Dean Anderson

Why? Why do you need a general term for them?

If you wish to talk about what a particular person has said, then talk about that person.

Why would do you need a catch-all term under which you can lump all people who agree with the DH unless you wish to use it to make generalisations such as "DH advocates say..." or "documentarians say..." in order to invoke ad-hominem arguments (e.g. "The DH is wrong because DH advocates have a liberal bias...")?

If you wish to point out a flaw in the DH itself - which you should be doing, by the way, then point it out.

If you wish to assert that everyone who accepts the DH has a particular viewpoint then be honest about it and talk about "everyone who accepts the DH".

Otherwise, simply give the viewpoints of the individuals you are talking about and don't try to use a term that will imply that everyone else who agrees with the DH also has that viewpoint.

angelo

The Shroud of Turin, still exists. It's fake, but nevertheless, it's still with us. The ancient artifacts like the Ark Of The Covenant, were never real. And any valuable surviving piece can not be proven to be authentic. There are, in the various churches of the catholic world, thousands of bits of wood claiming to be pieces of the original cross of the crucifiction. There's enough wood to make a hundred crosses.

Any artifacts that support any story in the OT, are non existent, because there's a mountain of evidence surfacing today from archeology, that the Hebrew epic never happened.

Dean Anderson

I'm not sure I'd agree that the Ark was never a real object - but that's a topic for another thread...

Lucretius

Wow Dave I am really impressed that you managed to find several pages of a REALLY OLD book that was not in fact part of mainsteam theology (then or now )that actually does not prove your argument in the slightest .
How about this from page 151 that you specifically mention (It is at the top so you don't have to read much of the page ) my emphasis

So the Jews derived their flood myths FROM PAGAN SOURCES ?
Note he does NOT say that the pagans derived it from Jewish sources.

You have referred to Faber's book before I remember on another thread here and as a result I did a bit of research on this gentleman ,among his more interesting ideas was that Napoleon III was the "anti christ" and the world would end in 1857 (Faber died in 1854 so sadly never saw how wrong he was )

Ray Moscow

On an unrelated note, a few weeks ago I visited Napoleon III's masoleum near here (in Farnborough). It's in a Benedictine monastery built to house it.

Ray

Lucretius

The best I can do is say that I have been in a pub he supposedly visited while he was in exile in England while out hunting with Lord Derby
To keep this vaguely on topic I would like to thank Dean for that excellent analysis of what the DH actually is all that work is much appreciated

-Jay-

angelo atheist:
Did you really intend this statement to be as sweeping as it appears? I doubt you'll get a lot of argument against the archaeological evidence, but it doesn't necessarily follow from that that there would be no artifacts, particularly after around 800-700 BCE or so. There's also no intrinsic reason that an artifact that supports an OT story would necessarily confirm the story (e.g. if an artifact matching the description of the Ark of the Covenant were found, it just means the artifact exists, not that it was crafted to hold stone tablets wrought by the hand of God).

regards,

NinJay

Dave Hawkins

LET'S REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS ON DH DEVELOPMENT

DOCUMENTARY PRESUPPOSITIONS
1) Priority of source analysis over archaeology
2) Natural view of Israel's religion and history
3) No writing in Israel at Moses' time
4) Legendary view of the patriarchal narratives
5) Presupposition of anti-supernaturalism

I will keep hammering these points home so as to keep them in the forefront of your minds because, contrary to Dean's assertions to the contrary, these are extremely important points. These presuppositions are THE reasons that DH advocates would bend over backwards to twist, distort, kill, maim, destroy a historical text with a theory that truly resembles the Epicycle Theory of the Solar System. No one would think of attacking any other historical document in the way that the Pentateuch has been attacked unless there is some strong philosophical motivation for doing so. The 5 presuppositions identified above combined with a bias against the traditions of organized religion prevalent in 19th century Europe provide such a motivation. Here's a glimpse of how the DH advocates try to mutilate the text of the Pentateuch. This sample is taken from Genesis chapters 1-7. As you can see, the text is chopped up into bite-size pieces. In some places, sentences are cut in half and attributed to different sources. Why in the world would scholars come up with such a cockamamie theory? The Documentary Hypothesis is really nothing more than a conspiracy theory ... Jewish redactors supposedly cobbled together several documents and passed them off as the product of one author, Moses. How credible is that?



