Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Evidence for the JEDP theory and the late-dating of the Torah

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
    You're claiming that the traditional position is wrong.
    I am claiming that I have no good reason to believe the traditional position.

    Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
    What reasons are there to dismiss the traditons (which seem pretty unanimous)? They don't seem that improbable.
    If you're referring to prima facie probability, it's been my lifelong experience that cultural traditions in general, including religious traditions, are frequently wrong about the history of their societies. If I'm going to make an exception for your particular religion, I need a better reason than your say-so.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      I am claiming that I have no good reason to believe the traditional position..

      Ok then

      If you're referring to prima facie probability, it's been my lifelong experience that cultural traditions in general, including religious traditions, are frequently wrong about the history of their societies. If I'm going to make an exception for your particular religion, I need a better reason than your say-so
      Really? What are they?
      -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
      Sir James Jeans

      -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
      Sir Isaac Newton

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
        If you're referring to prima facie probability, it's been my lifelong experience that cultural traditions in general, including religious traditions, are frequently wrong about the history of their societies. If I'm going to make an exception for your particular religion, I need a better reason than your say-so
        Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
        Really? What are they?
        I don't know if I understand your question. Is it your belief that all cultural traditions, throughout the inhabited world, are always true? Are you asking me to prove the contrary?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          I am claiming that I have no good reason to believe the traditional position.


          If you're referring to prima facie probability, it's been my lifelong experience that cultural traditions in general, including religious traditions, are frequently wrong about the history of their societies. If I'm going to make an exception for your particular religion, I need a better reason than your say-so.
          For some good reasons to accept the traditional position, I recommend the paper Deuteronomy and de Wette: A Fresh Look at a Fallacious Premise by Eugene H. Merrill. (I took a course from Dr. Merrill, and was very impressed by his statesman-like demeanor and his scholarship.)

          Source: JESOT-1.1-Merrill Abstract


          The premise to be re-evaluated here is that Deuteronomy, in part or in its entirety, was the product of pious scribes of the Divided Monarchy period, who, recipients of certain oral and perhaps fragmentary written traditions, were intent on delivering Israel from political, social, and religious disintegration. They therefore integrated their sources and composed the book, attributing it to Moses and thus investing it with authority necessary to address in most specific terms the circumstances that threatened the existence of the covenant community.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Source: JESOT-1.1-Merrill Conclusions


          In search of the keystone to the construction of the edifice of the source critical method, scholars as early as the seventeenth century proffered various hypotheses, none universally satisfying until W. M. L. de Wette burst upon the scene in 1805. His dissertatio, brief as it was, encapsulated and simplified the hunches of previous scholars, so much so that he became known in some quarters as “the father of higher criticism.” Remarkably enough, the dissertation was not directed explicitly to the question of whether or not the scroll found in Josiah’s temple was Deuteronomy or a recension thereof. In fact, he made the assertion in just one footnote, almost in passing as it were. From that innocuous beginning, however, the notion took root and remains to this day the key tenet of the so-called Documentary Hypothesis, expressed in its classic form by Julius Wellhausen seventy years after de Wette’s seminal work. Though greatly altered here and there by modern scholars, its essential ideology and framework remain intact and remain standard fare in university and seminary classrooms.

          Close examination of the actual biblical data themselves reveals quite a different alternative and that is a return to the ancient Jewish, New Testament, and Christian traditions of Mosaic provenance and authorship. Only a mindset willing to bend to critical consensus or oblivious to the issues involved and their damaging implications for young Christian scholars and the Church can, it seems, continue to ignore the tradition in favor of unproven and unprovable hypotheses to the contrary.

          © Copyright Original Source

          Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-09-2014, 01:23 PM.
          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            For some good reasons to accept the traditional position, I recommend the paper Deuteronomy and de Wette: A Fresh Look at a Fallacious Premise by Eugene H. Merrill. (I took a course from Dr. Merrill, and was very impressed by his statesman-like demeanor and his scholarship.)
            Thank you very much for that link. I've read the introduction and look forward to studying the rest of the article.

            Comment


            • #36
              Merrill said, "our own contention [is] that Deuteronomy was . . . created by Moses" and that his evidence for this proposition is to be found "from the book’s own testimony." I don't believe that he delivered what he promised. I do not find, anywhere in his article, a cogent argument for Mosaic authorship.

              I am in no way wedded to the particular hypothesis that Deuteronomy was the book discovered in the temple during Josiah's reign. Modern scholarship seems to have produced various theories about its provenance, and I don't feel competent to judge among them. One thing they do agree on, though, is that it was not written during Moses' purported lifetime, let alone by him in particular.

              I have no problem in principle with disputing a consensus of authorities, but when I do it, I feel obliged to study the evidence on which the authorities rely and the arguments they use to infer their consensus from that evidence, and to explain why, in my opinion, their arguments lack merit. If I can't be bothered to do that, then I think I normally have to assume that the experts have reached their consensus for good reasons. Merrill does not do this. He offers no discussion of why, as he notes, "virtually all critical scholars embrace what has come to be a settled conviction [non-Mosaic authorship and lateness of Deuteronomy] no longer in need of argument." He makes no mention of the evidence they appeal to and addresses none of their arguments. The mere fact that modern scholars feel no need to present their arguments does not mean they don't have any. Maybe they don't, but if so, this must be at least asserted.

              Merrill's counterargument consists of nothing but proof texts, exclusively from Deuteronomy and other Old Testament books, intended to imply the improbability of a post-Mosaic date for Deuteronomy. Such an argument clearly presupposes the historical reliability of the entire Old Testament. This is not scholarship as it is usually practiced, but rather Evangelical apologetics pure and simple.
              Last edited by Doug Shaver; 03-10-2014, 03:42 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                Merrill said, "our own contention [is] that Deuteronomy was . . . created by Moses" and that his evidence for this proposition is to be found "from the book’s own testimony." I don't believe that he delivered what he promised. I do not find, anywhere in his article, a cogent argument for Mosaic authorship.

                I am in no way wedded to the particular hypothesis that Deuteronomy was the book discovered in the temple during Josiah's reign. Modern scholarship seems to have produced various theories about its provenance, and I don't feel competent to judge among them. One thing they do agree on, though, is that it was not written during Moses' purported lifetime, let alone by him in particular.

                I have no problem in principle with disputing a consensus of authorities, but when I do it, I feel obliged to study the evidence on which the authorities rely and the arguments they use to infer their consensus from that evidence, and to explain why, in my opinion, their arguments lack merit. If I can't be bothered to do that, then I think I normally have to assume that the experts have reached their consensus for good reasons. Merrill does not do this. He offers no discussion of why, as he notes, "virtually all critical scholars embrace what has come to be a settled conviction [non-Mosaic authorship and lateness of Deuteronomy] no longer in need of argument." He makes no mention of the evidence they appeal to and addresses none of their arguments. The mere fact that modern scholars feel no need to present their arguments does not mean they don't have any. Maybe they don't, but if so, this must be at least asserted.

                Merrill's counterargument consists of nothing but proof texts, exclusively from Deuteronomy and other Old Testament books, intended to imply the improbability of a post-Mosaic date for Deuteronomy. Such an argument clearly presupposes the historical reliability of the entire Old Testament. This is not scholarship as it is usually practiced, but rather Evangelical apologetics pure and simple.
                I very much agree with the above. It is very very weak and intensely circular to justify the truth of the text is in the text itself without considering the actual historical, linguistic, and other physical evidence used by other scholars.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                  Merrill said, "our own contention [is] that Deuteronomy was . . . created by Moses" and that his evidence for this proposition is to be found "from the book’s own testimony." I don't believe that he delivered what he promised. I do not find, anywhere in his article, a cogent argument for Mosaic authorship.

                  I am in no way wedded to the particular hypothesis that Deuteronomy was the book discovered in the temple during Josiah's reign. Modern scholarship seems to have produced various theories about its provenance, and I don't feel competent to judge among them. One thing they do agree on, though, is that it was not written during Moses' purported lifetime, let alone by him in particular.

                  I have no problem in principle with disputing a consensus of authorities, but when I do it, I feel obliged to study the evidence on which the authorities rely and the arguments they use to infer their consensus from that evidence, and to explain why, in my opinion, their arguments lack merit. If I can't be bothered to do that, then I think I normally have to assume that the experts have reached their consensus for good reasons. Merrill does not do this. He offers no discussion of why, as he notes, "virtually all critical scholars embrace what has come to be a settled conviction [non-Mosaic authorship and lateness of Deuteronomy] no longer in need of argument." He makes no mention of the evidence they appeal to and addresses none of their arguments. The mere fact that modern scholars feel no need to present their arguments does not mean they don't have any. Maybe they don't, but if so, this must be at least asserted.

                  Merrill's counterargument consists of nothing but proof texts, exclusively from Deuteronomy and other Old Testament books, intended to imply the improbability of a post-Mosaic date for Deuteronomy. Such an argument clearly presupposes the historical reliability of the entire Old Testament. This is not scholarship as it is usually practiced, but rather Evangelical apologetics pure and simple.
                  I agree that Merrill doesn't really present evidence that Moses was the author. Rather, he compares two theories for the date of Deuteronomy, namely the time of Moses vs the time of Josiah. He presents textual evidence to show that Deuteronomy was an earlier composition than the JEDP advocates claim.

                  Yes, the evidence that Merrill presents is biblical (textual) evidence. But this does not necessarily make his arguments circular. When investigating the date and authorship of a text (e.g. Deuteronomy), one must examine both the internal textual evidence (e.g. Deuteronomy) and any other evidence available (e.g. other biblical books). This is the same sort of evidence that the JEDP advocates examine to support their theory.
                  "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                    I agree that Merrill doesn't really present evidence that Moses was the author. Rather, he compares two theories for the date of Deuteronomy, namely the time of Moses vs the time of Josiah. He presents textual evidence to show that Deuteronomy was an earlier composition than the JEDP advocates claim.

