Anonymous #1 2d

I’ve read the Bible from a non-secular POV when I was at a Catholic highschool lol, I’m very familiar with the text but this is my first time reading it from a secular POV as an adult. I find religion fascinating though and have been reading a lot of the Greek and Norse mythological epics and the overlap between those kinds of texts and the Old Testament has been pretty cool

25

Anonymous #2 2d

Most secular scholars actually think those laws may have been written during or after the Babylonian exile, not at Sinai. So they were likely aspirational reforms being projected backwards onto Moses to give them authority. So they were more like ‘here’s what we should have been doing all along.’ I think that theory is the called the documentary hypothesis if you wanted to look more into it.

6

Anonymous OP 2d

So its basically “ these things seem like a good idea, so lets revise our history to say that we always failed to do them” Then when they got out of captivity then then failed to do them, but for real this time? (I did a little bit of looking, seems like the current academic consensus is “a bunch if authors at a bunch of times but we’re not entirely certain, comprehensively, who when where or why”)

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Yep it doesn’t really make any sense at all lol

1

Anonymous OP 2d

It wiuld also mean everyone in the community, who grew up hearing these things recited, especially as a way to keep their cultural identity (as we often see with oppressed and displaced groups, they become more radical in their culture to survive), also went along with the change some people decided to make. A change that also makes their ancestors look bad.

6

Anonymous #2 2d

That’s a fair point but framing the ancestors as faithless actually kept God sovereign in the narrative ‘we suffered because we sinned’ is a lot more empowering than ‘we suffered because Babylon was stronger.’ I actually feel like it was more of a theological damage control, if your chosen people just got crushed by a foreign empire you need an explanation that keeps God all powerful, and a broken covenant does that perfectly.

2

Anonymous OP 2d

It’s a much easier sell to say ‘our ancestors failed God’ than to try and explain why an all-powerful God let his chosen people get conquered

1

Anonymous OP 2d

I can see how that would make sense, though there were parts already in broken without needing to invent more. Particularly ones regarding idolatry and the sanctity of the temple, that was well broken as it stood. Unless the argument is that was also a fabrication, and they didnt actually violate those commandments but revised to say they did. Though I think that would disagree with archeological evidence, as far as I know.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Most of the prophets who warn about the coming exile focus on the evil and idolatrous behavior. Though, I understand those are from secular scholarship considered to post-date the exile, and be retrospectively describing what happened, nonetheless, excoriating people breaking commands doesnt make sense if those people knowingly just made them up to make a point. They have to believe in the commands for it to be effective to hold them accountable.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

That is to say, it seems hard to argue commands like the 10 Commandments are post exilic, even just from a textual criticism lens. Those alone being violated would be justification enough for an ancestral covenant breaking angle

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Also, this is a good discussion, much appreciated. Youve made some good points I hadnt thought about

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Very fair, most DH scholars wouldn’t say the writers were conscious frauds, more that they genuinely believed they were recovering an authentic tradition rather than inventing one. But the 10 Commandments point kind of undercuts even that, if the core covenant violations were already well established and pre-exilic, you didn’t really need to fabricate much of anything to make the exile make theological sense. This will probably stay a mystery forever lol

1

Anonymous #2 2d

A theological debate on Yikyak that doesn’t descend into madness, who would’ve thought 😭

6

Anonymous OP 2d

I think its because we’re approaching in a context of textual analysis, rather than ideological grudgematch

4