Chris Weimer

I'm well familiar with the Palladium. I would have said palladia if I meant that, but I didn't. I said the Palladium.

This is the kicker for me. The Palladium was apparently seen in Rome. Is this the same Palladium from Troy? Doubtful. But that's what Vergil makes it out to be in the Aeneid. But for Troy? I wonder if the Palladium existed and was ransacked when the Greeks conquered Troy VIIa.

Wolfhound

Whoops! Sorry for the incorrect plural. It's been a long day! :blush: It would be lotsa' fun if the legendary Trojan Palladium existed but I'm afraid I'll have to remain a skeptic since there have been lots of Big Foot and Loch Ness Monster sightings, too. The point is, anyway, that even if such a relic had existed, I doubt that it was actually imbued with the supernatural powers which were claimed.

I'm still holding out for the Tarnhelm, though. That thing rocked!

Dave Hawkins

REFUTATION OF ERRORS
There are several errors of fact in Dean's posts that need to be corrected first. This post will be dedicated to that, then I will begin in a subsequent post to give the positive case for the various Tablet Theories.

1) McDOWELL IS ATTACKING A STRAWMAN. Dean says that none of the following ... are basic assumptions upon which the DH is built. ANSWER: Dean refutes himself regarding #1 in the opening sentence of his very next post. He writes ... Yes. Exactly. Thanks. That's exactly what McDowell means by #1 above. He means that the Documentarians derive their hypothesis from the text itself, rather than from external evidence, such as that provided by archaeology.


2) ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM. Dean wants us to believe that the DH must be true because a large number of scholars adhere to it. This is a well known logical fallacy. Click here for info on this fallacy ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority


3) ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT ALL CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH SCHOLARS ACCEPT SUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS IN SCRIPTURE. Dean writes ... Dean appears to be assuming that if a scholar labels himself as Christian or Jew, this means that he accepts the supernatural elements in Scripture. This is far from the case. Many Christian and Jewish scholars reject much, if not all, of the supernatural elements of Scripture. McDowell cites Wellhausen on p. 8 ... McDowell quotes many other Documentarians such as Frank, Kuenen, Gilkey and Orr. All make it clear that they do not accept the supernatural elements of the Pentateuch. This is what McDowell means by Presupposition #2 above.

4) DEAN MISREPRESENTS ME. He writes ... I challenge Dean to find the word "rapidly" used by me with either of these claims.

5) DEAN IS UNAWARE OF MAINSTREAM SCHOLARS WHO REJECT THE DH. I would suggest a little reading outside the skeptic libraries. Kenneth Kitchen is a well known critic of the DH and a leading Biblical scholar. More about him here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kitchen I am sure there are many more. I will cite them as we move through McDowell's well researched and scholarly work.

6) BASELESS ATTACK AND A MISUNDERSTANDING OF LOGICAL FALLACIES. Dean writes ... First, Dean calls McDowell an "evangelical apologist" as if that were a bad thing to be. If the evangelical approach is a good thing, then defending it and promoting it is also a good thing. Secondly, Dean says that McDowell is certainly not a Biblical scholar. But Dean wouldn't know because he has admitted that he has not read the relevant work by McDowell presently under discussion. What separates a Biblical scholar from a non scholar? Scholarly work, don't you think? And Josh has plenty of those which Dean should read if he wants to be in a position to judge McDowell's scholarly credentials. And McDowell is not without formal education. He holds a BA from Wheaton College and an M.Div from Talbot Theological Seminary. If this education, plus his publishing record does not provide some scholarly credentials for Mr. McDowell, one wonders what does? Maybe the "Skeptic Stamp of Approval" perhaps?

Finally, Dean implies that I am committing the "Appeal to Authority Fallacy." But I have discovered that many skeptics misunderstand this fallacy. First, for it to be a fallacy, I must be saying something like "McDowell says the DH is refuted" AND McDowell is not an expert in the relevant field. This is not what I say. Secondly, McDowell IS an expert in the relevant field, so I could say "McDowell says the DH is refuted" if I wanted to and commit no fallacy. But I won't say that. McDowell's role in this exercise for me is that of a researcher who has uncovered many relevant statements by writers Dean should respect. I think he will be quite surprised as we move along.

