Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 10-25-2007, 03:40 PM

Dean Anderson,

Actually, Friedman still adopts Wellhausen's Classic Documentary Hypothesis. It may not be specific to Wellhausen, but it's still the same idea.

I have not explored it enough to make an intelligent opinion one way or another, but I do find the Oral Composition theories proposed by Schniedewind (whom I've actually talked to a little bit about) in his How the Bible Became a Book (or via: amazon.co.uk).

You can read an essay of his here.

Chris Weimer

Steviepinhead · 10-25-2007, 03:41 PM

And didn't davey just tell us quite recently that--unlike some dimbulb creationists--he's much too sophisticated a critic of the ToE to draw these simplistic macro/micro distinctions.

Dave, you're like a new author on a long-running TV series (something on the order of "Demolished HouseYECs," perhaps) who is in desperate need of a continuity supervisor.

Frankly, we keep better track of your "arguments" than you do.

Chris Weimer · 10-25-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dean ... It seems that the DH is in many respects like the ToE (Macro part) ... A theory which sounded good at first, but proved later to be completely devoid of evidential support.

Another candidate for "creationist tactics" -

The Big Lie

Repeat it often enough, and people will start to think there must be something to it.

Care to point to anything supporting the notion that "Macro-evolution" has no evidential support?

No. Didn't think so.

In fact, there's overwhelming evidence for macroevolution. Here's a little snippet:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Dean Anderson · 10-25-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Actually, Friedman still adopts Wellhausen's Classic Documentary Hypothesis. It may not be specific to Wellhausen, but it's still the same idea.

It's the same idea (and hence still a version of the DH), but it puts many of the splits in different places and disagrees about the dating, too.

Hence my distinction between the "original" DH and the "modern" DH - both definitely versions of the DH but not exactly the same.

Dave Hawkins · 10-25-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Faid ... I posted the Nicholson piece to show that the DH is under severe attack.

You should take notice.

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.

Dave Hawkins · 10-25-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

So Dean ... We're 42 pages into this thing and I have not yet heard you give any evidence for why you think the Pentateuch originated as oral traditions.

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?

ck1 · 10-25-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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.

When you say "attacking" do you mean these scholars are advocating complete rejection of the DH, or suggesting refinements?

FatherMithras · 10-25-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

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.

Uh, he realized they were garbage because they explained the data less accurately then his idea. So your own example refutes you, since the DH better explains the data.

Dean Anderson · 10-25-2007, 05:18 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?

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.

Faid · 10-25-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Faid ...

Quote:

So, what was your point in posting this?

I posted the Nicholson piece to show that the DH is under severe attack.

You should take notice.

I DID take notice, dave... Did you take notice on what the person who supposedly "attacks" it, actually says?

Do you think that saying "It's not the same it used to be, but it's still the best interpretation of the text" counts as a severe attack?

Was that the best your googling skills could come up with, dave?

Because if that's the case, I'd say that, once again, you made our point for us.

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

10-25-2007, 03:40 PM	#1051
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Dean Anderson, Actually, Friedman still adopts Wellhausen's Classic Documentary Hypothesis. It may not be specific to Wellhausen, but it's still the same idea. I have not explored it enough to make an intelligent opinion one way or another, but I do find the Oral Composition theories proposed by Schniedewind (whom I've actually talked to a little bit about) in his How the Bible Became a Book (or via: amazon.co.uk). You can read an essay of his here. Chris Weimer

10-25-2007, 03:41 PM	#1052
Steviepinhead Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,642	And didn't davey just tell us quite recently that--unlike some dimbulb creationists--*he's* much too sophisticated a critic of the ToE to draw these simplistic macro/micro distinctions. Dave, you're like a new author on a long-running TV series (something on the order of "Demolished HouseYECs," perhaps) who is in desperate need of a continuity supervisor. Frankly, we keep better track of your "arguments" than you do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.