Gullwind

No, no. Wyatt found it in a cave under Mount Cavalry, so that when Jesus died the blood dripped down through cracks in the rock onto the Mercy Seat.

Honestly. He took pictures, but they came out blurred (the power of God, no doubt). He even got samples of the dried blood, and the lab he had them tested at showed that it only had one set of chromosomes. For some reason, no one has ever been able to find out which lab this was, though.

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/

Apparently, their recent excavations "haven't completely confirmed" Wyatt's original findings. It looks like they've taken down some of the more ridiculous claims.

Dean Anderson

I'm just disappointed that no-one noticed my Back To The Future reference...

-Jay-

D'oh!
And it was right there at the start of the post, too. I'm disappointed I missed it...

I'll blame the cold medicine...

regards,

NinJay

Dave Hawkins

"DON'T EVALUATE THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE THEORY" ... A FLAWED APPROACH
Have you ever stopped to think what would happen if we applied Dean's logic to the Theory of the Solar System in Copernicus' day? Ptolemy's Theory of planetary motion involved something called "epicycles" to try to explain anomalous motions ... This is the situation we have today with the Documentary Hypothesis. The theory was initially proposed by Wellhausen and those close to him (see previous link to Oxford review) and was proposed as a result of some serious erroneous assumptions which were later disproved by the findings of archaeology. Later, the DH was modified to harmonize it better with the findings of archaeology, but what is actually needed is for scholars to do as Copernicus did with the Ptolemaic theory ... Copernicus reexamined the very foundations of the Ptolemaic model and found them to be wanting. Thus he started fresh and proposed a new theory. This is precisely what must be done with the Pentateuch.

Dean tells me that what matters is whether the DH fits the evidence, which he says it does. Well ... even taking his word for it that it does, this would put him in no better position than those who were opposed to Copernicus who were doubtless saying things like ...

"Nick ... don't look at Ptolemy's original theory ... look at CURRENT theory ... look at how we've modified the theory to fix the minor problems with Ptolemy's original theory ... the new epicycles that have been added make the theory fit the evidence just fine!"

Imagine where we would be if we had listened to them instead of to Nick!

deadman_932

Imagine where this discussion would be if you actually answered direct questions ...directly!!!

Dean Anderson

That's a bad example, Dave.

As your own quote here (with my added emphases) shows, Copernicus's alternate theory was compared with the current (i.e. 16th century) version of the epicycle theory - and was found to work better and to fit the evidence better.

In other words - contrary to your strawman scenario - people did exactly what I am asking you to do.

So there is no need for a "what if" scenario. There is no need to "stop and think what would have happened.." It happened.

And the Copernican theory overthrew the Epicycle one because it better fit the evidence than the current theory did, not because of any "assumptions" that Ptolemy might or might not have had in millennia past.

Perhaps if you were able to actually show problems with the current DH, and show that Tablet Theory solves those problems and fits the evidence better, then you too could do what Copernicus did.

Or you can simply keep making ad-hominem arguments against Wellhausen as if they were somehow relevant.

-Jay-

No, it isn't, Dave, but it's interesting that you picked this example.

John Grant, in Discarded Science (or via: amazon.co.uk) explains that Ptolemy used a cosmology almost plagiaristically similar to that of Hipparchus. Though Ptolemy died around 168 CE, his Earth-centric cosmology and its derivatives found favor within the (Catholic) Church because it supported Biblically based views of cosmology. Copernicus sought to simplify the Ptolemiac model, which had gotten overly complex.
(aside: Copernicus sat on his model for a while out of fear of how it would be received. His printer went so far as to preface to the work explaining that it wasn't really trying to explain physical reality - it was trying to make the math easier.)
Ironically, Copernicus' model did a worse job of predicting planetary motion than the Ptolemaic system did, and Copernicus still used epicycles (48 of them - more, in fact, than the then-current Ptolemaic system, which used 40).

A key point here is that the Copernican model represented reality better in the sense that it introduced heliocentrism. Copernicus was still hung up on the idea of circular/spherical motion, which doesn't represent planetary motion around the sun very well at all. BUT, and this is an important "BUT", it removed the presupposition of a fixed-Earth and/or Earth-centered solar system. Subsequent evolutions of cosmological theory didn't have to contend with explaining things in terms of a fixed Earth. Copernicus didn't get it right immediately, but he got things on the right track.

Galileo and Kepler were the ones that really got the heliocentric model out on the table a bit after Copernicus, and only after some nastiness with the Church over dogmatic conflicts.

You're gonna go down a path with an analogy about reducing the number of epicycles being like reducing the number of authors, aren't you?

You have asserted numerous times that "erroneous assumptions" were "disproved by the findings of archaeology".

You have yet to convince anyone here that any incorrect assumptions of Wellhausen bear upon the validity of the DH itself, and since Wellhausen's state of mind and the validity of the DH in and of itself are independent issues, your argument here is specious.

You have failed to provide any examples, despite your assertions to the contrary, of any archaeological findings which are detrimental to the DH. As has been pointed out numerous times, the DH is consilient with the archaeological record. At worst, the archaeological record is neutral with respect to the DH, and at best it supports it. Again, your argument here is specious.

You seem to be under the impression that modifying a theory in light of new evidence is a bad thing. It's not. It's done all the time. (Also, you've done an interesting verbal sleight of hand here. You've (incorrectly) stated that Wellhausen's DH was based on assumptions that were later disproven by archaeology. This means you're talking about Wellhausen's formulation of the DH. Then you say that the DH was modified to harmonize it with archaeology (let's point out that the modifications were some dating of sources and specific text splits - the overall framework remained intact), so now you've switched to the Modern DH, which, you've just as much as admitted does harmonize with archaeology. You've just described exactly how theories are supposed evolve over time, and held it up as a reason why we shouldn't accept a theory that does exactly what we'd expect it to. That's just mindbending - you've just cut your own main premise off at the knees to make a shaky analogy.)


