Lucretius

I think the implied answer is that they were all inspired by the One True Source i.e God

Magdlyn

Well, why couldn't Yahwists, Priests, Elohists and Deuteros all be inspired by "god" as well?

Lucretius

To be honest I haven't got a clue
BUT off the top of my head I think that Moses is such a pivotal,dare I say iconic,figure in both Judaism & Christianity that it is imperative for Christians (& Jews) to have at least some if not most of it written by him and not just a compliation by Moses (or someone else) from older sources,even if they are "inspired".

spin

I think the relevant word is "distinction", ie "these peculiarities" don't supply enough for one to be able to distinguish the "different sources". At least that's how I understand it.


spin

Dean Anderson

This is simply a false statement. I have in fact claimed that archaeology helps the DH.

Here is everything I have written on this thread about the compatibility of the DH with archaeology:

(Dave's claim was that where textual criticism and archaeology disagree, then the DH gives priority to the text - a strangely ironic criticism coming from a YEC.)

(As you can see, my claim is that archaeology does help the DH, since it independently agrees with it - i.e. it is consilient with it. The key point here is the independence of the two: the DH does not rely on this archeaology - without the archaeological findings the DH would still be the best explanation of the text.

(This is still true, by the way!)

(This stresses again the fact that the DH does not rely on the archaeology, but is independently consilient with the archaeology - and that this consilience helps the DH.)

Lucretius

Dave ,I know you are busy trying to explain Asteroids etc on another forum ,but I wonder if you could explain how if as you say above the DH IS receiving increasing scepticism, not one of the sources you have referred to over these many, many pages seems to date later than 1909 ?
I accept that Wiseman's work was originally written in 1935, but Wiseman et al would hardly seem to me to be evidence of increasing scepticism now in the 21 st century ,rather it seems to me that all that is happening is that certain Christians are merely regurgitating old (and more importantly failed) arguments from 100 years ago.

Lucretius

Well in spite of having possibly more important things to do I have read through the various articles against the DH that Dave has referred to in a previous post .
Our of the 15 relevant articles I have read 14 (the 15th will not open on my computer)
Link to Index here

http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/the_fundamentals.htm

Now not one of them would pass any test of a scholarly work as far as I can see,based (or biased)as they are on the assumption that Jesus MUST be the "Son of God" and therefore IF he said the OT was the word of God then it MUST be all true.
Only one (by PROFESSOR GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT)addresses anything at all the do with the DH in fact in anything like a scholarly manner and even that relies on the assumption that
.

http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/fundamentals/02.htm

Other than that there is nothing like any analysis of the DH just assertion after assertion with no evidence to show how the DH may be wrong.

There are however various examples of ad hominem attacks on the people who have had the nerve to question the Mosaic tradition .
From Chapter One BY CANON DYSON HAGUE

And also from the introductory chapter by Canon Hague this closing message

Which admits to bias
IF you are going to rely on these Dave I am afraid you will get nowhere.

I also like this one from Chapter 3 by SIR ROBERT ANDERSON,who appears to be using Spiritualism to support the Bible

N.B. the DH is commonly referred to by its' 19th Century name "Higher Criticism" in these articles/essays

-Jay-

Dave? Helllllo? Are you out there, Dave?

regards,

NinJay

Dave Hawkins

WELLHAUSEN'S "COMPOSITION OF THE HEXATEUCH" POPULARIZED THE 4 SOURCE THEORY
Dean's main source for DH information is Richard Friedman, but Wellhausen was the original popularizer of the theory ...Now some have criticized me for quoting Wright to refute the DH, but this criticism is naive. We must remember that it was Wellhausen who popularized the theory, not Friedman or other later writers. So we must understand Wellhausen's thinking in order to truly understand the development of the DH.

