Reddit reviews The Book of J

A popular theory in mainstream biblical scholarship states that the OT was edited at least 4 times from pre-existing material by the "authors" designated E and J (because they call God Elohim and Jah, respectively) and redactors designated Deuteronomaic and Priestly.

See...um...the field of biblical scholarship, for instance r/AcademicBiblical, or this popular book:

https://www.amazon.ca/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

See "Documentary Hypothesis"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism_(biblical_studies)

harold bloom's book of j has the J source isolated, with a rather interesting and unique translation by david rosenberg. the commentary from bloom surrounding it is pretty interesting too, though may not really be up to date on the last scholarship and really rather fringe. for instance, he argues that J was a woman.

edit: it looks like rosenberg has a more complete translation that separates J and E, leaves out P, R, L, and D.

I like to tailor my recommendations to what I know about people, so a request like this leaves me a little at a disadvantage. Basically, I believe that there may be no such thing as a universally applicable book, and to that end, whether or not a book is really a "must-read" for any given person depends on the circumstances of that person's life. So what I'm going to give you instead is this: a list of the ten books that I've read that I think (at the moment) have the best chance of having an impact on any random English-speakers life. Make of it what you will.

Ahem. In no particular order:

1. The Bridge at San Luis Rey, by Thornton Wilder
   
   
2. Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad
   
   
3. The Spirit Catches You and You Fell Down, by Anne Fadiman
   
   
4. The Consolation of Philosophy, by Boethius
   
   
5. We With to Inform You that Tomorrow We Well Be Killed With Our Families, by Philip Gourevitch.
   
   
6. The Theban Plays of Sophocles.
   
   
7. The Bell, by Iris Murdoch.
   
   
8. The Book of J, by Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg.
   
   
9. Gilgamesh: A Verse Narrative, by Herbert Mason.
   
   
10. The Street of Crocodiles, by Bruno Schulz.

Ask J. https://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

Absolutely fantastic read and opened a lot of eyes.

Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg on Line 2...

Of course, where postmodernism comes from and/or is going and/or is interpreted is always a huge cluster fuck the second you bring Kafka into the conversation.

The only novel he's ever written is The Flight to Lucifer, which he has since disowned.

> he's a jowled curmudgeon who doesn't like new things that try to decentralize notions of authority and authenticity (like multicultural criticism or gender/queer theory)

This is unfair and inaccurate. He doesn't like it when critics displace the great works of literature for political reasons, which he calls resentment. True, he's deeply romantic about the achievements of Western literary heroes, and thus believes that if someone will displace them then he or she has to earn it. But he reads, talks about and writes about contemporary female and/or multicultural writers all the time. This is just on memory, but he was an early fan of Jose Saramago, has always loved Anne Carson, etc.

Not to mention that he's written a book arguing that the author of the oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible was a woman.

You might enjoy reading "The Book of J" by Harold Bloom

https://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

Not sure if you were making an incredibly obscure reference to this... but it's been done The Book of J, by Harold Bloom

https://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

>since some books of the claim inspiration or divine influence (for instance, prophetic works), the question is whether they are authentic. when isaiah says that "thus says yahweh", is it the word of yahweh, or not?

Now you are moving the goal posts. That does not address the authenticity of the text's allegedly divine source (eg, "Who really painted this picture?"). Nevertheless, the answer is still the same -- there's no objective way to discern from the text whether Isaiah was speaking for God, for himself, or for someone else (assuming arguendo someone by that name actually spoke those words in the first place). You gotta have faith or go home.

>in precisely the same way that geology studied in a good university doesn't disprove the global flood of noah. there are YECs that end up with college degrees in geology, and they make very similar arguments.

Your analogy fails for at least one very basic reason: scientists have a vast range of experience with floods and similar worldly phenomena. We know what causes floods, we know what sorts of signs they leave behind, and we know that the water has to come from somewhere. To believe in a worldwide flood, you would have to ignore what we know about floods, the conservation of matter, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. A divine text, however, lacks that basis for comparison. There are NO texts objectively confirmed to be of divine origin, so that we can compare the Bible. There's no way to objectively identify the signs of divine intervention so that we can look for them in the Bible.

You are correct that I am not a scholar of textual analysis at any detailed level. It has been years since I read "The Book of J" (a modern book about these issues) and I do not recall the details. Nevertheless, I am well aware that the Bible is a patchwork of ancient texts amending and expanding earlier texts. You and I simply fail to draw the same conclusions from those facts, because you and I do not have the same expectations from a divinely inspired text.

>you've made a claim that can't be proved -- it's not my job to disprove your unfalsifiable claim.

Absolutely NOT! I have reported my subjective faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible, but that's distinct from a claim of objective knowledge. The only claim I have made is about what I believe, not about any objective fact. YOU, on the other hand, have affirmatively claimed that the text of the Bible objectively reveals on its face a lack of divine inspiration. It's not a claim you can support, but you have insisted repeatedly that you can. You gave yourself an impossible burden of proof, but you are unable or unwilling to see that. Shifting the burden is unacceptable -- it is still yours.

> any other assumption is nonsense, for the above reason. is the text different from human texts, or isn't it? if it is, why? if it isn't, why treat it like it is?

Those are the questions YOU must answer, to meet your burden of proof. To you, they are rhetorical questions with self-evident answers, but not to me. Again, we have no text (with an objectively confirmed holy source) for comparison. Precisely how should a divinely inspired text differ from a purely human text, and can you identify any objective reason for saying so?

Without accepting an improperly placed burden of proof, let me tell you how my beliefs address those questions:

If a deity exists at all, that deity clearly insists on faith (belief without objective knowledge). I have inductively concluded that it is impossible to logically or empirically prove the existence of a deity, but that does not in itself mean a deity does not exist, nor does it affect the likelihood of a deity's existence. Unlike natural phenomena (eg, electromagnetism or gravity), our hypothetical deity is volitional -- it can decide when, how and to what extent it will act, so that it can avoid empirical detection and therefore avoid mooting faith. If a deity exists, then that deity is sufficiently wise and powerful to avoid objective proof.

If a holy book were to clearly and objectively demonstrate divine origin, then that would necessarily establish the existence of the divine and thus moot the role of faith. Your claim boils down to a complaint that God won't submit to scientific tests. We knew that already, and we also knew that faith (or its absence) is the only factor determining whether one is religious. As a corollary, faith is also the only factor determining whether one will believe a particular book is holy. There is no objective test of the text which will change this.

>"seminary" generally means "catholic" or similar groups which are generally not "fundamentalist".

English. Do YOU speak it? Many, many protestant pastors graduate from protestant seminaries. While some may very well drop out and abandon their faith, that is a personal decision, the reasons for which you can only speculate about.

>>I have no reason to challenge the holy texts of other religions.

>so you accept that they are divinely inspired as well?

Really, are we even communicating? I meant what I said. Those other holy books might be divinely inspired or they might not -- I do not have an opinion.

>have you every considered the idea that you might be christian simply out of ignorance (or apathy) towards other religions which you think may or may not be valid? and that this might be worth looking into?

Of course. I'm Christian because I was reared that way and because my faith works for me. When my faith is stronger, I experience greater hope, love, joy, peace, strength, courage and compassion. Even if that's just a placebo effect (there's no way to objectively know), it is still an effect. I would be an irrational fool to risk losing it for no good reason.

>what makes the bible any different?

The Bible is the one that helps me, and that is enough of a difference for me.

someone actually was able to piece together one of the strands and published it as THE BOOK of J