Constant Mews

Yes, there is the irony: scholarly understanding of Genesis is based on the superiority of archaeology - and the rest of science - over documentary evidence. The very opposite of what Dave claims is going on in the DH case.

Jo

You stated this in reference to the Nuzi tablets. Overlooking the Akkadian and Hurrian-Babylonian scripts, it was chockablock of numerous stories, such as the Arrapha King, the slave in court, adoption and so forth. The trick is to align these to biblical accounts. Does McDowell do this, especially with the Nuzi finds?

Dave Hawkins

I didn't say it claims this. I said that the Documentarians give priority to textual analysis and disregard archaeology. Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

The Documentarians most certainly DO make such claims as I clearly showed.

How can you possibly believe this? Of course it has a bearing. It is central. What better motivation is there for hypothesizing a late redaction date than the assumption that these people didn't know how to write? Can you think of one?

Again ... of course it does. The central thesis of the DH is that it is a late redaction of oral traditions, many of them legendary or even mythical. If this is shown not to be the case, it calls into question the central thesis of the DH.

Again, the DH proponents bias against supernaturalism are one of the key factors that cause them to view the Pentateuch as legendary, oral tradition with many made up elements. How is it possible not to get this most basic concept?

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

Dean, you have given an overview of the DH and that is well and good. But what I have done is given you a glimpse into the thinking of the DH proponents which gave rise to the new hypothesis in the first place. Many scholars now agree that the Documentarians would never have sold their theory if they had tried to do so 50 years later when the new archaeological finds were well known.

Also, I'm not throwing your theory completely out the window. There is one element of the DH which has survived scrutiny and is a good thing ... that is, that the Pentateuch is the result of multiple authors. I readily admit this as you recognize. But my initial focus on these presuppositions is very important.

More tomorrow.

(Still waiting for some evidence of the existence of J E D and P. Not the actual original docs. Gimme a break. EVIDENCE that they existed. Like some mention of them as discreet documents in some ancient text.)

Dave Hawkins

Eviscerate away. But I'm probably only going to respond to Dean ... unless it's really intelligent sounding.

VoxRat

You keep referring to these "many scholars". I think you've mentioned one, so far, and I don't think that one was particularly persuasive to anyone here. Got any others?

Jack the Bodiless

...Even though not a single shred of archaeological evidence exists which contradicts the Documentary Hypothesis, whereas archaeology has utterly falsified your preferred alternative?

What color is the sky in your world, Dave?
YOU have yet to say anything "intelligent-sounding", Dave.

ericmurphy

Well, that being the case (although it actually isn't), then perhaps you best get started with showing that the central tenet of the DH (that the Pentateuch is a compilation of various stories by various authors at various times) is incorrect. So far, you haven't even touched on that tenet, in much the same way that you've never dealt with radiocarbon calibration curves. Instead, you keep hammering at completely irrelevant trivia, such as whether Moses was literate or whether the DH ignores archaeological evidence, which has nothing to do with that central thesis.

I'm still not persuaded you even know what the DH is, Dave.

ericmurphy

Well, this would make perfect sense, if Dave ever made any sense. But Dave is on record as asserting that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. And believe me, knowing Dave as I have for the past year and a half, there would be nothing unusual in Dave citing a source which completely disagrees with Dave's own thesis. This would be far from the first time it's happened.

Constant Mews

Because no scholar makes this claim. Certainly not about the DH.

You did not show this - you presented no evidence that the DH folk claim that archaeology needs to be ignored in favor of text.

The redaction is not based on lack of ability to write. This is a complete red-herring. Non DH scholar makes the claim that the DH is based on strictly oral traditions.

You need to make some attempt to know something about a subject before you embarrass yourself over it, Dave.

No, actually it's not. The central thesis of the DH is that the Torah is a redaction that can be described along certain lines. Those lines do not match the fictional history Genesis presents, but that is not relevant.

Again, the DH proponents bias against supernaturalism are one of the key factors that cause them to view the Pentateuch as legendary, oral tradition with many made up elements. How is it possible not to get this most basic concept?[/quote]No, it does not. You have presented no evidence that any lack of supernatural evidence is required.

Actually, you have not. All of your claims about the DH - taken from McDowell - are incorrect, as Dean pointed out. You have done nothing to establish the truth of your claims.A handful of scholars who are demonstrably wrong about most other things.

Your initial focus on these 'presuppositions' is merely a red-herring, since they are both wrong and irrelevant.


You claimed that you were going to provide positive evidence of the existence of the Torah tablets.

We're still waiting. We'll still be waiting when you've died of old age.

Constant Mews

We accept that you are unable to support your assertions. Acknowledged.

We will continue to eviscerate your nonsensical claims with or without your participation; it is a useful exercise for the lurkers, who might otherwise get the mistaken impression that you were actually making a point.