Proof of the Christian God

[RonE]

In a current topic there was the following post:

Merely saying something is true does not make it true….
We as humans like to have proof.
Gullible people accept things, because it suits them…

And yet theists continue to claim that a creator being exists and that it made everything, despite repeatedly failing to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim....

I’ve seen other posts in the past on this site where theist claim to have scientific evidence of God. I never seen this actually done, usually their evidence is never presented, if something is presented it is invariably misquoted, or doesn’t say what the presenter claims it does.
So, to help us not be “gullible people�. This topic will be dedicated to theists to provide that which has been claimed but never provided, to my knowledge, real scientific evidence of the Christian god.
First, some definitions and parameters for debate:
1. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support, or counter, a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpreted in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls applied. Wikipedia
2. The scientific hypothesis you will be trying to support with your evidence goes like this: “there is a god as defined in the Christian bible who is omnificent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and creator of the universe�.
3. This is not a debate about evolution, disproving evolution is not a proof that your god exists. Nor is it about attempting to debunk other scientific hypothesis or theories, unless doing so is direct proof that your god exists, disproving the theory of gravity is not evidence of your god.
4. Please follow the forum rules. “the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.�

The rules for this debate are simple:
1) present your scientific evidence of your god
2) see #1

If you don’t have the evidence, please don’t waste everyone’s time.
If you don't like the OP create one for your own topic.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 100 by tfvespasianus]

Thanks TFV,

You are the first to actually analyze and dissect the evidence presented appropriately. Since we know the new testament was written after the events had taken place, you are making the point it was possible for these writers to make sure the account fit within already held beliefs about a messianic figure. Does the perspective that it was possible for the authors to do this, make it probable. As a non-theist put it, we are in the month of August. It is possible that snowfall may occur in New York before the month is out. That possibility, doesn't make it more or less probable that it will snow.

This demands an investigation as to the probability that the authors of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) used 'proof-texting' to make Jesus fit all the requirements of a messianic figure.

I have not done this investigation, nor performed the required calculations. Have you?

This type of investigation would provide significant evidence either for or against the claims found in the new testament.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

The question about the probability of the old testament portion of the bible retaining its accuracy goes to refute your argument that the OT was altered. To translate a book an retain accuracy is different than to alter a book.

Let's consider the most obvious refutation of this claim. Dueteronomy. Deuteronomy is in fact the "smoking gun" that openly establishes that the Bible has nothing to do with any inspiration of any God. Deuteronomy is clearly the result of very human asperations and contrivances. Deuteronomy is of course traditionally attributed to Moses, who Christians and Jews believe wrote under the influence of God. A wide spread tradition which can very useful. Very few things as as clear in history and religion as the fact that Deuteronomy was produced in the 7th century by the Levite priests in an attempt to further the religious reforms of the Levite priests and king Josiah, and not by Moses. And then it was fraudently proclaimed to the Jewish people to be an entirely new Book of the Law," written by Moses himself. Of course I can shout that God did not write or "inspire" the Bible until I am blue in the face. But in case of Deuteronomy, the evidence is both conclusive and overwhelming.

2 Kings:
[8] "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.
[9] And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD.
[10] And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
[11] And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.
[12] And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying,
[13] Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

2 Chronicles
[14] "And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses.
[15] And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan.
[16] And Shaphan carried the book to the king, and brought the king word back again, saying, All that was committed to thy servants, they do it.
[17] And they have gathered together the money that was found in the house of the LORD, and have delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and to the hand of the workmen.
[18] Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
[19] And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes.
[20] And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king's, saying,
[21] Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do after all that is written in this book."

The book of the law that was "found" was Deuteronomy. This occurred during the reign of King Josiah. (649–609 BCE) Jews and Christians have proclaimed Deuteronomy to be a valid book of the law, written by the hand of Moses under the inspiration and guidance of God Himself. And so Deuteronomy is firmly entrenched as the fifth book of the Torah/Pentateuch by devout Jews and Christians today.

Wikipedia
Moses
Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 (120 years) BCE;[9] Jerome gives 1592 BCE,[10] and James Ussher 1571 BCE as his birth year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

So Moses is believed to have lived circa the 14th or 15th century BC. Construction of the first temple at Jerusalem, known as Solomon's temple, began during the reign of king Solomon.

Wikipedia
Solomon
The conventional dates of Solomon's reign are circa 970 to 931 BC, normally given in alignment with the dates of David's reign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon

So somehow Moses managed to hide a document he wrote which no one suspected even existed in the Temple of Solomon which would not be built until five or six centuries after Moses had died, where it would remain undetected for another three centuries, when it was then "found" by Levite high priest Hilkiah. Those paying careful attention here may be forgiven if they notice that the math seems to be somewhat askew.

So what does this new "book of the law" say?