                    Yes, the evidence that Merrill presents is biblical (textual) evidence. But this does not necessarily make his arguments circular. When investigating the date and authorship of a text (e.g. Deuteronomy), one must examine both the internal textual evidence (e.g. Deuteronomy) and any other evidence available (e.g. other biblical books). This is the same sort of evidence that the JEDP advocates examine to support their theory.
                    What makes this circular is your using the text itself to justify your claims concerning the date and author of the text. Your emphasis of outside evidence only includes other Biblical books and not the archeological, and other possible evidence outside the Bible. The JEDP has some merit, but it too suffers from weaknesses of relying on the text itself for verification of the theory.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      Yes, the evidence that Merrill presents is biblical (textual) evidence. But this does not necessarily make his arguments circular.
                      You're right, it doesn't. What makes it circular is where it says, in effect, "If X is true, then we can trust the Bible. The Bible says X, and so X must be true. Therefore, we can trust the Bible."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                        When investigating the date and authorship of a text (e.g. Deuteronomy), one must examine both the internal textual evidence (e.g. Deuteronomy) and any other evidence available (e.g. other biblical books). This is the same sort of evidence that the JEDP advocates examine to support their theory.
                        Maybe that's why JEDP, as originally formulated, is losing support. The provenance of these books is a historical question, and there is no good reason to suppose that the texts themselves are the only evidence relevant to answering that question. Archaeological evidence is also relevant, and it does not support most of the history reported in those books, not even the little bit of history on which JEDP's first advocates were depending in formulating their theory.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                          Maybe that's why JEDP, as originally formulated, is losing support. The provenance of these books is a historical question, and there is no good reason to suppose that the texts themselves are the only evidence relevant to answering that question. Archaeological evidence is also relevant, and it does not support most of the history reported in those books, not even the little bit of history on which JEDP's first advocates were depending in formulating their theory.
                          As far as the origins, authors and dating of the Pentateuch we are basically on the same page. Evidence from archeology and linguistic research must be included. The circular argument that the text justifies the text, is no longer adequate among scholars. JEDP has some merit, but you are correct, it has weaknesses because it relies too much on the text itself. The bottom line is that the Pentateuch was compiled after the exile, from different traditional sources (~JEDP), Canaanite to Babylonian cuneiform tablet references, and traditional Jewish stories and mythology.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            I don't know if I understand your question. Is it your belief that all cultural traditions, throughout the inhabited world, are always true? Are you asking me to prove the contrary?
                            I should have phrased it better.

                            You said frequently. Can you cite some examples? What reasons are given for rejecting these traditions?
                            -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                            Sir James Jeans

                            -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                            Sir Isaac Newton

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                              Can you cite some examples?
                              Do I really need to convince you that they exist? Any examples I could give would be almost guaranteed to derail this thread. If I say "Tradition such-and-such is false," you could always reply, "No it isn't," and we'd be off on a tangent arguing about that.

                              But, I'll suggest one example that, as far as I know, has not provoked much controversy. We're all familiar with the story about William Tell, a traditional part of the history of Switzerland. Historians now believe that no such man ever existed.

                              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                              What reasons are given for rejecting these traditions?
                              In the case of William Tell, it seems to be because historians have found no evidence where they thought there ought to be some.

                              In other cases, there is evidence that actually contradicts the tradition. An example of that is the traditional story of Christopher Columbus, according to which (1) all the experts of his time believed the world was flat and (2) his discovery of America proved that they were wrong. In fact, we have plenty of evidence that in Columbus's day, all educated people knew that the world was round. As for (2), it is simply absurd, no matter what the experts might have believed. There is no way that sailing merely across the Atlantic Ocean and back could have proved that the world was round.
                              Last edited by Doug Shaver; 03-14-2014, 06:43 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Doug, you said "It's been my lifelong experience that cultural traditions in general, including religious traditions, are frequently wrong about the history of their societies."

                                If I'm recalling correctly, you've stated previously (maybe not in this thread, but in another one) that you tend to be more skeptical than most historians concerning historical claims. With that in mind, do you think that the historicty of William Tell and Christopher Columbus are completely fabricated? We'll never know if there really was a true William Tell, but the time, place, and events do hint at historicity, however far removed. And we all know that there was an actual Christopher Columbus who sailed the ocean blue in 1492 expecting to land in the East Indies. Are all legends based on totally fictional events, or is there a glimmer of truth in all of them? Furthermore, is there more of a glimmer in some legends than in others (as in the case of Christopher Columbus)? Should all ancient histories be dismissed because there is legendary accretion in some ancient histories?
                                Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-14-2014, 06:59 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X