Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Hey, it's not my suggestion, I believe that the entire Pentateuch predates 1,100 BC and I don't hold to the JDEP hypothesis. But it's a hypothesis which is frequently appealed to (in various forms), by LDS apologists, and happens to be the reigning hypothesis among secular source critics, so if you're really taking them as authoritative then you have to explain how post-exilic Jews were so familiar with the religious practices of a society which ended 500 years previously.

Hah. Glad I read through this before making a lengthy response.

Clearly there is no middle ground. Why you think that your going to be able to move anyone with a position that is rejected (and been rejected) by nearly all of modern biblical scholarship eludes me.

The explanation is quite simple. The Ugaritic texts are significant because they represented a datable intact Canaanite archive. The religion and the narratives don't just vanish when the capitol gets destroyed. The people don't suddenly lose all sense of identity. Canaanite religion persists. And the Bible speaks of Canaanite practices in and among the Israelites right up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Clearly, whether or not you think that they should be relevant, they are relevant. But that's pretty much all I have to say. If you don't want to move on your dating of the text, then there really isn't much more to talk about is there?

Ben

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Just a final note -

For the term "son of God" - I am of the persistent belief that this is a rather technical usage which has a very specific meaning. This meaning (its technical usage) persists very late. This is the reason why we see a shift in the language of Deuteronomy 32 - a shift which would be completely unnecessary were the term understood idomatically.

When I talk about "sons of god" being understood in the literal sense (as opposed to an idiomatic reading), I am refering to the notion that it represents literal sons of God - that God procreated in some fashion, and produced other gods - who are not man. And that for most of the Old Testament this was the normal usage. In some cases in the Old Testament, this refers to an adoptive claim. A king could then become the "son of God" and participate as a ruler over the earth (this is why, for example, the king sacrificing his own son as a redemptive act was seen as such a potent action when Israel loses to Moab when the Moabite king sacrifices his son). This is also the case for individuals like Moses (a priest-king) who then enters into the Divine Assembly far more literally (he speaks with God face to face). This might be considered an idiomatic usage, or it might be considered literal depending on how you want to take it.

The issue here is that to propose an idiomatic meaning, you have to first establish a widespread, non-literal usage, and the non-literal usage has be demonstrated in the examples and not assumed - since if a literal reading works it should be preferred. This usage as a technical usage (which in some ways is similar to the idea of idomatic usage) has been adequately demonstrated in the relevant literature. It use as an idiom meaning something else, hasn't been.

And a note for David -

I do not think that post-exilic Judaism was strictly monotheistic. I believe though that monotheism was becoming the norm. And certainly by the exilic period YHWH had absorbed El for the most part in biblical Israelite religion. Strict monotheism may have existed, but I think it comes much later. We don't see it in, for example, Philo (which is quite late). And the New Testament asserts it non-monotheism more as a response to this kind of language in Judaism - not by rejecting it outright - but by showing how their dualism (Father-Son) is superior to the Father-Logos of Philo-istic type traditions. Nor do the old traditions that Jesus invokes (I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning) or the Wisdom traditions invoked in the New Testament (Kevin knows what I am referring to here) demonstrate this strict monotheism as the norm - these passages would have been completely out of place against a stark monotheism that is sometimes alleged to have existed then.

Ben

[_Gazelam]

The LXX says EGO EIMI HO WN. The text in John 8 says EGO EIMI. One is the declarative name of God, the other is not.

This is interesting. Could you break it down for me a litle more? How do each of those words translate? What is the translation of EGO EIMI and what does the addition of the HO WN do to it?

Reference that Yahweh is the father of Jesus? Psalms 2 and 110.

I only have a King James version of the Bible. I don't see your reference. It has always been my understanding that the only time the Father makes an appearence in the scriptures is when he introduces Christ. All authority had been turned over to the Savior, and it is the Savior we deal with. That is what Christ is saying when he declares himself to be YAHWEH, and it is why they sought to stone him. He was declareing exactly who he was.

Erhman's not a bad scholars in this area, but he does exaggerate (I read 'The Orthodox Corruptions of Scripture', also by Erhman, which was more rigorous).

I enjoyed it alot. Its really too bad that hes become an atheist at this point though. I'll have to pick up the one oyu mention, he has an easy to read writing style.

Or it's just Smith losing track of who's supposed to be talking. The Bible doesn't make this mistake.

Tommorow I'll make an effort to show the examples of this in the Doctrine and Covenants. Mormons tend to make a great effort to show the division between the Godhead, but these examples in the D&C provide evidence of a true sence of unity that I don't think we can fully grasp in this life. The Godhead really are one, though they are three seperate people.

[_Fortigurn]

The LXX says EGO EIMI HO WN. The text in John 8 says EGO EIMI. One is the declarative name of God, the other is not.

This is interesting. Could you break it down for me a litle more? How do each of those words translate? What is the translation of EGO EIMI and what does the addition of the HO WN do to it?

* EGO EIMI HO WN, 'I am the One who is', or 'I am the One who continues to be'

* EGO EIMI 'I am' (a term of common speech, found spoken by a number of people in the gospels, and not a divine title)

Reference that Yahweh is the father of Jesus? Psalms 2 and 110.

I only have a King James version of the Bible. I don't see your reference.

Ok, let's use the KJV:

Psalm 2:
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD [Hebrew, 'Yahweh'] hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; [Christ] this day have I begotten thee.

So Yahweh is the father of Christ.

Psalm 110:
1 The LORD [Hebrew, 'Yahweh'] said unto my [King David] Lord, [Christ] Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

This psalm is the most commonly quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament, and is expounded by both Christ and the apostles as referring to the messiah (Christ), as the son of God (Yahweh). So you can see that according to the Old Testament, Yahweh is the Father (Yahweh is not Christ).

It has always been my understanding that the only time the Father makes an appearence in the scriptures is when he introduces Christ.

No, there are references to the Father appearing which do not involve an introduction to Christ.

All authority had been turned over to the Savior, and it is the Savior we deal with. That is what Christ is saying when he declares himself to be YAHWEH, and it is why they sought to stone him. He was declareing exactly who he was.

Christ never declared himself to be Yahweh.

[_Fortigurn]

Hey, it's not my suggestion, I believe that the entire Pentateuch predates 1,100 BC and I don't hold to the JDEP hypothesis. But it's a hypothesis which is frequently appealed to (in various forms), by LDS apologists, and happens to be the reigning hypothesis among secular source critics, so if you're really taking them as authoritative then you have to explain how post-exilic Jews were so familiar with the religious practices of a society which ended 500 years previously.

Hah. Glad I read through this before making a lengthy response.

Clearly there is no middle ground. Why you think that your going to be able to move anyone with a position that is rejected (and been rejected) by nearly all of modern biblical scholarship eludes me.

What position is that, do you think? Surely you're not unaware that the JDEP theory isn't universally held? Surely you're aware that although the acronym remains (largely for the sake of convenience), mainstream scholars more usually divide the text on grounds other than simply the use of the divine name and titles?

Of course, you probably think that I'm rejecting the entire concept of the Pentateuch being a document of composite authorship. I don't. I recognise the composite nature of the Pentateuch authorship. I just believe that the use of the divine name and titles to discern the original sources is a particularly stupid and demonstrably inaccurate method.

The explanation is quite simple. The Ugaritic texts are significant because they represented a datable intact Canaanite archive.

Yes, no problems here.

The religion and the narratives don't just vanish when the capitol gets destroyed. The people don't suddenly lose all sense of identity. Canaanite religion persists.

This is true to a point (you're starting to blur the lines). Canaanite religion did not persist intact. It became diffused and syncretized over the years. It was probably preserved mostly by the Phonecians, but it was altered significantly along the way, becoming incorporated in to their mythos. It did not persist intact. Certain practices were adopted by other cultures, but had a different theological meaning. The myth cycles were not preserved intact.

And the Bible speaks of Canaanite practices in and among the Israelites right up to the destruction of Jerusalem.

And here you move away from the original point. We are not discussing the Canaanite practices, many of which were common to a number of the other ANE cultures. We are discussing the Cannaanite myth cycles, and the specific religious texts and stories. These did not persist intact, and it is up to you to explain the mechanism by which 6th century BC Jews living in Babylon could reconstruct accurately the Canaanite myths which were last recorded 500 years previously, in a culture which had long since passed away.

Clearly, whether or not you think that they should be relevant, they are relevant.

Of course the practices are relevant, but they are not relevant in this context, a context in which we are discussing the Canaanite myth cycles, not the practices.

[_Fortigurn]

Just a final note -

For the term "son of God" - I am of the persistent belief that this is a rather technical usage which has a very specific meaning. This meaning (its technical usage) persists very late. This is the reason why we see a shift in the language of Deuteronomy 32 - a shift which would be completely unnecessary were the term understood idomatically.

I'm going to point out yet again that you haven't proved a 'shift in the language of Deuteronomy 32'.

When I talk about "sons of god" being understood in the literal sense (as opposed to an idiomatic reading), I am refering to the notion that it represents literal sons of God - that God procreated in some fashion, and produced other gods - who are not man. And that for most of the Old Testament this was the normal usage.

But you're assuming your conclusion.

In some cases in the Old Testament, this refers to an adoptive claim. A king could then become the "son of God" and participate as a ruler over the earth (this is why, for example, the king sacrificing his own son as a redemptive act was seen as such a potent action when Israel loses to Moab when the Moabite king sacrifices his son). This is also the case for individuals like Moses (a priest-king) who then enters into the Divine Assembly far more literally (he speaks with God face to face). This might be considered an idiomatic usage, or it might be considered literal depending on how you want to take it.

That is certainly an idiomatic usage, especially by your definition of 'the literal sense' (' the notion that it represents literal sons of God - that God procreated in some fashion, and produced other gods - who are not man').

The issue here is that to propose an idiomatic meaning, you have to first establish a widespread, non-literal usage, and the non-literal usage has be demonstrated in the examples and not assumed - since if a literal reading works it should be preferred.

In this case I propose an idiomatic meaning of 'son of God' based on the widespread non-literal usage of the phrase stem 'son of'. That phrase stem can be demonstrated indisputably to have both a literal and a non-literal meaning.

I do not think that post-exilic Judaism was strictly monotheistic. I believe though that monotheism was becoming the norm. And certainly by the exilic period YHWH had absorbed El for the most part in biblical Israelite religion. Strict monotheism may have existed, but I think it comes much later. We don't see it in, for example, Philo (which is quite late). And the New Testament asserts it non-monotheism more as a response to this kind of language in Judaism - not by rejecting it outright - but by showing how their dualism (Father-Son) is superior to the Father-Logos of Philo-istic type traditions.

This is all assumption.

Nor do the old traditions that Jesus invokes (I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning) or the Wisdom traditions invoked in the New Testament (Kevin knows what I am referring to here) demonstrate this strict monotheism as the norm - these passages would have been completely out of place against a stark monotheism that is sometimes alleged to have existed then.

You would have to provide evidence for these 'old traditions' being appealed to as authoritative or normative in the New Testament.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Fortigurn writes:

I'm going to point out yet again that you haven't proved a 'shift in the language of Deuteronomy 32'.

I see no reason to prove it. It is widely accepted (it is the dominant notion among scholars and scholarly literature). There isn't any need to prove the dominant theory in a situation like this. Rather, since your views on the Documentary Source Hypothesis represent the smallest minority among biblical scholars, we should ask you to prove it wrong. In any case, there isn't any point. Since you seem to be rejecting what most scholars accept (and no, this is not just the theory of secular scholars - most orthodox Christian scholars accept this theory as well), there isn't any value in pursuing a path in which you will simply be demanding proof at every corner, and then refuse to accept anything as proof.] What would be the point?

But you're assuming your conclusion.

No. Its a widely accepted notion.

That is certainly an idiomatic usage, especially by your definition of 'the literal sense' (' the notion that it represents literal sons of God - that God procreated in some fashion, and produced other gods - who are not man').

Not at all. The question would be over how the relationship between God and the king changed with this adoption, wouldn't it.

In this case I propose an idiomatic meaning of 'son of God' based on the widespread non-literal usage of the phrase stem 'son of'. That phrase stem can be demonstrated indisputably to have both a literal and a non-literal meaning.

Yes, and how would you tell the difference? You noted earlier that this would be by context (I think it was you) but the challenge there is that usually the meaning of this phrase would be necessary to determine context, so unless you could make such an argument in a non-circular fashion, it wouldn't do any good. The other thing is that there isn't widespread non-literal use of the term, unless you presume that a non-literal use of the term should be seen as the default position. Finally, if the argument is made (as I do) that the phrase "son of God" is of technical usage, then other instances of "son of X" which aren't "son of God" have no significant bearing on the question. The relevant scholarly literature asserts (and has for nearly a hundred years) that this phrase is technical in nature.

This is all assumption.

Sure it is. But its based on good information (whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, since you don't accept the majority view - it is up to you to prove that it is incorrect).

You would have to provide evidence for these 'old traditions' being appealed to as authoritative or normative in the New Testament.

No I wouldn't. Just because you don't accept the basic premises involved in this discussion doesn't mean I have to demonstrate it to your particular satisfaction. That's why I noted that this discussion is essentially over. Unless you want to prove to me the early authorship of the entire Pentateuch as it stands now, I simply refuse to accept anything assert on the basis that it rests on flawed and useless assumptions. And that's as far as it is going to go.

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn writes:

I'm going to point out yet again that you haven't proved a 'shift in the language of Deuteronomy 32'.

I see no reason to prove it. It is widely accepted (it is the dominant notion among scholars and scholarly literature). There isn't any need to prove the dominant theory in a situation like this.

Ah, I see, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Rather, since your views on the Documentary Source Hypothesis represent the smallest minority among biblical scholars...

Did you even read what I wrote? It appears not. I accept the composite authorship of the Pentateuch. I do not, however, believe it was written in the post-exilic era, and I do not believe that it was written by four different men, two of them who used their favourite name for God, one a priest, and another a rambling redactor. You will in fact find few proponents of that theory today. As I said before, the text these days is usually divided on grounds other than the original JDEP theory.

That is certainly an idiomatic usage, especially by your definition of 'the literal sense' (' the notion that it represents literal sons of God - that God procreated in some fashion, and produced other gods - who are not man').

Not at all. The question would be over how the relationship between God and the king changed with this adoption, wouldn't it.[/quote]

No it wouldn't. You can change the relationship all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that a man who has been adopted by a god is not a god who has been produced by a god having 'procreated in some fashion'. Can you see the difference between adoption and procreation?

In this case I propose an idiomatic meaning of 'son of God' based on the widespread non-literal usage of the phrase stem 'son of'. That phrase stem can be demonstrated indisputably to have both a literal and a non-literal meaning.

Yes, and how would you tell the difference? You noted earlier that this would be by context (I think it was you) but the challenge there is that usually the meaning of this phrase would be necessary to determine context, so unless you could make such an argument in a non-circular fashion, it wouldn't do any good. The other thing is that there isn't widespread non-literal use of the term, unless you presume that a non-literal use of the term should be seen as the default position.

It appears you didn't understand what I wrote. Are you really suggesting that it's difficult to find literal and non-literal usages of the phrase 'son of', and difficult to distinguish them from each other by context?

Finally, if the argument is made (as I do) that the phrase "son of God" is of technical usage, then other instances of "son of X" which aren't "son of God" have no significant bearing on the question. The relevant scholarly literature asserts (and has for nearly a hundred years) that this phrase is technical in nature.

In which language? Ugarit or Hebrew? Or Greek? Did the phrase 'son of God' retain its meaning in the post-exilic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

This is all assumption.

Sure it is.

Thank you.

But its based on good information...

Good information used well doesn't require assumptions like this. Good information used badly ends up with contradictory and unprovable assumptions.

You would have to provide evidence for these 'old traditions' being appealed to as authoritative or normative in the New Testament.

No I wouldn't.

Of course you do. You can't claim that the New Testament appeals to them in that way and then deny that you have to provide evidence for your case.

Just because you don't accept the basic premises involved in this discussion doesn't mean I have to demonstrate it to your particular satisfaction.

The 'basic premises' to which you refer are the preconceptions and prior assumptions you bring to the discussion. Every time I ask you to provide evidence for them, you say you don't have to, I should just accept them. Do you think that this is good methodology?

Unless you want to prove to me the early authorship of the entire Pentateuch as it stands now...

