By the 1930s, however, historians who accepted

View previous topic View next topic Go down

By the 1930s, however, historians who accepted

Post by jancancook on Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:13 pm

By the 1930s, however, historians who accepted the basic premises of multiple authorship had come to reject the idea of an orderly evolution of Israelite religion. Critics instead began to suppose that law and ritual could be of equal importance, while taking different form, at different times. This means that there is no longer any a priori reason to believe that Exodus 20: 2-17 and Exodus 34: 10-28 were composed during different stages of Israelite history. For example, critical historian John Bright also dates the Jahwist texts to the tenth century BCE, but believes that they express a theology that "had already been normalized in the period of the Judges" (i.e. of the tribal alliance).[17] He concurs about the importance of the decalogue as "a central element in the covenant that brought together Israel into being as a people" but views the parallels between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, along with other evidence, as reason to believe that it is relatively close to its original form and Mosaic in origin.[18]

Pregnancy Miracle
IT Center Information

jancancook
Master of the Paranormal
Master of the Paranormal

Male
Number of posts : 468
Age : 31
Location : Viet Nam
Registration date : 2011-02-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum