Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 06-10-2006, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Regarding the part I emphasized in your post, I am so sick and tired of hearing this lame argument. Not only is it stupid, it is also completely unsupportable. Wilson's essay is a joke, the bloviating ramblings of a fundamentalist fool. The 'biography' is a sickening, exaggerated tedium of fawning prattle. Such bullshit carries absolutely no weight except with fundamentalists so they can feel better about their ridiculous religious notions. The only I see destroyed after reading it is my sense of humor, crushed under the incredulous realization that some people actually take essays such as that seriously.

Quote:

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.

I don't like what he has to say and I don't like Wilson. If he had a pet I feel fairly certain I wouldn't like that either. The reason I don't like what he has to say is two-fold. First he presents a skewed viewpoint devoid of serious evidence and reflection. Secondly, because I hate to see anyone so profoundly embarrass themselves in public. Of course, you seem to have no problem with that second point.

Julian (no longer amused)

gregor · 06-10-2006, 05:36 AM

So, big deal that Gleason Archer had a Ph.D in classics. From what I can tell he was a theologian first, an inerrantist apologist by default, and a presuppositionalist. I can and do look with jaundiced eye upon any theories and just-so stories based upon apriori beliefs.

Show us his archeological records. Show us his independent evidence of a unified authorship.

And why are you trumpting Wilson when you concede you've not read his "books."

Do you comprehend that people frequenting this board would appreciate YOU making a logical argument that the DH is flawed somehow. This "I read something from a guy who says the DH explanation is wrong" is worthless.

Geetarmoore · 06-10-2006, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

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....

Oh, Puh-leeeze.........

Wads4 · 06-10-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

If the entire Bible is post-exilic, how do you explain the details that would have only been known in the Iron Age? For example, how would a post-exilic writer know details such as Assyrian military titles (e.g. the tartan [Isaiah 20:1]; the rabshakeh [Isaiah 36-39; II Kings 18-20]), the names of minor foreign kings (i.e. Baalis King of Ammon [Jer. 40:14], and Mesha King of Moab, for the former see this article, page 55), how would the prophetic books know details such as Sargon II's invasion of Ashdod (Isa. 20:1), and the exact reignal years of the events of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? Why is it that the Deuteronomistic History appears to be a piece of propaganda for an Iron Age king? Why do we see a pattern of linguistic development within the Bible, with some biblical books using Iron Age vocabulary and others using Persian and Hellenistic period vocabulary (here)?

The final redaction of the Pentateuch as well a most of the other books were post-exilic. Nobody denies that. But older written sources must have been available for use in order to get details that otherwise would not have been known. Compare the Bible to Herodotus who, using oral accounts almost exclusively, is not accurate for events much more than a century before his lifetime- for example, he has Nitocris mother of Nabonidus as a ruler of Babylon in her own right, a situation which is not historical. Nabonidus ruled from 556-539 BC, little more than a century before Herodotus's lifetime (Herodotus was born around 484 BC and wrote The Histories towards the end of his life around 425 BC).

The fact that there was a final post-exilic redaction means that the earlier sources which supplied specific historical details, were then padded out with alleged fulfilled prophecies, which could be made with the benefit of hindsight.
So in other words the final redaction was a mixture of ancient history and contemporary prophecy -fantasising.

Wads4 · 06-10-2006, 06:22 AM

I often wonder how it is that people like Joshua and his companions who had allegedly been ill-treated slaves in Egypt would have had the time or facilities to learn to read and write. Perhaps Moses taught him to write in Egyptian hieratic. But how did he manage to learn Hebrew or Canaanite while trying to make strawless bricks for Pharoah before the exodus?

John Kesler · 06-10-2006, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mary.

I know what the J D E P theory is, but if anyone can point me to a book or resource that explains it in detail (esp that cuts the Bible up into the J D E and P sections) and then other resources that detail the Xian argument against it, I would be most appreciative.

Read the thread titled, "Documentary Hypothesis Dying?" from February, 2006. As I mentioned then, the introduction to The Bible With Sources Revealed is worth the price of the book. As Friedman states on pp 27-28, the strongest evidence for the DH is convergence. The emphasis is mine.

Quote:

There are more than thirty cases of doublets: stories or laws that are repeated in the Torah, sometimes identically, more often with some differences of detail. The existence of so many overlapping texts is notewothy itself. But their mere existence is not the strongest argument...When we separate the doublets, this also results in the resolution of nearly all contradictions...[and] the name of God divides consistently in all but three out of more than two thousand occurences...[and] the terminology of each source remains consistent within the source...[and] this produces continuous narratives that flow with only a rare break...[and] this fits with the linguistic evidence, where the Hebrew of each source fits consistently with what we know of the Hebrew in each period...The most compelling argument for the hypothesis is that this hypothesis best accounts for the fact that all this evidence of so many kinds comes together so consistently. To this day, no one known to me who challenged the hypothesis has ever addressed this fact.

spin · 06-10-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

To this day, no one known to me who challenged the hypothesis has ever addressed this fact.

This merely shows that there are at least two tradition sources and only fundies will disagree with that. We are still back with Wellhausen with such a stance. It says very little about the alphabetic stuff -- you know, J, E, P, D, F, U, B, A, R, etc. When those tradition sources were actually put to "paper" and how, we have to go beyond this stuff.

spin

aChristian · 06-10-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Wilson's essay is a joke, the bloviating ramblings of a fundamentalist fool.

How many ancient languages have you learned? Your name calling is telling.

aChristian · 06-10-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

I often wonder how it is that people like Joshua and his companions who had allegedly been ill-treated slaves in Egypt would have had the time or facilities to learn to read and write. Perhaps Moses taught him to write in Egyptian hieratic. But how did he manage to learn Hebrew or Canaanite while trying to make strawless bricks for Pharoah before the exodus?

Writing was much more common than you seem to think back then. They have found shopping lists, business transactions, and schoolwork lessons. I assume Joshua's parents taught him Hebrew at home. By the way, the bricks were only strawless at the very end of the slavery in Egypt. Also, don't forget that for a long time until the Pharoah came along who did not know about Joseph, the Israelites were not slaves, but compatriots of Joseph, the second most powerful man in all of Egypt.

aChristian · 06-10-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

So, big deal that Gleason Archer had a Ph.D in classics. From what I can tell he was a ...
.

Read his book if you want to know why the DH is false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

And why are you trumpting Wilson when you concede you've not read his "books."
.

I've read a portion of one of his books as well as the essay linked above and have read quotes from his work in other works. I quote him because his reasoning is solid (read the essay) and his scholarship is unparalleled. You should read the intro to the essay, it is impressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Do you comprehend that people frequenting this board would appreciate YOU making a logical argument that the DH is flawed somehow. This "I read something from a guy who says the DH explanation is wrong" is worthless.

My first post made a couple of logical arguements. No J, E, D, or P documents ever found, only complete documents. Traditional history is supported by people closer to the time in question, unlike the pretend history made up to support the theory 3000 to 4000 years later. Wilson's essay contains many good points, you ought to read it.

06-10-2006, 06:22 AM	#45
Wads4 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Jersey, U.K. Posts: 2,864	aChristian I often wonder how it is that people like Joshua and his companions who had allegedly been ill-treated slaves in Egypt would have had the time or facilities to learn to read and write. Perhaps Moses taught him to write in Egyptian hieratic. But how did he manage to learn Hebrew or Canaanite while trying to make strawless bricks for Pharoah before the exodus?

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

06-10-2006, 05:36 AM	#42
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	So, big deal that Gleason Archer had a Ph.D in classics. From what I can tell he was a theologian first, an inerrantist apologist by default, and a presuppositionalist. I can and do look with jaundiced eye upon any theories and just-so stories based upon apriori beliefs. Show us his archeological records. Show us his independent evidence of a unified authorship. And why are you trumpting Wilson when you concede you've not read his "books." Do you comprehend that people frequenting this board would appreciate YOU making a logical argument that the DH is flawed somehow. This "I read something from a guy who says the DH explanation is wrong" is worthless.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.