Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(06-06-2013 11:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 11:52 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Um, yes. There are also:

Kings and Chronicles

Four gospels

Two tellings of the seven years of Jacob's trouble in Revelation

*Now argue that the entire HB was written by only two people (you can't).

*There are dozens of names for God in the scriptures. Now argue that dozens of groups existed, not just five.

Here are some titles for Jesus in Revelation:

1:5 The First-born from the dead
1:5 The highest of earthly kings
1:8 The Alpha and Omega (also 22:13)
1:8 Lord God
1:8 The Almighty
1:13 Son of Man
1:17 The First and the Last (also 1:11;21:6;22:13)
1:18 The Living One
2:18 Son of God
3:14 Witness (also "faithful witness" in 1:5)
4:11 Creator
5:5 Lion of the Tribe of Judah
5:5 Root of David
5:6 The Lamb
7:17 The Shepherd
12:10 Christ (Anointed)
19:11 Faithful and True
19:13 Word of God
19:16 King of Kings
19:16 Lord of Lords

Where are the scholars who say 20 people wrote Revelation?

No, saying something is in the Bible twice doesn't prove your theory, especially since you have four or five groups of redactors, especially since God called people twice dozens of times in the Bible for an emphasis (Jacob, Jacob, Truly, Truly), especially since per the Law of Moses you need TWO or three witnesses to have a fact in evidence.

What an ignoramus. No one who advocates the Documentary Hypothesis says the texts were written by "two people*". Nice try at trying to deflect from the fact it is THE accepted hypothesis by the majority of scholars. (BTW everyone noticed you answered NOT ONE of the point presented above. NOT ONE). Just more actual prove you really have no education on this subject, (or anything else about which you constantly attempt to speak, yet continually make a fool of yourself). Revelation is NOT one of the texts that is the subject of the Hypothesis. How is it you make this HUGE error. Apparently, bu making this HUGE error, you hav ejust proven you are totally ignorant of what the Hypothesis even is. Just amazing.

PJ obviously doesn't know what the documentary hypothesis is. Why is he talking about the book of Revelation? Why is he talking about Jesus? These topics have nothing to do with the documentary hypothesis. I'm glad he's too gutless to debate me. It would be like arguing with a 2 year old.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2013, 07:23 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(19-06-2013 01:36 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Interesting question, but there's a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this topic that generally precludes a clear picture of the current state of the research. The first thing of which everyone should be aware is that the "Documentary Hypothesis" is not coterminous with JEDP. The DH is just one of several different models that attempt to explain how the different sources (JEDP and numerous others like H, R, JE, etc.) came together. According to DH, each source existed as a separate "Document" that was then worked together with others by editors to form a larger macro-narrative. Other models include the Fragmentary Hypothesis (fragments were brought together to produce larger chunks of narrative), the Supplementary Hypothesis (one core tradition was added onto in stages over time), the New Supplementary Hypothesis (changes the order of the sources added onto the core), etc.

This is important because fundamentalists and many conservative scholars don't take the time to come to know the actual theories associated with source criticism. What they learn are outdated and reductive misrepresentations that get perpetuated because that kind of pseudo-scholarship (read "apologetics") does not circulate within mainstream scholarship, so there aren't a lot of people around to correct the errors. They hear that DH is on the decline in the academy and they think this means Mosaic authorship must be making a comeback. Nothing could be further from the truth. A friend who came to an academically-oriented master's degree from a devotional degree told us one day that in his first degree they told him not to worry about learning about DH since nobody believes it anymore. He was quite surprised to find that that wasn't the case at all. Most are also unaware that source criticism of the Pentateuch began as an apologetic endeavor. It was Jean Austruc, an 18th century physician and theological hobbyist who came up with the idea of separate sources as a way to reconcile the contradictions of the different verses. He still insisted Moses was the editor who combined them all, but DH did not originate in critical scholarship, but in apologetics.