Deut.12
[1] "These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.
[2] Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
[3] And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.
[4] Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God.
[5] But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:
[6] And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:"

No more consecrating your offerings to the Lord in any place but the place God chooses, and it better be the very finest offerings you have, by HIM, or else. And of course by the time the "lost" book was "found," the place of His choosing had long been chosen. The temple in Jerusalem, the very stronghold of the Levite priests.

Deut.12
[16] "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:
[17] Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee."

Deut.18
[1] "The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
[2] Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.
[3] And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.
[4] The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him."

Wow! What a huge break for the Levites! Three times a year you must come to Jerusalem and make your offering to the Lord of the finest things you possess. And once your offering is consecrated it becomes the property of the Levites.

But there is more:

Deut. 17
[14] When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
[15] Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."

The Jews had never had a king over them during the time of Moses. But Moses predicts that one day they will have their own land and will one day have a king over them. Well wasn't Moses clairvoyant. 700 years later the Jewish nation does indeed have a king. And Deuteronomy endorses the title and position and sacntifies it, making the position of King one determined by God Himself. What a break for King Josiah! He now holds his position by right as the Divine Will of God.

What an amazing boon for the king and the Levite priests Deuteronomy proved to be. Deuteronomy could hardly have been more beneficial to them then if they had written it themselves.

Wikipedia
Deuteronomy
Composition history
Since the evidence was first put forward by W.M.L de Wette in 1805, scholars have accepted that the core of Deuteronomy was composed in Jerusalem in the 7th century BC in the context of religious reforms advanced by King Josiah. (reigned 641–609 BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy

This is a false accusation and shows you did not read what I wrote. The Dead Sea scrolls are proof that Christians did not alter the old testament. In short, we know the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Jewish scribes about 200 years before Jesus was born. These writings matched word for word, the text used by Christians almost a 1000 years later. The whole point of the evidence I provided was to refute this claim used by those who do not have an accurate knowledge of the facts. If Christians in AD 900-1000 altered the old testament, we would expect the old testament writings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to contradict what is found in Christian bibles. Instead what we find is 95% overall agreement (book of Esther is in Christian bible, but not Dead Sea Scroll), and 99% word for word agreement of the remaining text.

And you did not read what I wrote.

Virtually all historical critics have have concluded that the OT had reached it's final and current form by 200 BC.

No one is questioning the fact that the Hebrew OT had reached it's current form by about 200 BC.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 102 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Let us take a look at your claims, and compare them at face value to what the actual facts are.

You claim

Deuteronomy was produced in the 7th century by the Levite priests in an attempt to further the religious reforms of the Levite priests and king Josiah, and not by Moses.

To back this claim, you provide two excerpts: 2 Kings 22:8-13 and 2 Chronicles 34:14-21. Based on your inclusion of the word found in quotation marks, I believe it is a safe assumption that you don't believe the Levite's found this book, but instead made it up.
To back this assertion that the book was not found, but made up, you conclude Moses who would have been alive between 14th or 15 century BC, hid the book inside Solomon's Temple which supposedly wasn't built for another 500-600 years.

So somehow Moses managed to hide a document he wrote which no one suspected even existed in the Temple of Solomon which would not be built until five or six centuries after Moses had died, where it would remain undetected for another three centuries, when it was then "found" by Levite high priest Hilkiah. Those paying careful attention here may be forgiven if they notice that the math seems to be somewhat askew.

Finally you close your argument with Deut 12:1-6, Deut 12:16-17, Deut 17:14-15, and Deut 18:1-4.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:

Three times a year you must come to Jerusalem and make your offering to the Lord of the finest things you possess. And once your offering is consecrated it becomes the property of the Levites.

The Jews had never had a king over them during the time of Moses. But Moses predicts that one day they will have their own land and will one day have a king over them. Well wasn't Moses clairvoyant. 700 years later the Jewish nation does indeed have a king. And Deuteronomy endorses the title and position and sacntifies it, making the position of King one determined by God Himself. What a break for King Josiah! He now holds his position by right as the Divine Will of God.

What an amazing boon for the king and the Levite priests Deuteronomy proved to be. Deuteronomy could hardly have been more beneficial to them then if they had written it themselves.

>>>>
There are errors and leaps in logic all over your argument.
Let us first confirm where we are agreement.
1. The book of Deuteronomy is attributed to being authored by Moses.
2. Moses is believed to have lived circa the 14th or 15th century BC.
3. The book of Law mentioned in 2 Kings 22:8-13 and 2 Chronicles 34:14-21 occur during the reign of King Josiah (estimated 649–609 BC).
4. Moses prophesied that Israel would reject God as their king, and demand a king for themselves.