WAS WRIGHT WRONG (no pun intended) AS DEAN ASSERTS?
(Please refer to Dean's post here ... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...67#post4857667)
First, Wright was not saying that no one has ever questioned the DH ... he merely said "The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has until very recent times been accepted without question by both Jews and Christians." That's true. The vast majority of Christian and Jewish scholars did accept Mosaic authorship without question. He goes on to explain that he is referring to what he calls "general consent." Dean complains about Wright blustering about the lack of attention to archaeological discoveries. OK. I'll admit that DH advocates have changed the splits somewhat in light of discoveries. HOWEVER ... and this is a big HOWEVER ... you fail to admit the very obvious fact that the DH never would have seen the light of day if it had been floated 50 years later, thanks to all the archaeological finds. If you never admit this, then there's not much point in arguing the DH longer. You can't just arbitrarily say "I think there was a J and an E and a D and a P document" even though no ancient writer EVER ONCE mentions such documents or even hints at them. You can't just come to the table with a blank sheet of paper so to speak, armed with nothing but the text itself and expect to amke a plausible theory. Not even Wellhausen, the champion of the theory dared try to do that. The only way Wellhausen was able to sell his goods so successfully was because academia had been convinced of his ERRONEOUS PRESUPPOSITIONS involving what he supposed to be external evidence, which, as I have shown, was later discredited by the findings of archaeology.

HOW DID WELLHAUSEN DIVIDE THE TEXT?
Here is an English language compilation of the original scholarship of Kuenen, Wellhausen and Dillman prepared by the Society of Historical Theology at Oxford, entitled (following Wellhausen's title) The Composition of the Hexateuch, written in 1902. http://books.google.com/books?id=sb9...uch+wellhausen
In addition to providing a handy reference for the DH Divisions as popularized by Wellhausen and those close to him, it shows that Dean's assertion that Wright made a false claim is itself false. Click HERE and you will see that Exodus 18 was indeed counted a patchwork by critics, just as Wright asserts. Wright is therefore reliable on this point. Dean will of course come back and say that this "patchwork" criticism has been discarded, to which I say "Excellent ... let's look at all of Wellhausen's other fantasies that need to be discarded."

WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT WELLHAUSEN'S DIVISIONS ANYMORE?
Some may say "Dave, the DH has come a long way since Wellhausen. You need to look at recent scholarship." Wellhausen's scholarship is VERY important because it was HIS scholarship (not later scholarship) that was so convincing to academia in his day. So in order to show that the DH was a "house built upon sand" we need to examine Wellhausen's work.

IS IT STATISTICALLY UNLIKELY THAT A LONG TEXT CAN BE SPLIT TO ACHIEVE CONSILIENCE?
No. It is not. And Dean has not shown this. Now IF ... let me emphasize that IF ... IF we use external evidence to support the existence of the J E D and P documents AND we make the splits based upon this external evidence AND this results in some sort of coherence when considering the individual documents ... IF this was the case, then this would be statistically improbable and we would have something interesting. But we don't. The DH advocates start with their presuppositions (which Dean denies have any effect) then they split the text according to their presuppositions and ignore all other evidence (or lack thereof).

CHIASTIC PATTERNS: A GLARING EXAMPLE OF THINGS THEY IGNORE
Creation Ministries International explains these patterns here ... OTHER OBJECTIONS PUT FORTH BY DEAN
Well, sorry, but yes they do at least in general. How else do you explain this statement from Chapter 5, entitled "The Clue to the Documents", of the Oxford work described above ? ...That's pretty clear, Dean. I don't know how it can get much clearer.

Regarding the numbered points which Dean critiques ... Point 1
Oh, but they WERE saying that the codes are not old. Remember ... archaeology, Dean, which you say does not matter, but which actually is vitally important. Scholars did not know about the Code of Hammurabi until 1901, some 20+ years after Wellhausen was doing his work. You see, Wellhausen didn't think mankind in the 15th century BC had developed so much as to be able to have detailed law codes like that of Moses and Hammurabi. He thought they were primitive at that time because he had an evolutionary view of social development. So naturally, he ascribed the detailed law code found in the Pentateuch to someone much later. Too bad for him (and you), archaeologists came along and proved him wrong. Scholars had to admit that law codes like these predated the 15th century BC by a long shot, making it perfectly reasonable to attribute the Pentateuchal Law Code to Moses.

Points 2. and 3.
OK. Go on. Why? You can't just assert that they are incorrect without some justification. I already gave support as to why Wright is correct on these points.

