Review of some biblical studies

[Archaea]

Apparently, if you lived in the 1920s, your world of scholarship concerning the Bible was neat and tidy.

You had the Documentary Hypothesis, which at the time rose to the level of almost indisputable,.

You had the theory that the OT was written in the third century BCE.

And You had Q to support how the three synoptic gospels were written.

However, upon reading various works, including a work by Umberto Casserta who dissembles the Documentary Hypothesis, Kitchen who finds some archaeological evidence to support some historical assertions of the OT, and Mark Goodacre's good work on dissembling Q, we find modern biblical studies to be a messy work, where despite guidelines, we don't really know what we have.

It would have cleaner to live during a time in the twenties when science had all the answers, darn it all.