Now, compare the actual biblical record, with your claims.
After entering the promised land, the Israelite people are recorded to turn away from God and worship idols. During these periods, the bible records some years of faithfulness by the Israelite's, but mostly years of unfaithfulness, wickedness and in some cases outright perversion. (Moses records the people doing some of the same things in Exodus)

After many years with no outright leader, the nation cries out to God for a king, just as Moses foretold. The book of Samuel records Saul as the first king of the Israelite's. By the time we get to Josiah in 2 Kings 22:8-13 and 2 Chronicles 34:14-21, 9 different rulers had occupied the throne in Judah alone (29 if you include all the kings of splintered Israel.). Of these 9, multiple are recorded as doing evil in the sight of the Lord (meaning they worshiped other gods, built alters to idols in the same temple in question, and replaced the writings of Moses with religious texts of other gods.)

So is it possible, if not logical to presume that during the reign of one of these 'wicked' kings, the writings of the book of Deuteronomy were moved or misplaced. Moses did not need to sneak into the temple and hide a book. It is a historical fact that after a regime change, certain documents which belong to the prior regime are not kept or maintained at the same level. From the time of king Saul to king Josiah, there were 9 regime changes, and we are told that this change was a total opposite of the prior regime. We see this hold true even today. When the presidential office changes from one political party to another, there are often mass firings, a change in cabinet members as well as a change in the type of laws which gets passed. Bills which were close to being laws, are set aside and often never get passed. The book of Deut was set aside.

Now to your point of the book being found conveniently. A more convenient time for this books discovery would have been when the nation was being split into two. This book could have given the king who found it the right to prevent the kingdom from being split in two. Also, we know important historical documents are often found in subsequent generations. Not too long ago, it was proven that an authentic Declaration of Independence was found at a flea market.

Believing it to be merely a souvenir copy his research showed, to the contrary, he had discovered the only true facsimile copy of the original Declaration of Independence ever produced. The anastatic engrossed (handwritten) Declaration is more important and definitely more rare than a copy of one of the reported 200+ Dunlap typeset (printed) copies distributed July 5, 1776

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 81328.html
According to your logic, the original author of this facsimile copy traveled through time over 200 years and hid the document at the flea market. We see important historical documents being lost, and then found again, all the time. To presume that historical discoveries can only take place in recent history, but impossible in biblical history is both illogical and erroneous.

What we see in Deuteronomy is not an endorsement of a king, but instead a strict set of instructions on how not to be corrupted by the power or authority that comes with being a king. Verse 20 gives us the reason this set of instructions is included. It basically states in that verse "So that the king should not consider himself better than the rest of his Israelite brothers. The entire text from Deut 17:14-20 reads:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Further more, none of the instructions given on how and where the Israelite people were to worship included Jerusalem. This was your addition, and not found in Deuteronomy. What we do find is a dedication of Solomon's Temple to God in 1 Kings 8. Since the Ark of the Covenant was in the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, the people knew that three times a year, they had to go where God was (wherever the covenant was, or God's word, it was understood that He was there as well). Prior to the rediscovery of these texts, people felt it was an inconvenience to leave the comfort of home (with the nation being split in two) and go to Jerusalem, so they built a temple in Samaria.

To use this as a basis to show that the bible has been altered is factually incorrect. Historical documents are found all the time that give us information on what the framers of the US constitution were thinking when the put the document together. To act as though any discovery is automatically fraud because you don't like the subject matter of the text is biased.

Deuteronomy shows no evidence that the bible has been altered. On the contrary, if it had been altered, it would have included specific language similar to the verbiage found in the books of Kings or Chronicles. We know linguistic styles change over time, and this helps us validate whether a document truly reflects the period it is purported to have been written in. Phraseology is one of the tools historians use to validate historicity of a text.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

Moses did not need to sneak into the temple and hide a book.

Needing to "sneak" into the temple was the least of Moses' problems. The fact the the temple wasn't built until five or six hundred years after Moses died would have been Moses' biggest hurdle.

But let's go right to the source. And that would be the Jews. It's their book after all. Do the Jews believe that Moses wrote Deuteronomy? NO. Only the most fundamentalist of Jewish believers who declare everything to be exactly as they believe it to be, claim that Deuteronomy was written by Moses.

Jewish Encyclopedia.
Age and Authorship of Deuteronomy.
It is the unanimous opinion of modern critics that Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the seventh century B.C., either during the reign of Manasseh, or during that of Josiah (but before his eighteenth year, the Book of the Law found in that year in the Temple [see II Kings xxii.-xxiii.] clearly containing Deuteronomy, if indeed it included anything more). The reasons for this conclusion, stated here in the briefest outline, are as follows: (1) Even upon the assumption that JE in Exodus and Numbers is Mosaic, the historical discrepancies in Deut. i-iv. and ix.-x., and the terms in which incidents belonging to the fortieth year of the Exodus are referred to, preclude the possibility of Deuteronomy being Mosaic likewise; while the use of the expression "beyond Jordan" in i. 1, 5; iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49, for eastern Palestine, implies that the author was a resident in western Palestine. (2) The same conclusion follows, a fortiori, for those who allow that JE is a post-Mosaic document, from the fact, noticed above, that JE itself, both in the narrative parts and in the laws, is repeatedly quoted in Deuteronomy. (3) In Deuteronomy it is strictly laid down that sacrifice is to be offered at a single central sanctuary (xii. 5, 11, 14, etc.); whereas in Joshua to I Kings vi. sacrifices are frequently described as offered in various parts of the land (in accordance with the law of Ex. xx. 24), without any indication on the part of either the actor or the narrator that a law such as that of Deuteronomy is being infringed. (4) The other differences between the legislation of Deuteronomy and that of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. point with some cogency to the conclusion that the laws of Deuteronomy originated in a later and more highly developed stage of society than the laws of Exodus. (5) The law of the kingdom (xvii. 14-20) is colored by reminiscences of the monarchy of Solomon. (6) The forms of idolatry referred to—especially the worship of the "host of heaven" (iv. 19, xvii. 7)—point to a date not earlier than the reign of Ahaz, and more probably to one in the seventh century B. C.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... euteronomy

