Steven Carr

In <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/davegol.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/davegol.html</a>

Turkel appears to have come to realise that many stories in the Bible came from traditions which were independent of each other, and then edited togther.

If such is the case, why is he so against the J,E,D,P theory?

Curiously, Turkel is, as always, hypocritically inconsistent. He writes 'All of this is linked to the old canards about how the Bible was a product of a "lengthy evolution" and was reworked by editors and revisers'.

But to answer a contradiction, he writes 'It is answered by noting that 1 Samuel 17:12 begins a new unit that was undoubtedly originally an independent unit of oral tradition. It was told without the previous material having been told, so that introducing the main characters anew is not the least bit extraordinary -- it is only when the introductory formula was included in the stage when the material was compiled in writing that it took an appearance that looked strange to our eyes.'

So Turkel rails against the old canard, that the Bible was reworked by editors and revisers, and he himself proposes that the final product was an originally independent unit, which had an introductory formual added.

Perhaps Turkel can explain how an introductory formula can be included, when the Bible stories were not reworked by editors and revisers. Does he even know what 'editing' means?

Naturally, he refuses to discuss his writings in public forums.


Steven Carr
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/</a>

CX

Mr. Turkel, in my experience is somewhat immune to logic. Everything in his world is about refuting secularism, atheism and anything he perceives as anti-Xian. He's not too different from some of the early church fathers in that regard. Still I can think of noone who has read the OT at all who doesn't understand that someone did some redacting at some point since most of the books are accepted to have been orally transmitted for centuries before being written down by even the staunchest evangelical Xian. Still I never cease to be amazed at the variety of extreme belief.

MrKrinkles

Here is a quote from that article:
HAR HAR HAR! Good one Turkel! Great jibe!

Hard to believe this guy is a grown adult.

Brooks

Lonergan

But to answer a contradiction, he writes 'It is answered by noting that 1 Samuel 17:12 begins a new unit that was undoubtedly originally an independent unit of oral tradition. It was told without the previous material having been told, so that introducing the main characters anew is not the least bit extraordinary -- it is only when the introductory formula was included in the stage when the material was compiled in writing that it took an appearance that looked strange to our eyes.'

-----------------------------------------------------
My best guess is that Turkel is claiming that there
was no editing after the traditions were assembled
into written form. If that is what he is claiming,
he has not addressed the charge of editing. In
addition, such a claim is very is being offered
without evidence.

By the way, Steven, have you ever responded to
Turkel's articles about you at his site ?

Steven Carr

Why bother responding to personal abuse and misrepresentation?

Theophage

Steven, where is your second response to Peter Williams? I notice by your website (which was FINALLY updated in december *grumble grumble*) that he is already on his final statement of the debate. Did you forget to put it up?

Daniel "Thoephage" Clark

Steven Carr

There is no second response. No time, what with moving to Germany. Are people really convinced by Peter Williams Levitating Lunatics?