ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

Who Wrote the Bible?

The Documentary Hypothesis (DH) proposes that the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, known collectively as the Torah or Pentateuch), represent a combination of documents from four originally independent sources. According to the influential version of the hypothesis formulated by Julius Wellhausen (1844 - 1918) these sources and the approximate dates of their composition were:                       the J, or Jahwist, source; written c. 950 BC in the southern kingdom of Judah. (The name Yahweh begins with a J in Wellhausen's native German.)                       the E, or Elohist, source; written c. 850 BC in the northern kingdom of Israel.                       the D, or Deuteronomist, source; written c. 621 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.                       the P, or Priestly, source; written c. 450 BC by Aaronid priests. The editor who combined the sources into the final Pentateuch is known as R, for Redactor, and might have been Ezra.1.   1. The Documentary Hypothesis, in "Wikipedia," accessed 04042008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis ; Internet.   Richard Elliot Freidman (UCSD) wrote “ Who Wrote the Bible ( New York, New York: Summit Books, 1987), pp. 299. He proposes that Books of ‘J’ were produced by a single narrative by someone writing either from the eight to tenth centuries BCE. He uses historical persons who wrote secretly on the Bible and when a public option for producing such investigation remained implausible. His search focused on commentary of historical persons well before Julius Wellhausen.

Features  THE HOLY BIBLE

NOSTRADAMUS X.LXXII  -- APOCALYPSE -- 10 YEARS LATER -- RELOADED           [updated 15th January 2010]

How do we understand “tradition?” what does it mean to change a tradition. In USA politics, change usually implies some form of break from tradition. In the discussions on mass-mobilized societies, it has been argued that influencing the minds of groups, or mass-bodies of individuals removed from their traditions, i.e. homes, churches, farms, their familiar surroundings, such as sent off to war  -- increases the chance on influence for a change in tradition – usually in offering an alternative for tradition – a beginning of a new tradition. In USA politics, moving away from the United States of America tradition usually means race relations, such as ending the dominance of white Europeans for more diverse socio-political-economic groups at the high levels of society, and changing the “nationalism” of American protectionism for universal proliferation of ideas and technology. Yet, if the chastisement of humankind does indeed come about, what will move us away from our traditions. Would the judgment of the human race by global catastrophes therefore be a benefit to change? It has been argued that the Current president of the United States of America, based upon the color of his skin represents change. However, his policies are more of the same far-left-wing policies – a remnant of Jimmy Carter’s. On the agenda, according to Barack H. Obama’s campaign promises was a nation dialogue on race-relations. When confronted by this promise after Obama was well into his first year in office, he decided to break that promise. It is confusing as to why not and more telling of a leader who does not change things by his refusal to engage in this promise.

If diversity is the progression of human evolution upon planet Earth, then why have China, have Venezuela, have Spain, have England, and have Russia kept inserting pure-racial political rulers? Why not elect multicultural cabinets, parliaments, senates, representatives, and make the Earth a cross-cultural circus? The Sophists would intend that race and culture are human constructs and that debating them will do little to reveal truth(s).