Why would I want to prove something I don't believe? Why do you not read my posts?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Fortigurn writes:

Ah, I see, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Not at all, and I will tell you why. This would be true if I was simply arguing on the basis of numbers - but I am not. I am arguing on the basis that current scholarship (and a majority of that) has accepted this point of view - and thus this view is laid out and argued extensively in scholarly literature. I have no intention of rehashing those arguments with you. But this doesn't mean that the arguments aren't there. And this is why, if you want to go against majority scholarship, you need to argue why your point of view is valid against the arguments which have already been put forward by these scholars. It is not my responsibility to do this.

Did you even read what I wrote? It appears not. I accept the composite authorship of the Pentateuch. I do not, however, believe it was written in the post-exilic era, and I do not believe that it was written by four different men, two of them who used their favourite name for God, one a priest, and another a rambling redactor. You will in fact find few proponents of that theory today. As I said before, the text these days is usually divided on grounds other than the original JDEP theory.

This is a rather simplistic reduction of the theory don't you think? Most scholars may not agree with Wellhausen in the details, but far more disagree with Wellhausen while placing final redaction of the text after the exile than before as you suggest. When Deuteronomy quotes Jeremiah, exactly what are we supposed to think about the authorship of Deuteronomy?

No it wouldn't. You can change the relationship all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that a man who has been adopted by a god is not a god who has been produced by a god having 'procreated in some fashion'. Can you see the difference between adoption and procreation?

However, the notion of "son" can be applied in pretty much the same way. That is, the king can be seen as a divinity figure. This was quite common in the ANE (just look to Egypt).

It appears you didn't understand what I wrote. Are you really suggesting that it's difficult to find literal and non-literal usages of the phrase 'son of', and difficult to distinguish them from each other by context?

Yes. Actually, what I am a firm believer in (from our conversation here and your conversation from others) is that your criteria for distinguishing between the two would largely have more to do with your theology than any other criteria.

In which language? Ugarit or Hebrew? Or Greek? Did the phrase 'son of God' retain its meaning in the post-exilic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

It's not the language that's the issue, its the time period. Clearly, in post-exilic Hebrew, the phrase "son of God" retained some of this meaning - or else there would have been no need to have changed the text in Deuteronomy 32. As a side (since I know that you are going to bring this up again), if the Masoretic reading is the original, then why on earth would any Jew change the text (both in the Hebrew manuscripts and in the LXX) to provide a text which allows for and suggests other divinities ruling the earth under the auspices of the Most High?

Good information used well doesn't require assumptions like this. Good information used badly ends up with contradictory and unprovable assumptions.

Right, which is why you haven't attempted to prove any of your assertions to me in this thread I bet ...

Of course you do. You can't claim that the New Testament appeals to them in that way and then deny that you have to provide evidence for your case.

No, actually, I don't. Your demands are irrelevant. We have already established that you refuse to look at the text the way that I look at it. You refuse to provide evidence for your basic assumption that there was no editing of the text in post-exilic times (despite the presence of a great deal of scholarship suggesting otherwise that has been provided to you). So why should I worry about this?

The 'basic premises' to which you refer are the preconceptions and prior assumptions you bring to the discussion. Every time I ask you to provide evidence for them, you say you don't have to, I should just accept them. Do you think that this is good methodology?

No - I have provided evidence which is laid out in the references I mentioned. It is there. I feel no need to go through the arugments here. You have asserted that contrary to majority scholarly views, the text of the Old Testament was not modified after the exile. Prove it.

Why would I want to prove something I don't believe? Why do you not read my posts?

Early authorship means pre-exilic in this case.

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn writes:

Ah, I see, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Not at all, and I will tell you why. This would be true if I was simply arguing on the basis of numbers - but I am not. I am arguing on the basis that current scholarship (and a majority of that) has accepted this point of view - and thus this view is laid out and argued extensively in scholarly literature. I have no intention of rehashing those arguments with you. But this doesn't mean that the arguments aren't there. And this is why, if you want to go against majority scholarship, you need to argue why your point of view is valid against the arguments which have already been put forward by these scholars. It is not my responsibility to do this.

I've already explained my argument - the lack of textual evidence that Deuteronomy originally read 'sons of the gods', and was then altered (though apparently the co-text in Exodus was considered theologically acceptable).

This is a rather simplistic reduction of the theory don't you think?

Of course it is, because Wellhausen's was a very simple theory to start with. It was pretty much drawing with crayons.

