Dave Hawkins

Uh ... Wright was talking about things he was very close to in time. As in ... the rise of the DH. We're talking about the DH for those of us ... er ... who might not realize it. Also, for those <ahem> who might not realize it ... Dean does not claim that archaeology helps the DH. So claiming that there has been an immense amount of archaeological research done since Wright was alive is an ... er ... irrelevant thing to say. Eric, I'd leave it to Dean if I were you.

deadman_932

And if I were you, AFDave, I'd have to learn to read for comprehension.

And more importantly, you have singularly failed to back your claims about the validity of the Alice in Wonderland Tablet theory.*

*Apologies to Grace Slick.

Cege

2=4=7=14=coke=diet coke=cream soda= cattle = unclean animals

It just gets stranger and stranger.

Occam's Aftershave

Never underestimate the power of YECs to make shit up as they go along.

-Jay-

Does this mean all unclean animals have zero calories? Dave just discovered the next craze in the weight loss industry!

regards,

NinJay

Magdlyn

Is that what you make of that statement? That Robinson (and dave) is saying Jerusalem didn't exist before David's time? When the ONLY mention of Jerusalem by name is in Genesis, when Avraham meets Melchizedek there?

And singing liturgy is mentioned as the role of the Levites in the Book of Numbers, a law supposedly handed down to Moses by Yahweh himself.

Lord of Hosts, any implication of the use of that name is lost on me and, I'd bet my house, on dave as well.

cajela

Mmm, bacon. From that magical animal.

-Jay-

True. Dean does not claim that the DH requires archaeology. Big. Freaking. Deal. Dean's posts (and the posts of others) make it very clear that the archaeological record is consilient with the DH. Do you understand that? The fact that the DH isn't contingent upon archaeology, and that archaeology isn't contingent upon the DH lets the two be used as independent data sources. The significance of bringing the last 90 years of archaeology into the discussion is that there haven't been findings that would cast doubt upon the validity of the DH. Consilience, Dave.That word has been used here a lot, yet you don't demonstrate that you actually know what it means.

But archaeology is a smokescreen here, anyway.

You're essentially claiming that Wright, by virtue of the fact that he lived and wrote closer to the time that the DH was initially growing in acceptance, can be considered an authoritative source. To wit:

1) The DH, as defined by Wellhausen, was advanced in 1878.
2) Wright wrote a refutation of the DH around 1917, so he was close in time to the event of the DH.
2a) Because he was close in time he necessarily has a better understanding of the DH than people now.
3) Therefore Wright's opinion is somehow better than others.

This is so absurd that to call it merely wrong doesn't even begin to capture it. Let's look at the George Washington analogy you provided:

Ok, first off. The comparison of the study of a known historical figure who died 208 years ago to the study of a theoretical framework used to analyze a collection of texts dating to ~2500 years ago is just idiotic. There's no better word for it. It's like comparing the study of the career of Monty Python to the study of dandruff.

Second, you're making the implication that an observer closer in time is better without acknowledging that not all observers are equivalent. Let's reword your statement:
Clearly the details make the difference. Wright was a dedicated apologist attempting to refute something that directly challenged his ideology. While that doesn't necessarily render his opinions invalid, it raises the legitimate question of whether his biases are precluding his objectivity.

Admit it. Wright is a straw, and you're grasping.

One more thing. You, Dave, have made numerous requests for a listing of the verse-breaks as indicated by the DH. Dean did an amazing job of preparing a marked-up text, which would seem to be more useful. I noticed that in one of your earlier posts, you included some photos of the leaves of a book showing such a listing as you've requested. This implies that you either had or have access to a printed version of precisely the material you've been requesting in the thread. This raises some questions:

Why is the material you already have demonstrated that you have access to insufficient? (and why can't you type it yourself?)

How is a listing of verse breaks more useful than a fully marked up text?

What exactly are your intentions for this listing? Are you going to farm it out to others to research? Are you going to use the possibility that different verses were written by different authors as an apologetic tactic to explain away inconsistencies?

C'mon, Dave. You can tell us.

regards,

NinJay

spin

?


spin

ericmurphy

That would be important if we were discussing the motives of the people who originally formalized the DH. We're not. We're discussing the evidence in support of it. Much of that evidence and research, including a great deal of work in linguistics, as well as actual texts from the period in question, post-dates Wright's work, making him essentially irrelevant.
He makes no such claim, Dave. He asserts that the DH stands on its own with or without additional archaeological evidence. He most certainly does not assert that there is no archaeological support for the DH.

Further, much research into the DH has happened since Wright's passing that is not archaeological in nature. As someone pointed out, Q wasn't even discovered at the time Wright was active.

Dave, it became pretty clear early on in this thread that, as ignorant as I was, and am, about the documentary hypothesis, I still have a much firmer grasp of it than you do, or probably ever will, so if I were you I'd drop the ad homs.