Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Faid · 10-25-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

And if you read the summary posted by Coleslaw above, you will see that what Nicholson is actually saying is:

1) The original DH proposed by Wellhausen "remains the securest basis for understanding the Pentateuch"

2) However, it "needs revision and development in detail" and is "in sharp decline--some would say in a state of advanced rigor mortis"

3) Having said that, a revised and developed version of it "should remain our primary point of reference, and it alone provides the most dependable perspective from which to approach this most difficult of areas in the study of the Old Testament."

In other words, the original version of the DH made by Wellhausen is in need of revision and development due to ongoing scholarship, and is in decline - but the modern DH (which is what Friedman advocates and what I have been arguing for) is still the best way of explaining the structure of the Torah.

There is something very simple here, that you seem to be getting confused about - so follow what I am about to say very closely.

Some people use the term "Documentary Hypothesis" to refer specifically to the particular version of it that Wellhausen proposed. Others use the term "Documentary Hypothesis" more generally to include the modern versions which take into account the latest linguistic and archaeological research.

What you appear to have done a couple of times now is search for anything you can find that appears to criticise the DH, and latch on to it. In each case, it turned out to be something criticising the specific Wellhausen DH and supporting the modern DH.

So far, absolutely nothing you have posted on this thread has been a criticism of the modern DH. All your arguments have been either ad-hominems against Wellhausen himself or have been misplaced Arguments from Authority based on what people have said about the specific Wellhausen DH being outdated and having been replaced by the modern DH. You do not seem to have realised that such quotes are actually in support of the modern DH that we are discussing on this thread (and, of course, directly opposed to your Tablet Theory).

Do you think I was trying to say that Nicholson thinks the DH is in trouble or something? If you think that you don't read very well. I do read what I post and more and I'm quite aware that Nicholson thinks the DH is still the best way to go. See my comment at the end of my Nicholson post and you will see this.

The point of the Nicholson post and the Meyers post is to show that many other scholars -- not Nicholson, not Friedman -- are now attacking the DH. This should tell you something Dean. It should tell you that I'm not loony for attacking the DH. I'm apparently in good company -- again, not with Nicholson and Friedman (this is a recording) -- but with a lot of other scholars.

And you are correct, I have not posted any criticisms of the modern DH. Why should I? Copernicus didn't try to get people to quit believing in epicycles. He just realized the whole thing was garbage and started fresh. That's what I'm doing as well.

How interesting. So, to show us this supposed "severe attack" against the DH in general, you provide us with a quote from a scholar who questions the original DH in favor of the modern one.

Hmm.

Seems there's something missing here, isn't there dave? Now what could it be...

...Oh I know, some actual attacks against the DH in general.

Dave, let me just say this: If such a "severe attack" actually existed, you would have given us the names and the work of these scholars- instead of speculating on their existence, by misreading a supporter of the DH.

Seriously. If that's the best you can do, you might as well give up now.

Faid · 10-25-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

That's probably because I've repeatedly pointed out to you that I am not making that claim, and neither is the DH...

OK. So you don't really care about the title of this thread? Or what?

Remind me dave- who attacked the DH first?

Now that Dean is successfully defending it, you are going all semantics on him, claiming this ain't about the DH at all, just "written" vs. "oral"?

Maaaan.

Dave Hawkins · 10-25-2007, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

OK. So you don't really care about the title of this thread? Or what?

Given that the titles of your threads are usually remeniscent of sensationalist Tabloid Headlines in both style and accuracy (often bearing little resemblence to the actual contents or even being contradicted by the contents), and this one is a prime example of that...

No, I don't care about the title (other than that I've considered asking a Mod to correct it so that it fits the contents of the thread better).

Your stated purpose for this thread was to discuss the DH and Tablet Theory, and that is what we have spent the last 40-odd pages doing.

That you erroneously gave it a misleading title is pretty irrelevant, really.

Well silly me. I thought all those charts I've seen about the evolution of the J E D & P documents actually meant something. I thought that someone that favors the DH as much as you would possibly have an opinion about how those documents came to be. And that you might share that opinion. And would possibly have some actual evidence to support that opinion.

Oh well.

I'm not too interested in examining epicycles so to speak. What's the point? You think the text should be split up ala Friedman and you are only interested in textual evidence. You don't seem to care about anything else.

As for sensationalist tabloid style headlines ... would you like me to give you a list of some other people's thread titles at this forum? Also, as I said ... I have kept my end of the bargain in providing evidence that the Torah is a written record and I showed why the DH is flawed also. You have done nothing to show that it came from oral tradition.

I have an idea.

Maybe since it appears that you are not even go to address the oral tradition thing, I'll go do some investigating myself and see what I can turn up about the supposed oral traditions comprising the J E D and P docs.

Faid · 10-25-2007, 08:28 PM

Dave, dave, dave... Getting a bit impatient to call it a day, aren't we?

You SHOWED that the DH is flawed? That is a deliberate distortion of facts, dave. Show me, WITH LINKS, just ONE point you made to dispute the DH that Dean didn't completely demolish.

And, of course, Dean told you from page one that the possible oral origin of the Torah is IRRELEVANT to the DH. You thought it was not, but couldn't show otherwise, and had to rely on personal beliefs of supporters of the theory- as if that mattered for the theory itself.

And now, after 43 pages, you suddenly remembered that all this is "off topic", and we should discuss the oral origins alone?