The evidence against a Mosaic authorship is overwhelming. Even Jewish scholars recognize that. The consensus opinion that Deuteronomy was not written by Moses is nearly unanimous. The unswerving insistence by fundamentalists that of course Moses wrote Deuteronomy, based on the rigid conviction that it must necessarily be so is all the more damning because it is so clearly and transparently contrived. This is an obvious and classic case of make it up and declare it to be true. And it works to undermine everything else that is proclaimed by fundamentalists to be true, because it so clearly establishes the defiant eyes-closed "My mind is made up so don't bother trying to confuse me with the facts" process at work. So stick to your guns. It only helps my case.

Deuteronomy shows no evidence that the bible has been altered. On the contrary, if it had been altered, it would have included specific language similar to the verbiage found in the books of Kings or Chronicles. We know linguistic styles change over time, and this helps us validate whether a document truly reflects the period it is purported to have been written in. Phraseology is one of the tools historians use to validate historicity of a text.

The Jewish Encyclopedia
The redaction of Deut. passed, according to Wellhausen, through three stages: (1) the original Deut.—xii.-xxvi.; (2) two enlarged editions independentof each other—i.-iv., xii.-xxvi., xvii., and v.-xi., xii.-xxvi., xxviii.-xxx.; (3) combination of the two editions and incorporation of the work so formed into the Hexateuchic code. Deuteronomy was in the first place combined only with JE; a later editor combined this work with P after the component parts of the latter had been put together. Dillmann assumes the following three stages of redaction down to Ezra: (1) Pg + E + J; (2) PgEJ + D; (3) PgEJD + Ph (law of holiness). The views in regard to the redaction depend on what is considered as the original Deut. and into what and how many parts it is divided.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... euteronomy

Deuteronomy
"Modern critics agree that the Mosaic background of the discourses and of the code is fictitious, and that the origin of the book lies in a later period. It is almost universally agreed that at least the code of laws was the book found in the temple by Hilkiah (2 Kings 28:8 and 2 Chron.34:14). "

"It is unlikely that any of the material after 31:14 belongs to the original book, and it serves as a conclusion to the Pnt as a whole. The other traditions of the Pnt are found in these passages. Certainly neither the song of Moses (Ch. 32) not the blessings of the 12 tribes (Ch.33) was a part of the original compilation of Dt." (Dictionary of the Bible, "Deuteronomy," pg 197, By Father John L. McKenzie, SJ).

[RonE]

[Replying to post 99 by KingandPriest]

Thus far,

Only Blastcat has attempted to challenge the evidence I've presented in Post73 (Here is my evidence).

Blastcat and I, have taken parts of our discussion out of this format, since we are mostly providing definitions of certain terms and didn't want to distract from the OP.

Does this mean, the evidence I have presented so far is sufficient to answer the OP?

If the evidence is sufficient, now what?

If the evidence is not sufficient, I ask what would be sufficient? What is needed?

I'll get back to this tomorrow, sorry family obligations.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 104 by Tired of the Nonsense]

First of all, I want to thank you for making do additional research. It is this additional research I will present here.

My first question is have you read the dissertation presented by Wilhelm de Wette? I know it was written in an abstruse style of academic Latin common to that era, but if you find an translation, you will find it does not contain any evidence at all. Although referenced by many critiques of the bible, when one actually reads De Wette's dissertation, it is easy to see no real evidence was presented. De Wette arrives at his conclusion based solely on his own logical deductions. He refutes the deductions of others, and then states why his logic should be accepted. There is no discussion of language inconsistencies, linguistic fallacy or accompanying evidence to support his claim.

Lets take a look at De Wettes main rationale for arriving at the conclusion the book of Deuteronomy was crafted during the reign of Josiah. Notice the lack of actual evidence.