No, it's more like Copernicus looked at the Ptolemaic model and said "Holy shit! This is complicated and takes a really long time to work anything out with. How can I simplify it?" Of course, he probably said it in Polish...

Anyway, he didn't just toss all of the Ptolemaic baby out with the bathwater - he kept concepts that were useful and discarded ones that weren't (which is just like science is supposed to do). The DH, in its evolution from Wellhausen's formulation to the modern verison has done the same thing - there was just more baby and less bathwater.

Copernicus was refining the then-current Ptolemaic model, not Ptolemy's original. You're just all over the place with this, but it looks like you're trying to present yourself as some sort of ersatz Copernicus out to overturn a dogmatic, obsolete theory. The problem is, you're trying to overturn some Frankensteined version of the DH that really isn't the DH...

Interestingly, this is an instance where the presuppositions of Ptolemy and his intellectual descendants are very relevant - they presupposed the centrality of the Earth in their cosmology, and the "perfection" of circular and spherical motions. Those presuppositons, and the need to cling to them, were precisely what led to the explosive growth in the number of epicycles in Ptolemaic models.

Dave, what are your presuppositions for any proposed new theory for the composition of the Pentateuch? Are you presupposing Moses as the author? Are you presupposing the occurance of a global flood? An exodus?

regards,

NinJay

Dave Hawkins

MORE ERRORS OF DEAN'S THAT NEED CORRECTING
No it is not. The modern form of the DH (best I can tell) asserts that the Pentateuchal accounts began as oral tradition and were only written down much later than the events described, then compiled by various redactors during the kingdom years of Israel. This IS NOT compatible with the findings of archaeology. We now know, thanks to the findings of archaeology, that Abraham lived in a rich and well educated culture (Ur), whose people were not only literate, but knew a great deal about science, astronomy, medicine, law and other things associated with advanced culture. The descendants of Abraham (the people who became the Israelite nation) lived in another highly advanced culture -- that of Egypt. So not only was the father of the nation well acquainted with written records, but his descendants lived in a nation well acquainted with written records. It is utterly non-sensical to think that such a people would rely on oral traditions to record their history ... especially considering their later renown for keeping the most accurate records of any people in the history of the world ... the recent example of the Dead Sea Scrolls being a stunning example of this.

I most certainly HAVE shown a) what their presuppositions were, and b) that they have been discredited. Now you do not agree that my showing of this is convincing. And I know you think my showing of this is irrelevant, but nevertheless, I have shown these things.

The odds are very great. The smaller the chiastic pattern, the likelier that we will find them. That's why the large one I pointed to is such a powerful argument against your position. What are the odds of that happening as the result of a later redactor's work? Very small. Pointing out that chiastic patterns appear in the P text and J text in isolation simply ignores the point that the larger chiasm is destroyed by splitting the text.

Huge difference here between Bilbo Baggins and Moses, Dean.

No scholar HAS EVER claimed that Bilbo is a real person. No one. Or that his story is supposed to be real history.

Horrendous numbers of scholars both Jewish and Christian have claimed that Moses was real and that the Pentateuch is real history.

How could generations of scholars over the last 2 milennia possibly have been so stupid as to put their scholarly reputations in jeopardy by taking a known fictional account and trying to pass it off as real history? Do you think that modern historians could take Bilbo's account and pass it off to the public as real history today? Of course not. This is absolutely preposterous.

OK ... so in spite of the following facts ...

1) There is a massive tradition of Mosaic authorship (are all those scholars including Philo and Josephus loony?)
2) There is a familiarity with details of Egypt and of desert life which make it highly unlikely that an author later than Moses would know (why propose someone other than Moses?)
3) There are many statements in the Pentateuch itself such as "when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book ... " (what book? well ... this one is the most logical inference)
4) Many OT and NT writers which specifically attribute the Torah to Moses
5) Almost identical nature of the Book of Deuteronomy to 14th/13th century BC suzerainty treaties as shown by Mendenhall

In spite of all this, and in spite of the fact that the great William F. Albright says ...

"It is ... sheer hypercriticism to deny the substantial Mosaic character of the Pentateuchal tradition."

(Albright, W.F., The Archaeology of Palestine, Baltimore: Penguin Books, revised 1960, quoted in McDowell, p. 120)

You want to deny Mosaic authorship.

OK then ... do so if you will. But you are ignoring the weight of evidence against you.

Dave Hawkins

No, no, no, no. My argument is that Copernicus went much farther back and re-evaluated the very foundations of the Ptolemaic system. I understand that comparisons were made by others between the modern form of the Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system. And of course Copernicus himself also evaluated the then current model. But talking about that ignores my point. My point is that WE, like Copernicus did, should evaluate the very foundation of the theory.

Dave Hawkins

Dean writes ... No it did NOT! As Ninjay points out above ... You see, the situation then is EXACTLY the same situation as we have between you and I. You have a theory which I contend was based upon later discredited presuppostions. I have a theory which attempts to take into account external evidence which the originators of the DH ignored. Yes, mine is an imperfect theory, just as Copernicus' theory was imperfect. That's why I'm hoping for some Galileos and Keplers to come along and make it better. But at least it's a good foundation. The DH is not a good foundation because it is based upon faulty assumptions.