God instructed the Jews to plunder their Egyptian neighbors through deception?

Exo 11:2 Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold." 3Exo 12:35 35 The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. 36 The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.

Are you now going to argue that this deception didn't prosper the Jews during the Exodus?

The lesson is that God’s people will inherit the Earth, but those who are NOT God’s people will be plundered.  You’re so focused on trying to find fault with God’s word, that you’ve missed the whole lesson of the story.
 
---

But these stories don't give any indication that Abraham is rewarded because he schemed in this way and therefore it was a good sceme to perpetuate and pass on; they do give overt indication that God is not happy with this behavior and what it might have led to.  God blesses Abraham and his decendants because God made a promise, not because these schemes were anything God approved of.

The accounts themselves, as well as other accounts throughout the bible of God using deception to proper his people, totally refute your claim.     

---

To get back then to the theme of this thread about Biblical authorship, everything above about the failure of each of the schemes as originally planned is precisely why some scholars suspect that this scheme being repeated three times, twice by the same patriarch and once by his son, is implausible.

Dude, stop making an ass out of yourself.  The accounts CLEARLY show Abraham and Isaac prospering as a result of the deception.  These “scholars” are simply hacks who are using their status to spread their unbelief.

Don’t be deceived into thinking the title of “scholar” means it makes a person unbiased, noble, honest, trustworthy, and possessing common sense. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

anvikshiki,

I think the thing you're having trouble swallowing is the fact that God used deception throughout the Old Testament to plunder and even destroy other nations, simply for the sake of his chosen people - Israel. 

This does NOT mean Christians have the right to use deception, rather it simply is a sign that only those favored by God will survive judgment and if you're not one of God's chosen people (now defined as those having faith in Jesus Christ), you will die.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

anvikshiki,

I think the thing you're having trouble swallowing is the fact that God used deception throughout the Old Testament to plunder and even destroy other nations, simply for the sake of his chosen people - Israel. 

In addition, here a passage where God is reminding Israel that he has forsaken other nations on account of Israel:

Isa 43
3 For I am the LORD, your God,
       the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
       I give Egypt for your ransom,
       Cush and Seba in your stead.

 4 Since you are precious and honored in my sight,
       and because I love you,
       I will give men in exchange for you,
       and people in exchange for your life.


This is also, obviously, a prophecy about Jesus being forsaken and killed in ransom for believers, his life in exchange for ours.

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mat 27:46; Mark 15:34)

There are deeply profound lessons involved in the accounts you are disputing, but your unbelief is hiding those lessons from you.

[anvi]

First, jmfcst, since you apparently think that my interpretation is a function of my lack of faith, here are commentaries on the first story in Gen 12 by Christian believers, both classical and modern, who do not regard Abraham's behavior as laudible at all in their interpretations on this story.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xviii.i.html#xviii.i-p0.1

http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=012

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=012

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=ge&chapter=12

Or, how about Jewish interpretations of the story in Genesis 12?

http://urj.org/PrintItem/index.cfm?id=3125&type=Articles

One should look further into how the traditional Mishnah and Talmud
relate the significance of these stories.  The book is after all in the
Hebrew Bible.

Secondly, I never said that scholars were always noble and disinterested readers.  I said above that they do a lot of guesswork.  I also said that the DH was not necessarily the right interpretation.  The question was why some scholars favor multiple authorship hypotheses, and that's how this whole discussion arose. 

Finally, if you want to find a hack and an ass, have a look in the nearest mirror, dude.  I'm not the one bursting into adolescent temper tantrums and hurling insults at people or acting like he is the only authority on earth about Biblical literature.  You represent yourself to me and all the readers in this forum as the grand authority on Christianity.  But I don't think you are a Christian at heart at all, so I won't insult the many sincere Christians whom I respect by including you in their company.  You are nothing but a rude, boorish punk who imagines that the Bible gives him the self-righteous privilege of condeming people who don't believe exactly as you do, and what's more, you take pride in all this, behavior that only proves how incredibly insecure you are in both your "faith" and your person.  But these are your problems, not mine.  These are the last words I am going to say to you; I have much better things to do with my time then talk with you.  Go chase yourself.

 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First, jmfcst, since you apparently think that my interpretation is a function of my lack of faith, here are commentaries on the first story in Gen 12 by Christian believers, both classical and modern, who do not regard Abraham's behavior as laudible at all in their interpretations on this story.

Main Entry: laud·able 
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
: worthy of praise : commendable

Again, you're attempting to CHANGE what is in question, for I have NEVER said Abraham's actions were "laudable", nor do I believe the Israelites stealing the Egyptians gold just prior to the Exodus was "laudable".  These action of deceit are NOT to used as an example of Christian living.

Rather, what we have been arguing over is whether or not the deception profitted them.

---

As for me acting as a Christian "authority"...

I believe God gives EVERYONE the responsiblity to decide what and what not to believe.

I have laid out the reasons why I believe these account clearly demonstrate that the deception was profittable for Abraham and Isaac. 

If you, or anyone else on this forum, can't accept that they profitted from it...then so be it.

---

LATE EDIT:  missed this...

You are nothing but a rude, boorish punk who imagines that the Bible gives him the self-righteous privilege of condeming people who don't believe exactly as you do

dude, in case you didn't know, I'm probably the only Christian on this forum that goes to an inter-denominational church.