Before we can regard this fact in its true form, we must free it from manifold misrepresentations and misinterpretations. Mr. Hofrath Eichhorn should like to persuade us that at the time the lawbook was not at all unknown, and in consequence he understands the discovery of the lawbook as that of a noteworthy exemplar of it, a temple exemplar, or perhaps an autograph exemplar of Moses. This [169] guess is wholly unsustainable. For 1) the historian does not say, that an old, venerable exemplar of the lawbook was found, but simply the lawbook. “And Hilkia said: I have found a book of the law in the house of Jehovah� (v. 8). If what was noteworthy in the matter had lain simply in the manuscript, while the lawbook was otherwise known, then this would have been said, if we don’t want to take the narrator to be totally incompetent. 2) Just as the narrator does not stress the condition of the manuscript, so too is the surprise occasioned by the discovery of the lawbook aroused not by the old ductus and other signs of the book’s antiquity, but by its content, by the words of the book (v. 10, 11). The king has the book read to him. He does not examine the manuscript, and thereafter he has the book, “the words of the book,� read before the people. He does not have the venerable old exemplar handed around, for people to look at it and marvel.

This hypothesis refuted, the claim, too, is refuted, that the discovered lawbook was not unknown at that time. [170] As it is found, and is found as a book (that is, in regard to its content), it could not have already been there. Eichhorn, only, has still further arguments. “That of these (the Mosaic) books (he thus immediately assumes that the lawbook found under Josiah was our Pentateuch, which is what we first want to investigate), that at that time,� he says, “no one knew anything of these books is against all history. Not the whole court, but just the young king, moved into action, and he did not wonder at the presence of the books, but at the blood-curdling content, that concerned the trespassers of the laws. And how easily could this content have remained unknown to him up to that time! To him, to whom likely, given the irreligious orientation of his father, no religious upbringing had been available!�

If Eichhorn invokes on his behalf earlier traces of the presence of Moses’s lawbook, in order to render it probable that it was not unknown in Josiah’s time, we have not found the like in our investigations, or must reject them; in addition, he forgets that in the time from Hezekiah (under whom, according to the report in Chronicles, the lawbook is supposed to have been available) [171] to Josiah, in a period of roughly 100 years, under irreligious regimes the lawbook could easily have become unknown. It therefore remains for us only to investigate, according the narration of our fact in 2 Kings 22 and 23, whether one knew of the discovered lawbook at that time.

The king does not yet know this lawbook. The narrative shows this plainly. Eichhorn’s distinction, that the book’s content, not its presence, shocked the king, is certainly highlydistilled, unfortunately all too much so, and kicks altogether against the laws of historical interpretation. One reads: “And Shaphan, the scribe, spoke to the king, and said: Hilkia the priest gave me a book, and Shaphan read it to the king. And as the king heard the words of the lawbook, he rent his clothing. And the king commanded Hilkia the priest (and others) and said: Go hence and ask Jehovah for me, for the people and for all Judah about the words of this book, which has been found� and so on. It is not said here that he marveled at the presence of the book, but very clearly [172] that for him it was new (discovered).

Regarding King Josiah’s education we know nothing; still, he appears to have been religious even before the finding of the lawbook: for he takes care for the repair of the temple, and sends his scribe there to give the incoming money to the workers. The Books of Kings also characterize him from the very start as a king wholly pious like David (2 Kings 22:2). Had he followed, in his early years, the footsteps of his fathers, this would surely have been mentioned; and, we have no other reason to deduce the son’s orientation from the father’s, since one cannot know who influenced him, such as his mother perhaps. It is thus highly likely that he could have known the lawbook if it were already there.

Eichhorn says, not the whole court, but just the king was moved to action by it. It is admittedly not related, that the whole court was moved to action, because the narrator simply reports the sensation it made with the king – this is also historically important as the reason for the succeeding action. From this alone it does not follow that the king’s courtiers [173] must have been familiar with the book already. Had this been the case, Shaphan could not have said to the king: “Hilkia gave me a book,� but would have had to say: “he gave me the lawbook� (which is otherwise familiar already); and the king could not have told the priests and his courtiers: “Go hence and ask Jehovah about the words of this book that has been found.� One would then have to assume that these actors deliberately left him with the delusion that the book was unknown, which could however have been of no use to them.

The priest also produces the discovered book not as one that is known, nor as a book whose content is known from legend. He says, “I have found a book (register, record) of the law ([Heb]spr htwrh mş’ty)�. Chronicles, in the parallel passage 2 Chron. 34, 14, has him find [Heb] spr twrh [sic: MT twrt] yhwh byd mšh – a designation willfully inserted by the author into the authentic relation, which we do not accept, just as we do not take account of his relation generally here, in which the facts are presented somewhat differently. Likewise, in order to free the priest of the suspicion of perpetrating a fraud, [174] he has introduced the discovery itself into the narrative, and has it take place in the company of others, “And as they took the money out (out of the chest), Hilkia found the book,� and so forth. He would however have said: “I [174] have found the book (that we have been missing for so long).�

