Cege

You are welcome for the information about colophons and the actual examples I was able to find. That you are unable to see that the descriptions and examples of actual colophons are entirely different from the toledoths of Genesis looks to be a personal problem for you.

Similarity, in that proper names are contained in both toledoths and colophons, does not make the Genesis toledoths into colophons. The very description/definition of a colophon does not fit the toledoths.

In short (one more time), the toledoths of Genesis do not meet the definition or examples of actual ancient colophons.

Lucretius

As Donald J Wiseman is still alive and living in Australia, I would imagine that as he edited his late fathers work he would have some sort of copyright to the 1985 version at least.

Codec

Here are a few notes I made on the DH a couple of years ago when I did a short talk on it. Just for general information.

There are grounds for believing Moses wrote the Pentateuch, I mean it says so right there in the Bible.

• Exodus 17:14 "Then the Lord instructed Moses, 'Write this down as a permanent record...'"
• Exodus 24:4 "Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord's instructions."
• Exodus 34:27 "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down all these instructions, for they represents the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel.'"
• Leviticus 1:1 "The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle and said to him, 'Give the following instructions to the Israelites...'"
• Leviticus 6:8 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Give Aaron and his sons the following instructions...'"
• Deuteronomy 31:9 "So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests."
• Deuteronomy 31:24-26 "When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book..."

So various cases where Moses is alleged to have written or been told to write it down, which is enough to convince some people taking a simplistic reading. Indeed he might have written some of it down, but it seems fairly obvious its been changed since.

Contrast that with things that are awkward to reconcile, and that the DH explains, for instance:

• Genesis 7:15: In the story of the Flood, these verses have Noah collecting two of each species of animals -- one male and one female. Genesis 7:2-3 specifies 7 pairs of clean animals and birds and 1 pair of unclean animals.
  We've covered this.
• Genesis 7:11 describes water coming from the heavens and from below the ground to generate the worldwide flood. However, Genesis 7:4 describes all of the water falling as rain.
  DH splits this between authors.
• Genesis 7:11, 7:17, 7:24 and 8:3 specify different intervals for the flood duration which have no apparent resolution.
  This has been covered too.
• Genesis 11:31 This describes Abraham as living in the city Ur, and associates that location with the Chaldeans. Archeological evidence indicates that the Chaldeans did not exist as a tribe at the time of Abraham; they rose to power much later, during the 1st millennium BCE.
  Evidence of a later time of writing than Moses.
• Genesis 14:14: This verse refers to Abram pursuing some surviving kings of Sodom and Gomorrah to the city of Dan.
  
  Quote:

  14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

  However, that place name did not exist until a long time after Moses' death. See Judges 18
  
  Quote:

  29And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.

  Other locations are also identified in the Pentateuch by names that were invented long after the death of Moses.
  
• Genesis 22:14: The verse states: "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day..." There are many similar verses that state that something or other lasted "to this day". This is consistent with a writer who composed the passages long after the events described, and long after Moses' death, rather than writing in the here and now.
• Genesis 36 contained a list of Edomite kings which included some monarchs who were in power after Moses' death. R.E. Friedman wrote: "In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Ibn Yashush suggested that the list was written by someone who lived after Moses. The response to his conclusion was that he was called "Isaac the blunderer." History has proven him to be correct, at least as viewed by most mainline and liberal theologians.
• Exodus 33:7 describes Moses entering the Tabernacle. Yet, the Tabernacle had not yet been built; its subsequent construction is described in Exodus 35.
  Different threads again being merged.
• Numbers 12:3: This verse states "Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth." (NKJ) If Moses were that humble, it is unlikely that he would have described himself in these glowing terms.
• Numbers 25:1 which describes the rebellion at Peor referred to Moabite women; Numbers 25:6 refers to Midianites.
  
  Quote:

  1And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. ... 6And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

  Why were they weeping? Because in the DH version, the immediate preceding thread is the death of Aaron. So the DH sorts out the midanite/moabite issue and makes for a more complete narrative.
• Deuteronomy 34:5-9: These verses describe the death, burial, age at death, physical condition at death, and morning period for Moses. Some have suggested that this portion was written later by Joshua. However, R.E. Friedman wrote: "...in the sixteenth century, Carlstadt, a contemporary of Luther, commented that the account of Moses' death is written in the same style as texts that precede it. This makes it difficult to claim that Joshua or anyone else merely added a few lines to an otherwise Mosaic manuscript."
• Deuteronomy 34:10 This states "There has never been another prophet like Moses..." (NLT) This sounds like a passage written long after Moses' death. Enough time would have had to pass for many other prophets to have arisen, to passed from the scene, and to have been evaluated. Not the sort of thing you write as a eulogy.

