| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | |
| rdfs:comment | - The documentary hypothesis is the idea among higher critics that the Pentetauch, or Torah, is a composite work consisting of several sources. These include the J (Jahwist) source, which uses the divine name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" exclusively; the E (Elohist) source, which uses the divine name "Elohim" exclusively; the P (Priestly) source, which includes various priestly instructions, weights and measures; and the D (Deuteronomist) source, which includes the book of Deuteronomy. Some critics also clasify Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and the books of Samuel and Kings as the "Deuteronomistic History." According to the hypothesis, a redactor (possibly Ezra) combined these sources into the form we have today.
- The origins of of what constitutes today's Uncyclopedia are lost in the mists of time itself. Traditionalists firmly insist that all Uncyclopedic material is the inerrant Word of Jimbo Wales, and that any discrepancies which may have crept in since can be safely attributed to very rare copyist errors through the long dusty ages.
|
| owl:sameAs | |
| dcterms:subject | |
| dbkwik:christianity/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| dbkwik:religion/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| abstract | - The documentary hypothesis is the idea among higher critics that the Pentetauch, or Torah, is a composite work consisting of several sources. These include the J (Jahwist) source, which uses the divine name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" exclusively; the E (Elohist) source, which uses the divine name "Elohim" exclusively; the P (Priestly) source, which includes various priestly instructions, weights and measures; and the D (Deuteronomist) source, which includes the book of Deuteronomy. Some critics also clasify Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and the books of Samuel and Kings as the "Deuteronomistic History." According to the hypothesis, a redactor (possibly Ezra) combined these sources into the form we have today.
- The origins of of what constitutes today's Uncyclopedia are lost in the mists of time itself. Traditionalists firmly insist that all Uncyclopedic material is the inerrant Word of Jimbo Wales, and that any discrepancies which may have crept in since can be safely attributed to very rare copyist errors through the long dusty ages.
|