Finally, the narrator gives it clearly enough to be understood that the book was unknown at that time. As already noted, he does not say that a remarkable exemplar of the otherwise familiar law book has been found, but straightforwardly: “the lawbook has been found.� When he mentions it afterward as well, he always calls it: “the book that was found in the house of Jehovah�, or: “the book that Hilkia the priest had found in the house of Jehovah.� It follows from this that it was long unknown, if indeed not an entirely new book. At least it seems to have been a new book to the narrator. For had he known of the previous presence of the book in history, he would not have had the discovery perpetually in mind, he would not have called it always the discovered book, but likely, in a different enough way, a [175] a previously known one, as well.

https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/kh04dp809

De Wettes main argument was that the author of Chronicles described the book found by Hilkiah as "a book" rather than "the book" in 2 Kings 22:10. In essence he argued, since the chronicler records Shaphan saying "the priest has found a book" and that book leads to a Passover like the formalized nation of Israel hadn't experienced, De Wette concludes no prior knowledge of Deuteronomy could have existed. De Wette holds the book was previously unknown and Hilkiah effectively presented it as though it were new.

Indeed, were the work that of Moses, Hilkia would not have said, “I’ve found a
book of the law,� and the narrator would not describe it as “the book that has been
found�. Moreover, as noted above, no text is said to have entered the temple but the
tablets of Moses, and certainly no book attributed to Moses. And, there is no previous
evidence of the book’s existence: when 2 Kgs 23 reports a Passover held according to the book, it stipulates that none such had taken place in all the monarchic era: yet, had it been known, some king, one of them at the least, would surely have done so. The inevitable conclusion is that the “book of the law� was confected for political and religious purposes at Josiah’s court itself.

https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/kh04dp809

It was De Wette's exposure and influence to the writings and beliefs of Eichorn, Vater and Geddes which led him to the theory of a post Israel kingdom authorship of Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch as a whole.

By 1780, the year of de Wette’s birth near Weimar, Germany, Jean Astruc had published his brief work on the sources of Genesis, and A. Geddes, J. S. Vater, J. G. Eichhorn, and other scholars had begun to pursue the logical extension of the so-called documentary hypothesis that followed in its wake. Their influence is obvious in de Wette’s Dissertatio submitted to the University of Jena in 1805 and in his subsequent publications.

http://jesot.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... errill.pdf

Though De Wette raised interesting questions, it is not sufficient to claim as evidence for a adjustment of historical authorship date. There are still other questions one could raise about Deuteronomy which could support its original estimated authorship date.

Why would a fabricator mistakenly name Nisan 'Abib' as found in Deuteronomy 16:1?( The name Nissan would have been common for that era see Neh 2:1; Esth 3:7)

What importance would details about Sihon, Og, and the Amorites, have in the conscription of a new set of religious rules?

Though some accept De Wette's claims because the doctoral review board accepted his dissertation, it does not mean the majority of bible researchers do. It does not meet the minimum standard of evidence required to validate a claim on any other topic. The only evidence presented in his dissertation was an opinion about a prevailing theory in his era. Higher levels of evidence should be required. This should be especially true for non-theist who typically desire an abundance of evidence.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 104 by Tired of the Nonsense]

First of all, I want to thank you for making do additional research. It is this additional research I will present here.

My first question is have you read the dissertation presented by Wilhelm de Wette? I know it was written in an abstruse style of academic Latin common to that era, but if you find an translation, you will find it does not contain any evidence at all. Although referenced by many critiques of the bible, when one actually reads De Wette's dissertation, it is easy to see no real evidence was presented. De Wette arrives at his conclusion based solely on his own logical deductions. He refutes the deductions of others, and then states why his logic should be accepted. There is no discussion of language inconsistencies, linguistic fallacy or accompanying evidence to support his claim.

Lets take a look at De Wettes main rationale for arriving at the conclusion the book of Deuteronomy was crafted during the reign of Josiah. Notice the lack of actual evidence.

Before we can regard this fact in its true form, we must free it from manifold misrepresentations and misinterpretations. Mr. Hofrath Eichhorn should like to persuade us that at the time the lawbook was not at all unknown, and in consequence he understands the discovery of the lawbook as that of a noteworthy exemplar of it, a temple exemplar, or perhaps an autograph exemplar of Moses. This [169] guess is wholly unsustainable. For 1) the historian does not say, that an old, venerable exemplar of the lawbook was found, but simply the lawbook. “And Hilkia said: I have found a book of the law in the house of Jehovah� (v. 8). If what was noteworthy in the matter had lain simply in the manuscript, while the lawbook was otherwise known, then this would have been said, if we don’t want to take the narrator to be totally incompetent. 2) Just as the narrator does not stress the condition of the manuscript, so too is the surprise occasioned by the discovery of the lawbook aroused not by the old ductus and other signs of the book’s antiquity, but by its content, by the words of the book (v. 10, 11). The king has the book read to him. He does not examine the manuscript, and thereafter he has the book, “the words of the book,� read before the people. He does not have the venerable old exemplar handed around, for people to look at it and marvel.

