ck1

I have been out of the country for a week with limited internet access. I spent a good chunk of time yesterday and this morning catching up on new and old threads, but this thread is particularly fascinating.

Thank you, Dean Anderson.

I have one question:

Harold Bloom published a commentary on the contribution of J to the Torah/Pentateuch:

The Book of J (or via: amazon.co.uk)

How do other scholars view his conclusion that J was a woman?

VoxRat

It's interesting. All these "alternative reality enthusiasts" (as I like to non-judgmentally call them) avoid each others discussions.

It gets back to that whole consilience thing I'm always harping on. "Real-worlders" share their observations and theories, consensus survives only if it survives relentless exposure to all honest inquiry and observation. There's a massive, open, ongoing dialog with a whole planetful of observers. Theory that doesn't survive that process gets discarded or at least modified.

"Alternative reality enthusiasts" - and I'm thinking mainly of creationists here, but I think it's a general characteristic - seem uninterested, not only in meshing their idiosyncratic views with the larger, "real-world" community, but also with one another. Hence, you've got afdave picking this tidbit from Rohl, that tidbit from McDowell, a scrap of nonsense from Smyth - never noticing that they all contradict not only reality but one another.

Likewise, on the science side: this bit from Behe, that one from R.H. Brown, a dash of lunacy from Walt, and a steaming pile from ICR - who cares if they're all mutually contradictory? As long as they "challenge" the reality the creationist doesn't want to face, it's all good!

Dave Hawkins

Dean, could you please provide a link which shows the complete divisions of the text into J E D and P? Or if no such link exists, could you state this please?

Dean Anderson

Which bit of "I don't know of one" didn't you understand?

I can't categorically state that there is no such link, because there might be one out there somewhere.

But I don't know of one.

ck1

And in the same vein, creationists seem to avoid each other's threads like the plague. I always thought that was so odd - that other YEC or ID proponents do not jump in to support the arguments of apparently likeminded theists, but this odd independence/avoidance certainly fits in with your analysis.

Codec

The Bible with Sources Revealed (or via: amazon.co.uk) includes footnotes and discussions behind the reasons for splitting as it is done.

Constant Mews

I am curious, Dave: why does this matter in the slightest? You have shown no appetite for raw information, and you have not been able to deal with the consilience of the sections Dean has presented so far. This seems to be equivalent to asking for pictures of dendro sequenced when you are utterly incompetent to analyze them. Deal with what you already are failing at. Learn to crawl before you learn to fly.

Dean Anderson

If you've read that, then you'll recognise much of the evidence I have posted on this thread...

Lucretius

This may be the old "there is no website that says it ,therefore it can't be true" gambit.
I haven't come across a complete line by line analysis of the DH online (as yet) but even if there isn't one possibly due to the amount of information then it still doesn't negate any of the DH .

Dean Anderson

It could be the "maybe if I find some small detail to quibble about ad-infinitum, no-one will notice that I haven't addressed the big picture and the consilience" gambit.

Only time will tell.

Unless, of course, you feel like addressing the big picture and the consilience now, Dave?