************************************************

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT DEAN'S EVIDENCE FOR THE DH
Here's a graphic of how the Pentateuch supposedly came into existence. Time flows from top to bottom. As you can see, oral tradition is a major part of the theory although Dean tries to deny it. There is even an entire school of criticism known as the "Oral Traditionists" (Uppsala School). But all three schools -- Wellhausen with the DH, Gunkel and his Form Critics, and the Scandinvian Uppsla School all placed a great emphasis on Oral Tradition.



USE OF DIVINE NAMES
Dean writes ... One major flaw in DH advocates' thinking is to apply Occidental thinking to Oriental text. If, however, one approaches the text in the most logical way -- that is, seeking to understand the Oriental mindset -- then the reasons for different names of God being used becomes clear. McDowell cites two Jewish scholars to explain the rules for using divine names (logical choices for analyzing Jewish text don't you think?) ... R. Jehuda Halevi in the 12th century and the 20th century scholar Umberto Cassuto of the Hebrew University. Cassuto's 7 rules are listed (p. 123) and explanation is also given for the use of the compound form "Yahweh-Elohim." These rules apply to certain types of literature in different ways and Cassuto explains this in detail (McDowell, p. 124). Cassuto concludes ... McDowell continues ...

NATURE AND ROLE OF PRIESTS
Dean writes in summary ... Stop and think for a minute. If you want to have a theory that there is such a thing as a "P" source document and you take the liberty of chopping up text as Genesis is chopped up above, then OF COURSE you can support your theory. It's quite easy. Just select all the verses which talk about the Aaronic priests having access to God and Voila! ... you have it! "What a beautiful theory!" Rubbish! No one would think of attempting this with any other historical text ... why with the Pentateuch? Keep in mind also that there is not even the slightest hint of the existence of such a "P" document (or any of the others) in any ancient texts anywhere in the world. But there are hints of the existence of written records kept by Adam and his descendants. In fact, they signed the documents they wrote with "these are the generations of ... " and we have independent confirmation from ancient Babylonian and Assyrian tablets that this "toledoth" was in common use.

My rebuttal above also applies to Dean's points C - G as well. If Dean wishes to overcome this challenge, it would helpful to provide an online chart which shows all the supposed divisions of the text into the alleged J E D and P sources, as I have supplied for the first chapters of Genesis.

DOUBLETS AND TRIPLETS
Dean writes ... To answer the first objection, I simply point out that repetition of some accounts is exactly what we would expect from a compilation. On this point, the DH and the Tablet Theory agree. As for apparent contradictions, they vanish upon close inspection. Analyzing one such alleged contradiction, Kenneth Kitchen writes ... LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE
Dean writes ... I'm not sure if I disagree with this or not. Given my view that the Pentateuch is a compilation, I would expect the various tablet sources to vary in their language. If Dean could give a detailed, specific example, I could analyze it.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
Dean list some other items in support of the DH, but with the lack of specificity given, it is hard to analyze his claims. Again, if specific examples could be given, I could analyze them.

In closing this post, let me quote the British scholar H.H. Rowley who wrote ... Well guess what ... a new theory is available now and it is finally beginning to see the light of day.

One thing I will say in favor of the DH (this is the only thing I can think of to say in its favor) ... It was necessary that someone realize that the Pentateuch was not the exclusive work of one author. The simplistic view that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch himself is obviously wrong and a theory was needed. The problem is that the DH is the wrong theory, based upon wrong assumptions and entirely without any evidence whatsoever for the existence of it's putative source documents.

So there's my criticism of your position so far, Dean. Now I am finishing up a post summarizing positive evidence for some form of Tablet Theory and will post that shortly.

Ray Moscow

Will that include some Islamic apologetics, like last time?

That was priceless!

Jack the Bodiless

LET'S REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSERTING FALSEHOODS IN DAVE'S ARGUMENT

I will keep hammering this point home so as to keep it in the forefront of your mind because, contrary to Dave's assertions to the contrary, this is an extremely important point. Religious devotion to a proven falsehood is THE reason that DH critics would bend over backwards to twist, distort, kill, maim, destroy history and archaeology with a theory that truly resembles...

...Erm, creationism maybe?