The Bishop

I think the most charitable thing we can say about Doctor Dick Wilson is that he was obviously preaching to the converted. Also, since he was writing in 1922 (and had been studying for many decades before that), he hardly stands as an argument against the most modern up to date scholarship, backed by modern archaelogical finds.

As a matter of interest, not only does Dr Dick Wilson not "explode" the documentary hypothesis, he pretty much accepts and believes himself that the Bible was written down piecemeal.... though further reading does reveal that he believes the Law of Moses to have been entirely written by Moses. Some points he raises were actually agreed with, I think, by Elliott Friedman, who states himself that the Wellhausen model - the Higher Criticism model that Dick Wilson was opposing - was mistaken, since some elementary nostrums of that model - like, Jeremiah never quotes P, for example - have been shown to be false by Elliott Friedman. Again, Dick Wilson is arguing against the theory that the tabernacle was "entirely mythical", and again this is something that Elliott Friedman has made a substantial part of his theory - that not only was there a Tabernacle in the days of the 2nd Temple, but that tabernacle was inside the Holy of Holies itself.

I would like to think that if he was writing in the modern era, Dr Dick Wilson would be a little less patronising in his attitude to his readers (something which was more or less de rigueur in those days) and provide some detailed examples and evidence for his claims.

However, he does not appear to have any specifically detailed answer to the principal source for the DH itself - the contradictory nature of the doublets, and the consistent use of Elohim for one and YHWH for the other, in any set.

If there is something substantial to hold against the DH as promulgated by Elliott Friedman in his Who Wrote the Bible? (apart from the obvious quibble on behalf of more casual readers than I - that is, he only answers the question "Who wrote 11 of the first 12 books of The Bible", which in my view is not exactly the same thing) it is this: quite a lot of the theory appears to rest on taking the events and characters in the tales absolutely as read. But there isn't any real examination of the basis for accepting Jeremiah, Baruch, Josiah, Hezekiah and finally Ezra as real people (and David, and Solomon, by implication I think) but not Moses, Joshua, Joseph, Abraham etc.

aChristian

Did you read the essay? I assume his books provide more detail although I have not read them. The arguements from the foreign loanwords and the kings names seem to me to not only destroy the older version of the theory but also the newer versions as well.
As far as being 'charitable' to Dr. Wilson, I am much more impressed by his scholarship than that of anyone I have read here. Did you read the brief bio in the essay? How many ancient languages do you know?

aChristian

As I said above. If anyone wants info on how wacko the DH is, read Archer's book (don't just quote an introduction), Wilson's essay and books, or similar conservative scholarship. The facts are undeniable to an honest inquirer.

pharoah

I don't think that he ever flatly stated that Moses and the patriarchs never existed. He's sort of the opposite of Burton Mack in that regards. Clearly though if all of their words and deeds are the products of different groups with different theological agendas, then that's a reasonable assumption to draw.
As for Jeremiah, Baruch, Josiah, Hezekiah and Ezra - I assume that that he didn't think it was necessary to establish their existence. No one has a serious objection to the existence of any name on that list. I'm pretty sure that Baruch, Josiah and Hezekiah have been archeologically verified.

I think that the vast majority of scholars still accept the existence of David and Solomon. Where they may disagree at is on aspects of all the legendary material surrounding them.

spin

I couldn't give a damn about some conservative w*nker writing rubbish with so much baggage that he couldn't get in the door of a serious academic institution. I merely cited the start of his work to show what to expect of this person.

If you want to state an argument rather than passing the buck onto some authority, then please do so. Is there anything specifically worth looking at that is not simply conservative misrepresentational strawdog rhetoric? Please present it and stop the waffle.

(I don't support the now simplistic Wellhausen approach -- though 120 years ago it couldn't have been perceived as simplistic, being a remarkable analysis for the time --, but I can appreciate its contribution to our understanding of a complex literary tradition.)


spin

RUmike

I'm sure many of us would be more than willing to read some of Archer's books or essays, but unless they are online for free, not many of us would be willing to spend money on them. Knowing that Archer holds an apriori belief of inerrancy, we can easily assume that he does not hold a critical eye to the texts that he discusses -- something anyone wanting to call himself a scholar must do.

aChristian

You miss the point. Wilson's and Archer's arguements not only destroy the old version of the theory, they support the traditional theory that people in the know throughout history have agreed to, ie. Moses wrote the books of Moses, Joshua wrote Joshua, Daniel wrote Daniel, etc., etc. They destroy any current theories that disagree with the traditional history.
It is not apriori assumptions, but the weight of evidence that lead to the conclusion that the traditional belief is correct. As far as Archer's credentials, they are unimpeachable. You just don't like what he says and you don't like the fact that he destroys your pet theory so you call names.

aChristian

The essay referenced above is very good and free. One of Wilson's books can be found at http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/wilson/robert.htm. Concerning his and Archer's apriori beliefs, their careful evaluation of the questions is evident from reading the books. Wilson mastered the subject like few (if any) others. His scholarship cannot honestly be denied, nor his honest weighing of the evidence. It just comes heavily down on the traditional side of the debate because the consevative traditional view is true.

aChristian

You miss the whole point. Wilson was a fundamentalist and his writings destroy both the old version and the new version of the attacks on the Bible. Your attempt to ameliorate the affects of his research fail. His work destroys anything that disagrees with the fundamentalist view of the Old Testament. His scholarship has not been refuted by subsequent discoveries. It still stands.

spin

The only point missed is that you don't simply rave about Tom, Dick or Mary's gushingly wonderful demolition of whatever you fancy. You either put forward ideas supported by evidence for them to sink or swim. The way you have it, either you are incapable of presenting the ideas or the ideas are not there. You can happily simply copy the ideas and evidence from their works if you think they are so good

I'm sure this makes a lot of sense to you when Moses' death is recorded at the end of Deuteronomy. He came back from the grave to finish the book.

Assuming Joshua was a real person, what would make you think that he wrote the book in the first place??

If Daniel wrote the book he would not have made the historical errors. (Oh yes, I've waltzed around with these christian contortionists who are prepared to go extremely silly lengths to maintain such texts as historically veracious when they have not shown that the text was intended to be history.)

Uh-huh. How exactly? What evidence do they bring forward to deal with the current archaeological realities?

I have as yet seen not one scrap of evidence to support a text which carries such anachronisms as having Abraham having dealings with the Philistines centuries before the Philistines arrived on the Levantine coast. I have seen nothing that makes having Hittites in Palestine credible, when Palestine was firmly in Egyptian territory -- you know, Hittites as a Canaanite tribe.

How would you know? Which world class historians or archaeologists quote his works? Credentials do help to introduce a scholar. Who were his teachers? What make his credentials unimpeachable? Why hasn't he been heard of in the scholarly world? What bushel has he been hiding under?

I wouldn't really know what he destroys. You certainly haven't done him any justice whatsoever. You apparently can't even present a decent argument of his. It seems more likely that you don't like what other people say and have hit on this fellow who tranquilizes your rocky belief system.

If you want to present something tangible, please feel free to do so. What you will need is not only the idea to present though, but an understanding of the evidence which backs up the idea. Ideas without evidence are not much use.


spin