The majority of fundamentalist scholarship is based on early twentieth-century attempts to undermine critical scholarship that were published in a series called The Fundamentals (this is where the term "fundamentalist" comes from). Virtually all fundamentalist characterizations of critical biblical scholarship can be traced back to that series and its misunderstandings. Conservatives who do go into legitimate and thorough study of critical biblical scholarship generally don't return to fundamentalism. A good example of this phenomenon is Kenton Spark's book God's Word in Human Words, which attempts to convince the Evangelical community that they need to pull their heads out of the sand and acknowledge that critical scholarship is right.

It is certainly true that the Documentary Hypothesis is has been out of style for many years, that is only because it has been supplanted by more recent models that still incorporate sources like J, E, D, and P. Joel Baden, a young professor at Yale, is doing a fine job trying to defend the classical DH (see here), but the most intriguing new theories are coming out of Europe, and they argue that J and E were nothing more than fragmentary narratives confined to the beginning of Genesis. According to this approach (see here), P was the first group to consolidate Jewish traditions into a Pentateuchal collection. The only other definable source of any real size was D, which was just Deuteronomy (here) and the Deuteronomistic History (here).

Regarding the nature and origins of the whole source-critical approach, while it is true that we do not have actual pre-biblical phases of the Pentateuchal traditions, we do have several other ancient macro-narratives that were produced over multiple centuries through supplementation, editing, and redaction; and through them, we can see exactly what kinds of literary phenomena are produced by those processes. For instance, we have several phases of the Gilgamesh epic. We also have the Diatessaron, a conflation of the four gospels. We also have several different versions of the Septuagint and documents from Qumran. David Carr does a marvelous job (chapter 1 here) of pointing out exactly what phenomena identifiable in these documents indicate literary layers and author breaks, using those texts to illustrate the processes (and then applying that method to the biblical texts). Those phenomena, by the way, absolutely abound in the biblical texts. We do have empirical grounds for the conclusions reached by source critics (see also here). The notion that we can't be sure because we don't have the actual pre-edited texts is a naive red herring.

Hallo and welcome!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2013, 09:18 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(19-06-2013 07:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hallo and welcome!

Hallo und danke schön! Wie gehen Sie?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2013, 09:25 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(19-06-2013 09:18 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(19-06-2013 07:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hallo and welcome!

Hallo und danke schön! Wie gehen Sie?

Mark's an aussie not a kraut.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
20-06-2013, 05:52 AM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(19-06-2013 09:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Mark's an aussie not a kraut.

Yeah, I didn't think he was German, I was just playing off the spelling "Hallo." Didn't know that's how they say it in Australia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2013, 07:13 AM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(20-06-2013 05:52 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(19-06-2013 09:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Mark's an aussie not a kraut.

Yeah, I didn't think he was German, I was just playing off the spelling "Hallo." Didn't know that's how they say it in Australia.

What. You live under a rock ?
"G'day mate"
Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-06-2013, 03:29 AM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(19-06-2013 09:18 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(19-06-2013 07:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hallo and welcome!

Hallo und danke schön! Wie gehen Sie?

G'day mate!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Quote:PJ obviously doesn't know what the documentary hypothesis is. Why is he talking about the book of Revelation? Why is he talking about Jesus? These topics have nothing to do with the documentary hypothesis. I'm glad he's too gutless to debate me. It would be like arguing with a 2 year old.

I addressed this on another thread, Mark. I mentioned Revelation and the NT as a spoof at how silly DH is. Further, I explained in detail that I was schooled in DH and its refutation over 20 years ago.

I'll give you ANOTHER example to chew on. BB says the Kings and Chronicles are competing narratives, one demonstrating the superiority of the Northern tribes and the other, the excellency of the Judean line through Solomon and David. Then WHY do the books refer to one another in citations as specific as, for example, 1 Kings 14:19: "And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel..."?

DH is nonsense for which there is no empirical evidence, only textual conjecture, for which BB keeps making ad populums and appeals to authority.

And what resolution are you considering for a debate at this time?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 01:15 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Hey, PleaseJesus, remember when you pretended to have a retarded brother?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
21-06-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(21-06-2013 01:15 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Hey, PleaseJesus, remember when you pretended to have a retarded brother?

Naw muff's he borrowed his sisters writing about him.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: