Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-01-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Colophon examples in ancient literature have been difficult to find online, but ...

It doesn't appear to be anything like the toledoths used in Genesis.

I agree that they are hard to find.

But it is readily apparent that the one that you found is very similar to the one that I found.

And neither of them are anything like a Biblical toledoth...

Now, afdave, whatever makes you think that a toledoth is actually a colophon?

spin

Keith&Co. · 10-01-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Now, afdave, whatever makes you think that a toledoth is actually a colophon?

He's going to say that he's already established this, or he's going to complain about yet another demand upon his limited time for such things and promise that he'll explain it later.

Ultimately, these are the things one finds in the spot you would expect to find a colophon, if colophon's were included. WHich he desperately needs in order to support his argument. So, therefore, the logical conclusion is that that's what they are.

spin · 10-01-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Now, afdave, whatever makes you think that a toledoth is actually a colophon?

He's going to say that he's already established this, or he's going to complain about yet another demand upon his limited time for such things and promise that he'll explain it later.

Ultimately, these are the things one finds in the spot you would expect to find a colophon, if colophon's were included. WHich he desperately needs in order to support his argument. So, therefore, the logical conclusion is that that's what they are.

Actually, I put the stress on the word you to afdave in what you cited, because I was asking him to supply a philological reason for why he thinks a toledoth is a colophon, not just cite someone else's errors.

If he wants to make errors, at least they should be his own and not be blindly reliant on Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman. If he can't do the adult thing of taking responsibility for what he says, he should be quiet or at least admit that he doesn't know.

(But that would probably spoil some people's fun.)

spin

lao tzu · 10-01-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

Quote:

Greetings, Constant Mews,

If you'll allow an observation, I find your criticism here both valid and seemingly irrelevant. Most of us with a passing knowledge of ANE cultures are aware of "pre-Flood" (aka third millenium BCE) writings handed down to "Noah" and "Moses" (aka biblical authors). Examples include the Enuma Elish and the law codes of Hammurabi and Ur-Nammu.

I'm sorry, perhaps I did not make my point clear. Dave claimed that he could show positive evidence that such tablets were handed down to Noah. <snipped for a separate response in the sequel>

You may not be completely familiar with Dave's techniques; he is quite fond of making grandiose claims that cannot be supported, and then declaring victory at some later moment.

Thank you for your response.

Though not familiar with afdave, I am familiar with his species, or "kind" in deference to any outraged baraminologists who might be looking on. (My spell-checker doesn't recognize "baraminologist" as a word ... and I find that highly amusing.) He is a YEC apologist, and — judging from the length of this thread and the apparent lack of consideration for difficult questions being posed — molded after the pattern of the famous DavidFromTexas, whom I've interacted with at length.

In this thread, which I've read in its entirety, afdave has provided what he himself classified as "scanty" evidence of his supposed tablets, justified by the claim that it is better than no evidence at all. The characterization of this "scanty" evidence as "positive" could be described as "grandiose," but, as I've argued, I don't believe the criticism, no matter how warranted, is relevant.

Looking again at the quote you provided ...

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 see now that I was too generous in allowing that he would only present evidence for the existence of pre-Flood writings. A fair reading would include the claim that they were handed down to Noah and the claim that they were preserved up to Moses' day.

Thank you for the clarification.

But again, this serves only to further justify the observation that his claim was "grandiose" without addressing the relevance of this observation. I will return to this theme in a bit.

Quote:

<from the earlier snip> Unfortunately, he has failed to present any evidence that Noah even existed.

Noah, the biblical character, as I'm sure most reading this are aware, is commonly believed to be identical with the Babylonian Utnapishtim c. 1200 BCE, the earlier Akkadian Atrahasis c. 1700 BCE, and the even earlier Sumerian Ziusudra c. 2600 BCE, where each of these dates are included in a range of a few centuries. As the common dating of the biblical tale of Noah places him c. 2300 BCE, later than the latest likely date of the origin of the tale, there is no real point in asking whether the biblical character describes a real person.

Quote:

Or, in generosity, perhaps it is relevant in that these inclusions do not tend to support a divine inspiration of the Abrahamic sacred texts, and the omission of these sources could be seen as invidious. In either case, though, and in the apparent spirit of allowing this odd excursion to continue, they are on the table now.

I'm not sure I entirely follow your last point.

It was a continuation of my earlier comment. Snipped to show context, here it is again.

"I find your criticism here ... seemingly irrelevant ... Or, in generosity, perhaps it is relevant ..."

Above, I've expanded on my reasons for seeing these "earlier writings" as opposed to inerrancy. Thus my claim that the omission of these "earlier writings" by afdave is invidious. Even a mildly detailed examination, as I've given here, of these "earlier writings" serves to confirm the ahistorical nature of the book of Genesis. In effect, noting the thread title, an insistence that Genesis derives from a "written record" rather than an "oral tradition" should be avoided at all costs by the biblical literalist.

As ever, Jesse

chieftain · 10-01-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

4) The narratives reveal such familiarity with the circumstances and details of the events recorded, as to indicate that they were written by persons concerned with those events. Wiseman gives an example of the action of Sarah with her maid Hagar in relation to the birth of Ishmael.

Another example of Wiseman's selective quoting. If we are to believe that the events of Sarah v Hagar were written down by Abraham, how are we to explain the events of a few verses later on, where Hagar and Ishmael go into the desert on their own? Who related the details of those events to Abraham for him to write down?

ericmurphy · 10-01-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Now, afdave, whatever makes you think that a toledoth is actually a colophon?

He's going to say that he's already established this, or he's going to complain about yet another demand upon his limited time for such things and promise that he'll explain it later.

Ultimately, these are the things one finds in the spot you would expect to find a colophon, if colophon's were included. WHich he desperately needs in order to support his argument. So, therefore, the logical conclusion is that that's what they are.

But even if that is what they are, does that clinch Dave's argument? Not hardly. Even if those things are colophons, does that prove that they originally appeared on actual tablets, actually written by the people (Adam, Noah, etc.) Dave claims they were written by?

Of course not. Just because some, or even all, tablets have colophons, and even if the various sections of the Torah were originally chiseled on stone tablets that had colophons on them, does that demonstrate a) that the tablets were written by the people Dave thinks they were, and b) described actual events? No, and no.

JEST2ASK · 10-01-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

(Post # 367) But any explanation still requires going beyond the actual text of the Bible into a realm of pure speculation.
Dave is presenting opinion - not reason.

From Afdave
Tablet # Division Contents
1 1:1-2:4 Origins of the heavens and the earth
2 2:5-5:2 Origins of Adam
3 5:3-6:9a Origins of Noah
4 6:9b-10:1 Origins of the Sons of Noah
5 10:2-11:10a Origins of Shem
6 11:10b-11:27a Origins of Terah
7-8 11:27b-25:19a Origins of Ishmael and Isaac

Please note Genesis 11

KJV)
(26)Now Terah lived seventy years and begot Abram, Nahor and Haran. (27)
This is the genealogy of Terah Terah begot Abram, Nahor and Haran, Haran begot Lot .....

:huh: where is the marker for Ishmael or Isaac .... did Abram not record anything or Lot ....

Quote:

Chieftain "Another example of Wiseman's selective quoting. If we are to believe that the events of Sarah v Hagar were written down by Abraham, how are we to explain the events of a few verses later on, where Hagar and Ishmael go into the desert on their own? Who related the details of those events to Abraham for him to write down?

Genesis 25: 7) This is the sum of years of Abraham's life which he lived one-hundred and seventy-five years 8) Then Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, and old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people. 9) And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried himin the cave of Machpelah, which is before Mamre in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite.

12 - Now this is the Genology of Ishmael, Abraham's son whom Hagarthe egyptian, Sarah's handmadian bore to Abraham

19) This is the genalogy of Isaac Abraham's son. Abraham begot Isaac....

Jack the Bodiless · 10-02-2007, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

1) The presence of Babylonian words in the first 11 chapters. Wiseman notes that the early chapters of Genesis contain Babylonian words. He says that it is impossible to suggest that these words found their way into these particular chapters after the Hebrews' second contact with Babylon in the days of Daniel or Ezra. For even the most critical scholars admit that these accounts had been written before then.

Wow, this "Wiseman" character doesn't seem very wise. In fact, he seems pretty clueless...

Dave, it's been common knowledge among educated folks (for a long time) that Genesis contains reworkings of Sumerian and Babylonian myth. We already know that the Flood story didn't originate with Genesis, we already know that the Forbidden Fruit story didn't either (Adapa and the South Wind)... and so on (and even the Bible itself admits that Abraham came from Mesopotamia). But this doesn't indicate the great age of the Book of Genesis. This would be equivalent to claiming that the many "Arthurian" novels by modern authors must have been written in the Dark Ages.

Dean Anderson · 10-02-2007, 03:30 AM

Assumptions and Presuppositions

So far, there has been much talk of assumptions and presuppositions on this thread. The vast majority, of course, has been by Dave as he asserts that the "assumptions" behind the DH have been refuted.

So let's have a detailed look at the assumptions and presuppositions involved in both hypotheses.

Before we do, I wish to point out that Dave has been equivocating between the two words, and using them interchangably.

An assumption is something that a person assumes, and in the context of theories it is something that someone assumes which leads them to develop the theory. The presence of an assumption in someone's thinking or attitude tells us nothing about whether their conclusion is correct or not. It only tells us what the thought processes that lead up to the conclusion were based on.

For example, if I wrongly assume that a mandarin is a type of apple (it is actually, of course, a type of tangerine) then I may come to the conclusion that a mandarin is therefore a type of fruit. My assumption was wrong, but this tells us nothing about whether my conclusion is right or wrong. To determine that, we must look at whether my conclusion fits the evidence. In this case, of course, it does. A mandarin is indeed a type of fruit. That my conclusion was based on an erroneous asssumption that I had is irrelevant. My conclusion fits the evidence, and therefore it is accepted as true.

A presupposition, on the other hand, is something that a statement or theory is based on. If I say "My wife is pregnant", the statement presupposes that I have a wife. The statement cannot be true if I do not have a wife. Therefore, unlike the assumptions of the person who came to a conclusion, whether or not the presuppositions behind a conclusion are correct is very relevant to whether or not the conclusion itself is correct.

This, in itself, is good enough reason to dismiss Dave's assertions that the DH is refuted because its "assumptions" are "shown" to be incorrect. Firstly, as we shall see, they have not been "shown" to be incorrect. Secondly - and more importantly - even if they had been shown to be incorrect, their veracity is irrelevant to the veracity of the DH itself. If Dave wants to show that one of his claims refutes the DH, he has to show not only that the claim is correct, but also that the truth of the DH is not compatible with that claim being correct. That is, he must show that the claim is not merely the refutation of an assumption that the inventors of the DH had; but also that the claim is a necessary presupposition of the DH itself.

So far, he has not even attempted to do that.

Now, let's look at some of the assumptions and presuppositions that have been claimed for the two hypotheses; and look at two things for each one:

a) and b) Is the claimed assumption an actual presupposition of the hypothesis in question? In other words: can the hypothesis in question be true if the claim is true; and can the hypothesis be true if the claim is false? If the answer is "yes" both times, then the claim is not a presupposition - it is an assumption of the inventor at best - and therefore whether the claim is true or not is irrelevant. If the answer to one question is "yes" and the other is "no", then the claim is a presupposition of the hypothesis - and it is therefore relevant to determine whether it is true or not.

This pair of questions is the only thing we actually need to look at. However - for completeness - we can ask a third question of each claimed assumption.

c) Is the claimed assumption actually an assumption of the inventor of the theory? In other words: is it really something that guided the thoughts of the inventor of the hypothesis? Theoretically, this is not actually necessary. If the claimed assumption is a presupposition of the theory, then the theory depends on it regardless of whether or not the inventor of the theory took it into account. Similarly, if the claimed assumption is not a presupposition of the theory then the theory does not depend on it even if the inventor of the theory believed it to be true.

Claimed Assumptions Of The Documentary Hypothesis

These are all things that Dave has claimed in this thread to be assumptions of the DH.

1) Written sources should be given priority over archaeology

1a) If written sources are given priority over archaeology, can the DH still be true?

Yes. Although the original underpinnings of the DH (i.e. non-Mosaic authorship) were based on known history, the DH itself is based on the consilience between different ways of splitting the text.

1b) If archaeology is given priority over written sources, can the DH still be true?

Yes. It is possible that future archaeology could turn up something that contradicts the DH - for example it could unearth ancient documents from one or more of the authors of the Torah, and those documents could show that the actual authorial split was different to that of the DH. However, at the current time, there is no archaeological evidence that is incompatible with the DH.

1c) Was priority of written sources over archaeology actually an assumption of the DH inventors?

No. Although the DH conclusions are derived from the text, at no point has any DH scholar (to my knowledge, at least) said that if archaeology contradicts the text then archaeology must be wrong and the text right. Indeed, minor details of the DH (in terms of exactly when each source was written) have been updated in line with archaeological findings.

Therefore, the claim that this is an assumption is wrong, and would be irrelevant even if it were right.

2) A naturalistic (later expanded to "anti-supernaturalistic") view of Israel's history

2a) Is the DH compatible with a naturalistic view of Israel's history?

Yes. There is nothing in the DH which requires supernatural events to occur.

2b) Is the DH compatible with a supernatural view of Israel's history?

Yes. The DH talks about how the written sources that comprise the Torah were edited together. There is nothing in the DH about whether or not the supernatural events that happen in the stories contained in those sources are true. The DH makes no claims, for example, about whether or not there was a Flood survived only by Noah and his family. It only makes claims about how the two stories of the Flood were edited together to make a single account - not whether or not those stories are actually true.

2c) Is a naturalistic view an assumption of the DH authors?

Almost certainly not. Although Dave gives us a quote from an apologist who claims that Julius Wellhausen - who came up with a theory of when each source was written - was skeptical of at least one of the supernatural events in the Torah, we have been given nothing to indicate that the various monks, priests, rabbis and theologians that between them came to the realisation that the Torah was split into the four main sources of the DH had naturalistic assumptions.

Therefore, the claim that this is an assumption is almost certainly wrong, and would be irrelevant even if it were right.

3) No writing at the time that Moses allegedly lived (15th Century BCE)

3a) Is the DH compatible with there being no writing in the 15th Century BCE?

Yes. The DH makes no claims that any of the written sources were written before that date.

3b) Is the DH compatible with there being writing in and before the 15th Century BCE?

Yes. The DH makes no claims that there was no writing before the 15th Century BCE - and is perfectly compatible with the existence of such writing.

3c) Is the lack of writing before the 15th Century BCE an assumption of the DH inventors?

No. Dave has provided us with a second hand quote-mine from an apologist, and asserts that the apologist interprets this to mean that Julius Wellhausen believed there was no writing at that time, but this is not what the quote actually says. All the quote actually says is that Wellhausen believed that God's moral instructions to the Hebrews were not written at that time. There is nothing to indicate that any of the inventors of the DH actually believed that there was no writing before the 15th Century BCE.

Therefore, the claim that this is an assumption is wrong, and would be irrelevant even if it were right.

4) Legendary view of the patriarchal narratives

4a) Is the DH compatible with the patriarchs being legendary?

Yes. The DH only talks about how the sources were edited together, not about whether the stories within them are true or not.

4b) Is the DH compatible with the patriarchs being real?

Yes. The DH only talks about how the sources were edited together, not about whether the stories within them are true or not.

4c) Did the inventors of the DH assume that the patriarchs were legendary?

Possibly. Dave offers us the barest snippet of a second-hand quote mine, not even a sentence, to support this. However, it is not an unreasonable assumption to make in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, the claim that this is an assumption is possibly right and possibly wrong, but is irrelevant even if it is right.

As we can see, even if Dave were correct in all his claims that these are "assumptions" of the DH (and he isn't), and all these assumptions were incorrect (which they may or may not be), they would still be irrelevant. The DH - as I have repeatedly said - stands or falls on the evidence. None of the above are actually presuppositions underlying the DH; so none of them are relevant to whether it is correct or not.

Assumptions and Presuppositions of the Tablet Theory

I have not laid these out previously in this thread.

1) The Flood happened

1)a Is the TT compatible with the Flood happening?

Yes. The TT says that pre-flood records were taken on the Ark by Noah.

1b) Is the TT compatible with the Flood not happening?

No. The TT explicitly says that the pre-flood records were taken on the Ark by Noah. If there was no flood, and no Ark, then the TT cannot be correct.

1c) Is an historical Flood an assumption of the TT inventor?

Yes. Since the TT explicitly mentions the Flood, it is obvious that Wiseman assumed that it happened.

The TT presupposes an historical Flood, and if there was no historical Flood then the TT must be false.

2) The antediluvian patriarchs were real people.

2a) Is the TT compatible with real antediluvian patriarchs?

Yes. The TT claims that these patriarchs wrote tablets, which they couldn't have done if they were not real people.

2b) Is the TT compatible with legendary patriarchs?

No. The TT claims that the patriarchs wrote tablets, which they couldn't have done if they were not real people.

2c) Are historical patriarchs an assumption of the TT inventor?

Yes. Since the TT explicitly ascribes tablets to the patriarchs, it is obvious that Wiseman assumed that they were real.

The TT presupposes a historical antediluvian patriarchs, and if there were no historical antediluvial patriarchs then the TT must be false.

3) God exists

3a) Is the TT compatible with the existence of God?

Yes.

3b) Is the TT compatible with the non-existence of God?

No. The TT claims that the first tablet was written by God himself. This could not have happened if God does not exist.

3c) Is the existence of God assumed by the TT inventor?

Yes. Since the TT claims that the first tablet was written by God, we can be certain that the inventor assumed the existence of God.

The TT presupposes the existence of God, and if there is no God then the TT must be false.

The Tablet Theory relies on the presuppositions that God exists, the Flood happened, and the antediluvial patriarchs were real people. If any of these presuppositions are false, then the Tablet Theory MUST be false.

I am being extremely generous by only listing these three presuppositions, by only listing things that the TT explicitly claims.

For example, the TT is based on an assumption that the text of the Torah is an historically accurate account. However, I do not list this as a presupposition because it is possible that the Torah was indeed written on tablets by the patriarchs yet those patriarchs lied when writing their tablets and therefore the tablets are not historically accurate.

This is also the reason why I do not list Young Earth Creationism as a presupposition of the TT. The TT theory is certainly based on Young Earth Creationism and the assumption that the Genesis stories are a true account of the creation of the world and the Garden of Eden - but it is possible that, even if Adam wrote the tablet, he was simply lying about the whole Eden thing and it never happened; or that God was lying about the whole "six days" thing when he wrote the first tablet.

Dean Anderson · 10-02-2007, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

1) The presence of Babylonian words in the first 11 chapters. Wiseman notes that the early chapters of Genesis contain Babylonian words. He says that it is impossible to suggest that these words found their way into these particular chapters after the Hebrews' second contact with Babylon in the days of Daniel or Ezra. For even the most critical scholars admit that these accounts had been written before then.

Wow, this "Wiseman" character doesn't seem very wise. In fact, he seems pretty clueless...

Dave, it's been common knowledge among educated folks (for a long time) that Genesis contains reworkings of Sumerian and Babylonian myth. We already know that the Flood story didn't originate with Genesis, we already know that the Forbidden Fruit story didn't either (Adapa and the South Wind)... and so on (and even the Bible itself admits that Abraham came from Mesopotamia). But this doesn't indicate the great age of the Book of Genesis. This would be equivalent to claiming that the many "Arthurian" novels by modern authors must have been written in the Dark Ages.

Not just that, but look at the logic of the statement.

Wiseman is claiming here:

1) The text uses Babylonian words.

2) These words couldn't have entered the Hebrew language during the Exile.

3) Therefore the words must have already been in the language.

4) Therefore the text must be pre-exilic.

Disregarding the lack of evidence for number 2 for the moment, the conclusion is simply a non-sequitur.

If the Babylonian words were already in the Hebrew language before the Exile, then they would still have been in the language during and after the exile. Therefore the text could be pre-exilic, exilic, or post-exilic.

Number 4 simply does not follow from number 3, regardless of whether number 2 is correct or not.

A "Wise man" indeed...

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

10-02-2007, 03:30 AM	#499
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Assumptions and Presuppositions So far, there has been much talk of assumptions and presuppositions on this thread. The vast majority, of course, has been by Dave as he asserts that the "assumptions" behind the DH have been refuted. So let's have a detailed look at the assumptions and presuppositions involved in both hypotheses. Before we do, I wish to point out that Dave has been equivocating between the two words, and using them interchangably. An assumption is something that a person assumes, and in the context of theories it is something that someone assumes which leads them to develop the theory. The presence of an assumption in someone's thinking or attitude tells us nothing about whether their conclusion is correct or not. It only tells us what the thought processes that lead up to the conclusion were based on. For example, if I wrongly assume that a mandarin is a type of apple (it is actually, of course, a type of tangerine) then I may come to the conclusion that a mandarin is therefore a type of fruit. My assumption was wrong, but this tells us nothing about whether my conclusion is right or wrong. To determine that, we must look at whether my conclusion fits the evidence. In this case, of course, it does. A mandarin is indeed a type of fruit. That my conclusion was based on an erroneous asssumption that I had is irrelevant. My conclusion fits the evidence, and therefore it is accepted as true. A presupposition, on the other hand, is something that a statement or theory is based on. If I say "My wife is pregnant", the statement presupposes that I have a wife. The statement cannot be true if I do not have a wife. Therefore, unlike the assumptions of the person who came to a conclusion, whether or not the presuppositions behind a conclusion are correct is very relevant to whether or not the conclusion itself is correct. This, in itself, is good enough reason to dismiss Dave's assertions that the DH is refuted because its "assumptions" are "shown" to be incorrect. Firstly, as we shall see, they have not been "shown" to be incorrect. Secondly - and more importantly - even if they had been shown to be incorrect, their veracity is irrelevant to the veracity of the DH itself. If Dave wants to show that one of his claims refutes the DH, he has to show not only that the claim is correct, but also that the truth of the DH is not compatible with that claim being correct. That is, he must show that the claim is not merely the refutation of an assumption that the inventors of the DH had; but also that the claim is a necessary presupposition of the DH itself. So far, he has not even attempted to do that. Now, let's look at some of the assumptions and presuppositions that have been claimed for the two hypotheses; and look at two things for each one: a) and b) Is the claimed assumption an actual presupposition of the hypothesis in question? In other words: can the hypothesis in question be true if the claim is true; and can the hypothesis be true if the claim is false? If the answer is "yes" both times, then the claim is not a presupposition - it is an assumption of the inventor at best - and therefore whether the claim is true or not is irrelevant. If the answer to one question is "yes" and the other is "no", then the claim is a presupposition of the hypothesis - and it is therefore relevant to determine whether it is true or not. This pair of questions is the only thing we actually need to look at. However - for completeness - we can ask a third question of each claimed assumption. c) Is the claimed assumption actually an assumption of the inventor of the theory? In other words: is it really something that guided the thoughts of the inventor of the hypothesis? Theoretically, this is not actually necessary. If the claimed assumption is a presupposition of the theory, then the theory depends on it regardless of whether or not the inventor of the theory took it into account. Similarly, if the claimed assumption is not a presupposition of the theory then the theory does not depend on it even if the inventor of the theory believed it to be true. Claimed Assumptions Of The Documentary Hypothesis These are all things that Dave has claimed in this thread to be assumptions of the DH. 1) Written sources should be given priority over archaeology 1a) If written sources are given priority over archaeology, can the DH still be true? Yes. Although the original underpinnings of the DH (i.e. non-Mosaic authorship) were based on known history, the DH itself is based on the consilience between different ways of splitting the text. 1b) If archaeology is given priority over written sources, can the DH still be true? Yes. It is possible that future archaeology could turn up something that contradicts the DH - for example it could unearth ancient documents from one or more of the authors of the Torah, and those documents could show that the actual authorial split was different to that of the DH. However, at the current time, there is no archaeological evidence that is incompatible with the DH. 1c) Was priority of written sources over archaeology actually an assumption of the DH inventors? No. Although the DH conclusions are derived from the text, at no point has any DH scholar (to my knowledge, at least) said that if archaeology contradicts the text then archaeology must be wrong and the text right. Indeed, minor details of the DH (in terms of exactly when each source was written) have been updated in line with archaeological findings. Therefore, the claim that this is an assumption is wrong, and would be irrelevant even if it were right. 2) A naturalistic (later expanded to "anti-supernaturalistic") view of Israel's history 2a) Is the DH compatible with a naturalistic view of Israel's history? Yes. There is nothing in the DH which requires supernatural events to occur. 