Point 4. Yes, it assumes the stories are correct. But why should we NOT assume they are correct? Is there any reason to doubt them? There is ample support from archaeology establishing the veracity of the stories, <edit> Archaeology is very destructive to your position.

Points 5-8. Dean repeats the same objection for all these points ... Actually all these points by Wright ARE evidence of Mosaic authorship. Why? Because they are evidence of authorship of SOMEONE who lived close to the events described, not some author who lived a thousand years later. Can we prove this person was Moses? No, of course not, but it is a reasonable inference considering all things. When studying history, we should accept the traditional, received view UNLESS there is some excellent reason to deny it. And Dean doesn't provide any such excellent reasons <edit> so he has no reasons at all to deny Mosaic authorship. Just bare assertions.

DEAN CALLS FOR ME TO ADDRESS HIS ACTUAL POINTS
OK. Here are your main points ... 1) I agree that we can use various criteria to determine the different authors, but there must be EXTERNAL JUSTIFICATION for these criteria, otherwise, you are just bringing nothing more than your modern opinion up against a very heavy weight of tradition and external evidence. You are unwilling to do this, so I suppose you will persist in your erroneous view.
2) It proposes it yes. But it does not present a convincing case that this is actually the way things occurred. It would be much more convincing if there was a host of external evidence which justified such divisions. But there is not. In fact, Dean does not even want to look at this. Perhaps he realizes how destructive such evidence is to his case.
3) The division into JEDP DOES NOT result in narrative harmony unless you ignore ancient literary practices, such as CHIASTIC PATTERNS, which of course DH advocates do. How convenient to simply ignore evidence that you don't like! I could pretty much prove any hypothesis I want if I take that approach.
4) It's nonsensical to say "the DH makes no claims about whether or not the stories within the sources (about Moses, the Flood, and so on) are true." There is no "Official DH" sitting around in some official book. There are simply authors such as Wellhausen or Friedman who assert things. The important point - which Dean continues to deny - is that DH advocates such as Friedman and Wellhausen deny these stories. This denial had a profound effect on the acceptance of the DH originally and continues to have a profound effect on it's continued propagation, despite the discrediting of it's underpinnings.
5) The Tablet Theory is by no means a finished product. But it is a much better starting point for further scholarship than the DH simply because it considers external evidence as well as internal. The DH does not.
6) This is false. Why do you disregard the reasons I have given for the differences?
7) I already refuted your claims against Mosaic authorship. Your biggest one was your belief that the events of Exodus are unhistorical. When I showed you evidence that they ARE historical, you weren't interested.
8) Wrong. They do show similarity. True, they are not identical, but they show similarity.
9) Therefore, since the DH is purely speculative and relies only upon internal, textual evidence (and does a poor job even at that ... see chiastic pattern discussion above), and since the Tablet Theory is based upon both external AND internal evidence and does a much better job of explaining various phenomena (though not near perfect), scholars should pursue further studies on various Tablet Theories and reject the DH once and for all.

And apparently ... more and more of them are ...

HAS FRIEDMAN ACKNOWLEDGED SERIOUS CHALLENGES TO THE DH?
Well, it appears that he has. In my research this morning, I ran across an interesting statement HERE. Notice the first paragraph on the page and in particular ... and WHO this statement is attributed to (footnote 54) ... that's right ... Richard Friedman, the book Dean gets his information from. Maybe Dean could provide the context from Friedman's book.

And with this post, I'm probably pretty much done with this thread, unless Dean has a convincing case to proceed further. I have achieved my goal, not of proving the Tablet Theory to be 100% true and 100% trouble free, but of shedding light upon the DH and it's fatal problems and hopefully giving you good reasons to consider some form of the Tablet Theory.

Thanks to Dean and to all of you for your thoughtful questions and comments!

Keith&Co.

I think this is the same mentality that keeps attacking evolution by criticizing Darwin. What people thought up or thought of a hundred years ago is interesting, but if you're criticizing a theory that is currently active (as opposed to, say, the 'balance of humours' theory of human temperment), then wouldn't it be best to criticize the current thinking? Current research? Current writings? The current state of the theory, no matter how old?

Sure, the theory developed then, but what, in the last decade, has been offered as disproof of the theory?