[12th Doctor]

First, jmfcst, since you apparently think that my interpretation is a function of my lack of faith, here are commentaries on the first story in Gen 12 by Christian believers, both classical and modern, who do not regard Abraham's behavior as laudible at all in their interpretations on this story.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xviii.i.html#xviii.i-p0.1

http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=012

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=012

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=ge&chapter=12

Or, how about Jewish interpretations of the story in Genesis 12?

http://urj.org/PrintItem/index.cfm?id=3125&type=Articles

One should look further into how the traditional Mishnah and Talmud
relate the significance of these stories.  The book is after all in the
Hebrew Bible.

Secondly, I never said that scholars were always noble and disinterested readers.  I said above that they do a lot of guesswork.  I also said that the DH was not necessarily the right interpretation.  The question was why some scholars favor multiple authorship hypotheses, and that's how this whole discussion arose. 

Finally, if you want to find a hack and an ass, have a look in the nearest mirror, dude.  I'm not the one bursting into adolescent temper tantrums and hurling insults at people or acting like he is the only authority on earth about Biblical literature.  You represent yourself to me and all the readers in this forum as the grand authority on Christianity.  But I don't think you are a Christian at heart at all, so I won't insult the many sincere Christians whom I respect by including you in their company.  You are nothing but a rude, boorish punk who imagines that the Bible gives him the self-righteous privilege of condeming people who don't believe exactly as you do, and what's more, you take pride in all this, behavior that only proves how incredibly insecure you are in both your "faith" and your person.  But these are your problems, not mine.  These are the last words I am going to say to you; I have much better things to do with my time then talk with you.  Go chase yourself.

 

Allow me to take this opportunity, as I have not yet done so, to welcome you to the forum, and to this board in particular.

I like what you wrote, and I agree with your points.  Well reasoned.  Well documented.  Well argued.

I'll tell you this right now, though:

Whiel we all feel compelled to argue jmf, and his occasional ridiculousness, you shouldn't wrap yourself around a tree over him.  The best approach for debating jmf is not to slug it out, but rather to drop in, make your point, demonstrate to others why he is wrong, and then make an exit, special forces style.

When I first starting debating jmf, I found him to be very knowledgeable, and a master arguer.  With time, however, I soon realized that, while jmf has a ridiculous wealth of knowledge concerning direct reading of scripture, his knowledge is more savant-like than anything else.  He is great at remembering it, and repeating it back, but the understanding is lacking.  As my own knowledge of historical and literary context of scripture grew, I soon came to see his ability to remember every event recorded in the Bible as something that was less and less impressive.

If you try to debate him for too long, you will just become frustrated, because his standard debate tactic is simply to reject the premise of whatever you say, regardless of how well you argue, or how much information you have to back you up.

If you were to state that the sky is blue, jmf would not argue for a different color, and he would not argue scientific reasoning behind that...

rather would would reject the notion that there was a sky at all.

You have done well, but don;t expect to get anywhere.

[anvi]

Dear Supersoulty,

Thank you very much for your post and your encouragement.  I appreciate your advice and will follow it.

I apologize to the forum for my immediately preceding post.  I didn't mean to lose it like that and was trying to advoid it, but I just got exasperated by the constant insults.  The strategy you suggest is the one I will take from now on.

Thanks again.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The best approach for debating jmf is not to slug it out, but rather to drop in, make your point, demonstrate to others why he is wrong, and then make an exit, special forces style.

Aren't you the one who stated my view of the Godhead was heresy because it violated some creed of your church?  Yet when I laid out my viewpoint of who Jesus was and the scriptural references to back it up, you had no retort.

---

He is great at remembering it, and repeating it back, but the understanding is lacking. 

as I have stated before:

have you ever noticed that you constantly defend your doctrine more than you defend scripture?

If by my doctrine you mean my interpretation of scripture, then I don't see how I can separate the two.

Your doctrine seems to me to be largely predicated on taking a few versus of scripture out of context, and then taking the notion of scripture itself out of context, just to make it clear to everyone that you can't be convinced by reason.

the next time you fell I am taking a verse out of context, then simply state what the correct context really is.

So don't shine me on.  Simply claiming someone is taking a verse "out of context" without explaining how it is out of context adds ZERO value to the conversation.  It's simply noise.  It's a cop out.  An excuse.  A thinly veiled attempt to cloak the absence of a response.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Supersoulty,

Simple question: If DH makes sense to you, how do you explain that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament repeatedly credited Moses as the author of the first five books of the bible?

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=moses&searchtype=all&version1=31&bookset=2

[Senator Robert A. Taft]

Supersoulty,

Simple question: If DH makes sense to you, how do you explain that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament repeatedly credited Moses as the author of the first five books of the bible?

My personal answer is that they were mistaken.  They were following the tradition of the time; if you had asked them if the Earth was flat, I'm sure they would have said yes to that as well.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Supersoulty,

Simple question: If DH makes sense to you, how do you explain that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament repeatedly credited Moses as the author of the first five books of the bible?

My personal answer is that they were mistaken.  They were following the tradition of the time; if you had asked them if the Earth was flat, I'm sure they would have said yes to that as well.

Jesus being mistaken is not an acceptable answer

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I really miss this thread.  It provides a great opportunity to compare the attitudes and beliefs of the bold biblical heroes of the faith with milquetoast modern-day Christianity, as well as sticking a thumb in the blind eyes of the know nothing, self-serving, grandiose-conspiracy-theorizing “scholars”.

Perfect!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Supersoulty,

Simple question: If DH makes sense to you, how do you explain that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament repeatedly credited Moses as the author of the first five books of the bible?

My personal answer is that they were mistaken.  They were following the tradition of the time; if you had asked them if the Earth was flat, I'm sure they would have said yes to that as well.

Jesus being mistaken is not an acceptable answer

It should be, given that it makes the most sense.