2b) Is the DH compatible with a supernatural view of Israel's history? Yes. The DH talks about how the written sources that comprise the Torah were edited together. There is nothing in the DH about whether or not the supernatural events that happen in the stories contained in those sources are true. The DH makes no claims, for example, about whether or not there was a Flood survived only by Noah and his family. It only makes claims about how the two stories of the Flood were edited together to make a single account - not whether or not those stories are actually true. 2c) Is a naturalistic view an assumption of the DH authors? Almost certainly not. Although Dave gives us a quote from an apologist who claims that Julius Wellhausen - who came up with a theory of when each source was written - was skeptical of at least one of the supernatural events in the Torah, we have been given nothing to indicate that the various monks, priests, rabbis and theologians that between them came to the realisation that the Torah was split into the four main sources of the DH had naturalistic assumptions. Therefore, the claim that this is an assumption is almost certainly wrong, and would be irrelevant even if it were right. 3) No writing at the time that Moses allegedly lived (15th Century BCE) 3a) Is the DH compatible with there being no writing in the 15th Century BCE? Yes. The DH makes no claims that any of the written sources were written before that date. 3b) Is the DH compatible with there being writing in and before the 15th Century BCE? Yes. The DH makes no claims that there was no writing before the 15th Century BCE - and is perfectly compatible with the existence of such writing. 3c) Is the lack of writing before the 15th Century BCE an assumption of the DH inventors? No. Dave has provided us with a second hand quote-mine from an apologist, and asserts that the apologist interprets this to mean that Julius Wellhausen believed there was no writing at that time, but this is not what the quote actually says. All the quote actually says is that Wellhausen believed that God's moral instructions to the Hebrews were not written at that time. There is nothing to indicate that any of the inventors of the DH actually believed that there was no writing before the 15th Century BCE. Therefore, the claim that this is an assumption is wrong, and would be irrelevant even if it were right. 4) Legendary view of the patriarchal narratives 4a) Is the DH compatible with the patriarchs being legendary? Yes. The DH only talks about how the sources were edited together, not about whether the stories within them are true or not. 4b) Is the DH compatible with the patriarchs being real? Yes. The DH only talks about how the sources were edited together, not about whether the stories within them are true or not. 4c) Did the inventors of the DH assume that the patriarchs were legendary? Possibly. Dave offers us the barest snippet of a second-hand quote mine, not even a sentence, to support this. However, it is not an unreasonable assumption to make in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the claim that this is an assumption is possibly right and possibly wrong, but is irrelevant even if it is right. As we can see, even if Dave were correct in all his claims that these are "assumptions" of the DH (and he isn't), and all these assumptions were incorrect (which they may or may not be), they would still be irrelevant. The DH - as I have repeatedly said - stands or falls on the evidence. None of the above are actually presuppositions underlying the DH; so none of them are relevant to whether it is correct or not. Assumptions and Presuppositions of the Tablet Theory I have not laid these out previously in this thread. 1) The Flood happened 1)a Is the TT compatible with the Flood happening? Yes. The TT says that pre-flood records were taken on the Ark by Noah. 1b) Is the TT compatible with the Flood not happening? No. The TT explicitly says that the pre-flood records were taken on the Ark by Noah. If there was no flood, and no Ark, then the TT cannot be correct. 1c) Is an historical Flood an assumption of the TT inventor? Yes. Since the TT explicitly mentions the Flood, it is obvious that Wiseman assumed that it happened. The TT presupposes an historical Flood, and if there was no historical Flood then the TT must be false. 2) The antediluvian patriarchs were real people. 2a) Is the TT compatible with real antediluvian patriarchs? Yes. The TT claims that these patriarchs wrote tablets, which they couldn't have done if they were not real people. 2b) Is the TT compatible with legendary patriarchs? No. The TT claims that the patriarchs wrote tablets, which they couldn't have done if they were not real people. 2c) Are historical patriarchs an assumption of the TT inventor? Yes. Since the TT explicitly ascribes tablets to the patriarchs, it is obvious that Wiseman assumed that they were real. The TT presupposes a historical antediluvian patriarchs, and if there were no historical antediluvial patriarchs then the TT must be false. 3) God exists 3a) Is the TT compatible with the existence of God? Yes. 3b) Is the TT compatible with the non-existence of God? No. The TT claims that the first tablet was written by God himself. This could not have happened if God does not exist. 3c) Is the existence of God assumed by the TT inventor? Yes. Since the TT claims that the first tablet was written by God, we can be certain that the inventor assumed the existence of God. The TT presupposes the existence of God, and if there is no God then the TT must be false. The Tablet Theory relies on the presuppositions that God exists, the Flood happened, and the antediluvial patriarchs were real people. If any of these presuppositions are false, then the Tablet Theory MUST be false. I am being extremely generous by only listing these three presuppositions, by only listing things that the TT explicitly claims. For example, the TT is based on an assumption that the text of the Torah is an historically accurate account. However, I do not list this as a presupposition because it is possible that the Torah was indeed written on tablets by the patriarchs yet those patriarchs lied when writing their tablets and therefore the tablets are not historically accurate. This is also the reason why I do not list Young Earth Creationism as a presupposition of the TT. The TT theory is certainly based on Young Earth Creationism and the assumption that the Genesis stories are a true account of the creation of the world and the Garden of Eden - but it is possible that, even if Adam wrote the tablet, he was simply lying about the whole Eden thing and it never happened; or that God was lying about the whole "six days" thing when he wrote the first tablet.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.