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

That about covers the errors I found in Dean's posts so far. I did read the information Dean provided on the DH itself with interest and will comment on it in due course. My next post will expand on my OP and show support for McDowell's assertion regarding the Presuppositions of the Documentarians. In subsequent posts, I will provide positive evidence for the existence of pre-Flood writings which were handed down to Noah and preserved up to Moses' day. I would challenge Dean to do the same for the supposed 'J, E, D, and P' documents. I don't think he can do so.

Gooch's dad

ad populum is a fallacy of appealing to the masses, Dave. Stating that the majority of *scholars* in the field believe the DH is not an ad populum fallacy, since they aren't the masses, they are the experts in the field.

Why would I waste my time even bothering with this? You won't listen. You'll state the same error tomorrow.

Lucretius

Dave IF you have such evidence why don't you present it now ?
Or even better present it in a recognized archaeological journal ,I am sure that this "positive evidence " would be a cause celebre in the field.
You still have not, as far as I can see, explained how these tablets of clay or stone appear to have been totally lost despite other more mundane tablets surviving in relatively large numbers .

JEST2ASK

That would be extremly interesting to me ( and IMO many others)... Regardless of the validity of your claim(s) against the DH. I would have preferred that you would have given this top priority but I can wait.

shirley knott

Let's cut to the chase --
what, precisely, is riding on the answer to this question?
Would it matter one whit if the DH were false? Would it matter one whit if the DH were true?
NO, becaue Genesis, as a historical account, is as useful and accurate as Gone with the Wind. Whether the book had one or many authors, was contemporaneous with the events recorded, includes verifiable facts or not, the book has no validity as a primary source for the validity of claims of theology.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Lucretius

While I think you are correct in this,what Dave and other adherents of the "Tablet Theory" are attempting, as far as I can see, is that Adam himself was the physical author of the earliest tablet, so therefore we would have to accept a historical Adam,resulting in the 6 day creation also having to be accepted as a historical event and not a myth or allegory.

Dean Anderson

No there aren't.

I said that the DH is based on the text. That is true.

It does not, however, give priority to the text over archaeology There is no part of the DH that asserts that archaeology disagrees with the text and therefore archaeology is wrong - which is what McDowell's claim is.

And it does not change the fact that McDowell is attacking a strawman.

Utterly wrong.

I never made the claim that the DH is correct because the vast majority of scholars adhere to it.

If you wish to claim that when you said that a natural view of history was a presupposition of the DH (which you later reworded as saying that the DH was inherently anti-supernatural) all you actually meant was that some DH scholars who are theists reject some or all of the supernatural claims of the Torah, then that is fair enough.

I am happy for you to retreat from your initial hardline statements about naturalism being a presupposition of the DH into the much softer and more guarded position of naturalism being compatible with the DH.

I agree with this softer position that you have now taken.

But to make a hardline statement initially, and then claim - after I refute the hardline position - that I am in error because what you really meant was the softer position and I have not refuted that, is shifting the goalposts.

Kindly don't do it.


You used the terms "increasingly" and "more and more" - both of which imply that the speed of rejection is more rapid than it used to be.

To accuse me of misrepresentation because I did not use the exact words that you do is really grasping at straws.

Unaware, Schmunaware!

Asking you to provide some examples of scholars "increasingly" rejecting the DH does not mean I am unaware of Kitchen. I am well aware of his work.

Well, just off the top of my head, how about published articles in relevant journals?

Publishing popular books on evangelical apologetics does not make one a scholar.

Summary

Dave has not yet actually presented any evidence to back up his claims, neither has he produced any argument to refute my claims.

All he has done so far is attempt to poison the well against me by falsely asserting that I have made many "errors" before starting my claims.

Having corrected these assertions of his, we can now move on to the actual discussion and not let this quibbling over irrelevant details turn into a distraction.

Keith&Co.

Really? I don't see where he's done anything different than you did with:
Both are saying 'lots of people believe x side of an argument.'

And neither seem to actually be basing their argument on how many scholars agree with them.