Most scholars may not agree with Wellhausen in the details, but far more disagree with Wellhausen while placing final redaction of the text after the exile than before as you suggest.

So what?

When Deuteronomy quotes Jeremiah, exactly what are we supposed to think about the authorship of Deuteronomy?

Why would I assume that Deuteronomy is quoting Jeremiah, and not assume that Jeremiah is quoting Deuteronomy? Easy, prior assumption. Once the assumption has been made that Deuteronomy was written after Jeremiah, the corollary is that parallels between the two texts are the product of Deuteronomy quoting Jeremiah. But the assumption has to be made first.

However, the notion of "son" can be applied in pretty much the same way. That is, the king can be seen as a divinity figure. This was quite common in the ANE (just look to Egypt).

You didn't address my point. A man who has been adopted by a god is not a god who has been produced by a god having 'procreated in some fashion'. You falsely equated the two. That a king may be seen as a divinity figure does not mean that he was believed to be a literal god (we've been through this before, and dartagnan's points are still unanswered).

Are you really suggesting that it's difficult to find literal and non-literal usages of the phrase 'son of', and difficult to distinguish them from each other by context?

Yes.

Why?

Actually, what I am a firm believer in (from our conversation here and your conversation from others) is that your criteria for distinguishing between the two would largely have more to do with your theology than any other criteria.

Then you would be wrong. Take a genealogy for example. In a genealogy 50 verses long, do you think the context suggests that the phrase 'son of' should be interpreted as a non-literal idiom, or as a literal statement of fact? Your attempt to muddy the waters here isn't very convincing.

In which language? Ugarit or Hebrew? Or Greek? Did the phrase 'son of God' retain its meaning in the post-exilic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

It's not the language that's the issue, its the time period.

Oh, but the language is the issue, as Bokovoy has kept telling us. Apparently the phrase 'son of' in Semitic languages necessarily means a member of a class or guild, and this is an established semantic component of the language, not an idiom which can change.

Clearly, in post-exilic Hebrew, the phrase "son of God" retained some of this meaning - or else there would have been no need to have changed the text in Deuteronomy 32.

You're assuming again that it was changed in Deuteronomy 32. If it retained any of this meaning, then why was it not changed in Genesis 6, Exodus, Job, Psalm 82, and Daniel? The entire argument is completely counter-intuitive.

As a side (since I know that you are going to bring this up again), if the Masoretic reading is the original, then why on earth would any Jew change the text (both in the Hebrew manuscripts and in the LXX) to provide a text which allows for and suggests other divinities ruling the earth under the auspices of the Most High?

I'm sorry, where did I argue that the Masoretic reading is the original? Feel free to quote me. What you need to explain is why post-exilic Jews would 'provide a text which allows for and suggests other divinities ruling the earth under the auspices of the Most High', when you are attempting to argue that this was a concept utterly anathema to their 'extreme monotheism', and why they would leave Genesis 6, Exodus, Job, Psalm 82, and Daniel unaltered? It just doesn't add up.

Right, which is why you haven't attempted to prove any of your assertions to me in this thread I bet ...

Of course I have. I've provided textual, lexical, and historical evidence. I've also successfully identified logical flaws in both your and Bokovoy's arguments, which resulted in Bokovoy (under pressure from both myself and dartagnan), actually backing down gradually from his original claims, and finally claiming that our position was the one he had held from the start.

A number of my arguments and counter-arguments have quietly gone unanswered, which speaks volumes.

Of course you do. You can't claim that the New Testament appeals to them in that way and then deny that you have to provide evidence for your case.

No, actually, I don't. Your demands are irrelevant.

Could you explain why you don't please?

We have already established that you refuse to look at the text the way that I look at it.

This is question begging at its finest, 'You would agree with my position if you just looked at the text the way I look at it' (which requires accepting your argument). You're basically saying 'You would come to the same conclusion about the text if you just accepted my argument as true'. Well of course I would. But you haven't provided any convincing reason why I should just accept your argument as true.

You refuse to provide evidence for your basic assumption that there was no editing of the text in post-exilic times (despite the presence of a great deal of scholarship suggesting otherwise that has been provided to you).

This is bizarre. Where did I say that 'there was no editing of the text in post-exilic times'? If you want a short (and as yet incomplete), version of my view of the Pentateuch, you can read this.