This hypothesis refuted, the claim, too, is refuted, that the discovered lawbook was not unknown at that time. [170] As it is found, and is found as a book (that is, in regard to its content), it could not have already been there. Eichhorn, only, has still further arguments. “That of these (the Mosaic) books (he thus immediately assumes that the lawbook found under Josiah was our Pentateuch, which is what we first want to investigate), that at that time,� he says, “no one knew anything of these books is against all history. Not the whole court, but just the young king, moved into action, and he did not wonder at the presence of the books, but at the blood-curdling content, that concerned the trespassers of the laws. And how easily could this content have remained unknown to him up to that time! To him, to whom likely, given the irreligious orientation of his father, no religious upbringing had been available!�

If Eichhorn invokes on his behalf earlier traces of the presence of Moses’s lawbook, in order to render it probable that it was not unknown in Josiah’s time, we have not found the like in our investigations, or must reject them; in addition, he forgets that in the time from Hezekiah (under whom, according to the report in Chronicles, the lawbook is supposed to have been available) [171] to Josiah, in a period of roughly 100 years, under irreligious regimes the lawbook could easily have become unknown. It therefore remains for us only to investigate, according the narration of our fact in 2 Kings 22 and 23, whether one knew of the discovered lawbook at that time.

The king does not yet know this lawbook. The narrative shows this plainly. Eichhorn’s distinction, that the book’s content, not its presence, shocked the king, is certainly highlydistilled, unfortunately all too much so, and kicks altogether against the laws of historical interpretation. One reads: “And Shaphan, the scribe, spoke to the king, and said: Hilkia the priest gave me a book, and Shaphan read it to the king. And as the king heard the words of the lawbook, he rent his clothing. And the king commanded Hilkia the priest (and others) and said: Go hence and ask Jehovah for me, for the people and for all Judah about the words of this book, which has been found� and so on. It is not said here that he marveled at the presence of the book, but very clearly [172] that for him it was new (discovered).

Regarding King Josiah’s education we know nothing; still, he appears to have been religious even before the finding of the lawbook: for he takes care for the repair of the temple, and sends his scribe there to give the incoming money to the workers. The Books of Kings also characterize him from the very start as a king wholly pious like David (2 Kings 22:2). Had he followed, in his early years, the footsteps of his fathers, this would surely have been mentioned; and, we have no other reason to deduce the son’s orientation from the father’s, since one cannot know who influenced him, such as his mother perhaps. It is thus highly likely that he could have known the lawbook if it were already there.

Eichhorn says, not the whole court, but just the king was moved to action by it. It is admittedly not related, that the whole court was moved to action, because the narrator simply reports the sensation it made with the king – this is also historically important as the reason for the succeeding action. From this alone it does not follow that the king’s courtiers [173] must have been familiar with the book already. Had this been the case, Shaphan could not have said to the king: “Hilkia gave me a book,� but would have had to say: “he gave me the lawbook� (which is otherwise familiar already); and the king could not have told the priests and his courtiers: “Go hence and ask Jehovah about the words of this book that has been found.� One would then have to assume that these actors deliberately left him with the delusion that the book was unknown, which could however have been of no use to them.

The priest also produces the discovered book not as one that is known, nor as a book whose content is known from legend. He says, “I have found a book (register, record) of the law ([Heb]spr htwrh mş’ty)�. Chronicles, in the parallel passage 2 Chron. 34, 14, has him find [Heb] spr twrh [sic: MT twrt] yhwh byd mšh – a designation willfully inserted by the author into the authentic relation, which we do not accept, just as we do not take account of his relation generally here, in which the facts are presented somewhat differently. Likewise, in order to free the priest of the suspicion of perpetrating a fraud, [174] he has introduced the discovery itself into the narrative, and has it take place in the company of others, “And as they took the money out (out of the chest), Hilkia found the book,� and so forth. He would however have said: “I [174] have found the book (that we have been missing for so long).�

Finally, the narrator gives it clearly enough to be understood that the book was unknown at that time. As already noted, he does not say that a remarkable exemplar of the otherwise familiar law book has been found, but straightforwardly: “the lawbook has been found.� When he mentions it afterward as well, he always calls it: “the book that was found in the house of Jehovah�, or: “the book that Hilkia the priest had found in the house of Jehovah.� It follows from this that it was long unknown, if indeed not an entirely new book. At least it seems to have been a new book to the narrator. For had he known of the previous presence of the book in history, he would not have had the discovery perpetually in mind, he would not have called it always the discovered book, but likely, in a different enough way, a [175] a previously known one, as well.

https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/kh04dp809

De Wettes main argument was that the author of Chronicles described the book found by Hilkiah as "a book" rather than "the book" in 2 Kings 22:10. In essence he argued, since the chronicler records Shaphan saying "the priest has found a book" and that book leads to a Passover like the formalized nation of Israel hadn't experienced, De Wette concludes no prior knowledge of Deuteronomy could have existed. De Wette holds the book was previously unknown and Hilkiah effectively presented it as though it were new.