So a lot of weird anachronisms, misfits and odd events, which when split into the different threads and assuming a much later writing disappear.

Pappy Jack

Dave, you've posted this before at Pyramids and All That. On that thread I twice asked you this:
And twice on that thread you chose not to respond. Maybe you've got some answers now?

Jack the Bodiless

The Sumerian and Babylonian myths themselves.

Do you understand the concept of chronological order, Dave?

Those myths are older. They're older than the Hebrew language. And the Sumerian civilization, in particular, is older than "Moses" and older than "the Flood".

Furthermore, why are you STILL dragging the rotten corpse of Rohl's argument around? Rohl's revised dates, even if they were correct, are NOT sufficient to rescue the Flood myth from the dustbin of history. This has been pointed out to you MANY times before.

Mike PSS

Dave is treating this thread as a formal debate. And failing and flailing just as much.

He latches onto one statement by Dean Anderson just so he can dig into his bag of precast tricks and roll the stinking mass out again. This time it's David Rohl. Next time it will be Piazza Smyth. The next time it will be some 18th century author, or even Paley.

Dave, Dean conceded the point about Moses existence yet you still spent two thirds of your post trying to defend a conceded point. Why?

And you then go on to "Answer" objections? Here's a list of your "answers".
EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE AUTHORS
Dave says: "Could you please supply some examples?"

LACK OF ANY AUTHORIAL CLAIM
Dave says: "While we DO know of colophons being used on tablets, we (or at least I) do not know of them being used on papyrus or vellum."

ANACHRONISMS
Dave says: "Please give an example of this. I don't think you are correct."

MOSES' DEATH
Dave says: "Why? Please elaborate. Can you show that the Account of Moses' Death is very dissimilar in style compared to the style of the Book of Joshua?"

COLOPHONS NOT SIMILAR
Dave says: "I didn't say they were identical. I said they were similar. And they are."

THE GREAT AGE OF GENESIS SOURCES
Dave says: "Jack, I challenge you to present some evidence for your assertion about Genesis containing reworks of the Sumerian and Babylonian myths."

Dave, at best you answered ONE statement; about the colophon of Moses. The items in red are you just asking for MORE evidence without responding to the specific statements. The items in blue are your personal increduality coming through, which doesn't an argument make.

Stop pontificating and start discussing the facts Dave. CM is right. In my eyes you are the epitome of Christian Apologetics and your actions here and elsewhere have prejudiced my view of all Christians.

Constant Mews

Please understand what Dave is doing here. He is not engaged in apologetics. Apologetics requires actually explicating a theological point with logic, argument, and evidence. Dave is engaged in a much more limited and far more questionable practice: witnessing.

Dave has admitted that he doesn't really understand the conjectures that he espouses - for example, he has admitted that he's not even that familiar with Brown's hydroplate theory; he doesn't know the details. Self-admitted. I admit it's astounding to think that a grown human being (even an American ) would present and attempt to argue conjectures with which they are not familiar, but it is a common activity amongst those who witness.

Dave is presenting the words and thoughts of other people in the irrational, but quite firm belief that it will somehow 'open your mind to the truth of God.' That's what witnessing is all about. The witness rarely bothers to defend - and even more rarely understands well enough to defend - the work; the presentation is all.

What I find increasingly baffling about the most recent crop of witnesses we have here - Bryers, spiritDad, etc. - is their blindness to the damage they do to the Christian faith by witnessing in such an inept fashion. Is it lack of cognitive ability? Unwillingness to actually examine what they themselves say?

One thing I have noted: witnesses in general are unable to read the visual, audial, and stylistic clues presented by others - they are completely insensitive to their audience and rarely understand either intellectual or emotional responses. I am engaged in a discussion right now with a colleague about where this might fall on the Autism Spectrum.

But it is a puzzlement.

Lucretius

So it's not so much an "anti science" stance but more an "anti thought" one ?
Sadly their behaviour makes a certain amount of sense when you look at it in that way .

Toto

Please do not insult those on the Autistim-Asperger's spectrum.

VoxRat

I won't bother taking apart all the nonsense in Dave's latest dump. I'll just note that it does nothing to support the notion that any of the events described in Genesis or Exodus have any historical basis whatsoever, and I'll leave it to others to walk him through why.

But returning to this ridiculous "toledoths = colophons" crap:Both contain names. That's the extent of the "similarity". Dave is assuming - with absolutely no justification, other than his "toledoth = colophon" hypothesis - that there's some relationship between those names and the author. And what's the basis for the "toledoth = colophon" hypothesis? The fact that both contain names. And the format of those names is absolutely unrelated. In the one case it's "by the hand of Bob, John's son", in the other it's "here's the geneology of the character, Bob, which might be of some interest since Bob is a big player in our story here:"