You realize how this makes you look, right dave?

Come on. Relax. Take a deep breath. Admit that you have failed to dispute the DH in the slightest, despite your intentions, and then maybe you can discuss whether the origin of the Torah was oral or not- something that is, after all, irrelevant to the DH, like you now practically admit.

gregor · 10-25-2007, 09:00 PM

Admit it dave - you were caught in another quote mine. You stumbled on a review that you thought attacked the DH and later had to move the goal posts when you saw it did not by claiming that by challenging a 100 year-old version of the DH in favor of the modern DH it's somehow an attack on the DH.

It's the mendacious arguments I cannot stand.

Does the Secular Web sell LiesForJesus T-shirts.

Keith&Co. · 10-26-2007, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Admit that you have failed to dispute the DH in the slightest, despite your intentions

It is also possible that the DH theory remains an error, despite afDave's failure to show that here. Maybe there are good arguments against it, they're just not showing up high on a Google.

Is it possible Dave can understand that admitting to the failure of his argument is NOT automatically admitting to the correctness of the theory?

-Jay- · 10-26-2007, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Admit it dave - you were caught in another quote mine. You stumbled on a review that you thought attacked the DH and later had to move the goal posts when you saw it did not by claiming that by challenging a 100 year-old version of the DH in favor of the modern DH it's somehow an attack on the DH.

Dave, you'd do well to read enough of your sources to understand what they'e really saying before you mine cite them. Your repeated attempts to attack the modern DH by gnawing at the table legs of Wellhausen's formulation don't get any more useful through repetition.

It's interesting that you call Dean into question for not addressing the oral traditions behind the Torah.

* You opened the thread with a reference to McDowell's "assumptions" of the DH, one of which was "no writing in Israel at Moses' time." (Which, of course, implies oral tradition.)

* That assumption got eviscerated fairly quickly, by Dean, and was shown to be irrelevant to the modern DH. Issue closed.

So, you threw that particular dead cat on the table, and Dean cleared it off. What's the point in bringing it back out?

regards,

NinJay

-Jay- · 10-26-2007, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

I've saved the major posts from Dean in this thread. With his consent, I'd be happy to edit them together into a single post that could be stickied. I think a digest of this thread would be excellent introductory reading for folks.

I haven't forgotten this. I've spent most of the week in the company of a bottle of NyQuil trying to beat a nasty fall bug.

regards,

NinJay

Dave Hawkins · 10-26-2007, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Admit that you have failed to dispute the DH in the slightest, despite your intentions

It is also possible that the DH theory remains an error, despite afDave's failure to show that here. Maybe there are good arguments against it, they're just not showing up high on a Google.

Is it possible Dave can understand that admitting to the failure of his argument is NOT automatically admitting to the correctness of the theory?

I freely admit that I am not the world champion of debate. There are doubtless many better than me. But I came into this thread with certain expectations which I have detailed already. And I have found out that Dean has no interest in those things ... and that is unfortunate because he should.

I am glad for this thread though, because it has given me a glimpse into the mindset of the folks trying to defend a dying theory. I shouldn't be surprised at all that they don't want to talk about archaeology, the history of the J E D & P docs, and other such external evidence. It is embarrassing to talk about and seriously undermines the very basis for the DH.

I do have one more question, Dean ...

Do you have any precedent in any other literature for your view of the Pentateuch? Or is the Pentateuch unique in literature for having been subjected to such slicing and dicing?

For example, have scholars sliced and diced the Koran in a similar fashion to the Pentateuch? How about the Doctrine & Covenants? The Iliad? Any others? (These may be bad examples, but hopefully you get the idea.)

Dave Hawkins · 10-26-2007, 05:13 AM

Quote:

So, you threw that particular dead cat on the table, and Dean cleared it off. What's the point in bringing it back out?

The cat is not dead by virtue of Dean proclaiming that it is. Dean has to actually kill the cat, but he chose not to even try. What's the point? It would be interesting to hear Dean try to explain the origin of the individual documents and defend his view. I don't think he can, so I don't think he will.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2007, 08:28 PM	#1064
Faid Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,057	Dave, dave, dave... Getting a bit impatient to call it a day, aren't we? You SHOWED that the DH is flawed? That is a deliberate distortion of facts, dave. Show me, WITH LINKS, just ONE point you made to dispute the DH that Dean didn't completely demolish. And, of course, Dean told you from page one that the possible oral origin of the Torah is IRRELEVANT to the DH. You thought it was not, but couldn't show otherwise, and had to rely on personal beliefs of supporters of the theory- as if that mattered for the theory itself. And now, after 43 pages, you suddenly remembered that all this is "off topic", and we should discuss the oral origins alone? You realize how this makes you look, right dave? Come on. Relax. Take a deep breath. Admit that you have failed to dispute the DH in the slightest, despite your intentions, and then maybe you can discuss whether the origin of the Torah was oral or not- something that is, after all, irrelevant to the DH, like you now practically admit.

10-25-2007, 09:00 PM	#1065
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Admit it dave - you were caught in another quote mine. You stumbled on a review that you thought attacked the DH and later had to move the goal posts when you saw it did not by claiming that by challenging a 100 year-old version of the DH in favor of the modern DH it's somehow an attack on the DH. It's the mendacious arguments I cannot stand. Does the Secular Web sell LiesForJesus T-shirts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.