Indeed, were the work that of Moses, Hilkia would not have said, “I’ve found a
book of the law,� and the narrator would not describe it as “the book that has been
found�. Moreover, as noted above, no text is said to have entered the temple but the
tablets of Moses, and certainly no book attributed to Moses. And, there is no previous
evidence of the book’s existence: when 2 Kgs 23 reports a Passover held according to the book, it stipulates that none such had taken place in all the monarchic era: yet, had it been known, some king, one of them at the least, would surely have done so. The inevitable conclusion is that the “book of the law� was confected for political and religious purposes at Josiah’s court itself.

https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/kh04dp809

It was De Wette's exposure and influence to the writings and beliefs of Eichorn, Vater and Geddes which led him to the theory of a post Israel kingdom authorship of Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch as a whole.

By 1780, the year of de Wette’s birth near Weimar, Germany, Jean Astruc had published his brief work on the sources of Genesis, and A. Geddes, J. S. Vater, J. G. Eichhorn, and other scholars had begun to pursue the logical extension of the so-called documentary hypothesis that followed in its wake. Their influence is obvious in de Wette’s Dissertatio submitted to the University of Jena in 1805 and in his subsequent publications.

http://jesot.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... errill.pdf

Though De Wette raised interesting questions, it is not sufficient to claim as evidence for a adjustment of historical authorship date. There are still other questions one could raise about Deuteronomy which could support its original estimated authorship date.

Why would a fabricator mistakenly name Nisan 'Abib' as found in Deuteronomy 16:1?( The name Nissan would have been common for that era see Neh 2:1; Esth 3:7)

What importance would details about Sihon, Og, and the Amorites, have in the conscription of a new set of religious rules?

Though some accept De Wette's claims because the doctoral review board accepted his dissertation, it does not mean the majority of bible researchers do. It does not meet the minimum standard of evidence required to validate a claim on any other topic. The only evidence presented in his dissertation was an opinion about a prevailing theory in his era. Higher levels of evidence should be required. This should be especially true for non-theist who typically desire an abundance of evidence.

Wilhelm de Wette died in 1849. That fact alone does not disqualify his opinion of course. But as I attempted to point out, the recognition that Moses did not write Deuteronomy is close to unanimous among modern scholars. Which is the reason I supplied you with the opinions of both Jewish and Catholic experts. This is not simply a secular opinion. That Moses actually wrote Deuteronomy is an opinion supported manly by fundamentalist who exhibit a good deal more religious partisanship then genuine scholarship in their entrenched position. it's a classic example of just how much self deception people are willing to swallow in order to support their foregone conclusions.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 107 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Deut 34:5

[5] So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD,

Hopefully we can all agree that Moses didn’t right this, correct?

[tfvespasianus]

Thanks TFV,

You are the first to actually analyze and dissect the evidence presented appropriately.

Thanks, I do try.


I don’t think the snow in NY analogy fits what I am trying to convey. To put it crudely, if I composed a biography of an individual filled with allusions to David Bowie songs as details of this person’s life as a persuasive tool that said individual was David Bowie redivivus, then it would be of little use calculating how unlikely (or likely) that such allusions would be as biographical details. As an aside, I did actually compose a prologue to such a ‘gospel’ once.

With respect to Jewish messianic expectations in the early first century, this is in itself a hotly contested issue in scholarship. Needless to say, without engaging in anachronism or circular reasoning, it’s difficult to find direct contemporary evidence of a ‘standard’ idea of what an expected messiah might look like (i.e. a job description) and, moreover, the state of the evidence in ambiguous on the question of how widely held this expectation was in the period in question (i.e. early first century). I have purchased the book Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, a collection of essays edited by Jacob Neusner, but I have yet to read it. In any case, it will most likely be a bit before I do so.

Take care,
TFV

[RonE]

[Replying to post 99 by KingandPriest]

Thus far,

Only Blastcat has attempted to challenge the evidence I've presented in Post73 (Here is my evidence).

Blastcat and I, have taken parts of our discussion out of this format, since we are mostly providing definitions of certain terms and didn't want to distract from the OP.

Does this mean, the evidence I have presented so far is sufficient to answer the OP?

No, as far back as my post #70 I told you that what you were presenting was not fulfilling the OP "The best thing I can say for what you've presented so far is that it simply doesn't fit the OP"

If the evidence is not sufficient, I ask what would be sufficient? What is needed?

This topic is not about modifying the known scientific methods to accommodate your claims of a supernatural god. Please feel free to try again, but this time use "generally accepted" scientific methods to gather & present your evidence.

You have stated two hypothesis, are you working off the one in your post 62 or 73?
Since they are significantly different it would be clearer if you withdraw one.