Talk:Documentary Hypothesis

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

conservative view

Conservative Biblical scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen and Gleason Archer and others give various arguments on why the Documentary Hypothesis is not supported by any evidence and also ignores evidence that Moses wrote the Torah. [1][2][3][4][5] [6] In addition, Dr. Yohanan Aharoni argues that archaeological discoveries shows that later authors or editors could not have put together or invented the Torah stories hundreds of years after they happened. [7] Christian apologist Josh McDowell in his work New Evidence that Demands a Verdict discusses the development of the Documentary Hypothesis and its presuppositions, discusses various components of the Documentary hypothesis why scholars believe they are invalid, and lastly cites evidence that scholars believe argue for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. [8]


We need some better sourcing for this article, and less dogma. Where did it come from? RJJensen 15:52, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Response from Latent. It was only 7 minutes from the time I entered this article into Conservapedia and the time of appearance of your comment, at which time I was trying to enter the explanation below about the source:
! This article or part thereof was copied from CreationWiki but the copied text was originally written by me, Latent, (under the name Latent) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png
I wonder if you were able to read the article in that short a time. I also wonder why you thought the evidence of other cultures having an early belief in monotheism was irrelevant, so that you deleted it. It seems relevant to me.Latent 16:01, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
The "conservative view" at the top of the page was written back in 2007 by some unidentified person before the article was created. I left it intact.Latent 16:02, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
I see further that you put something at the top that would make us believe that it is only "some Fundamentalists" who reject the Documentary Hypothesis. I would have expected such a sweeping and undocumented statement from Wikipedia. I am surprised to find it in Conservapedia. The same about your truncation of the concluding statement: how do you know that the majority of seminaries teach it? Should not this be modified at least by saying that conservative seminaries teach it, but also show that it is not scientifically respecatble? Latent 16:07, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for clarification on the source. This encyclopedia caters to conservatives of all theological viewpoints, not just Fundamentalists. This article has to follow suit. Most of the sources used are many decades old, which is a warning sign that it is not current. As for the majority of seminaries, I actually have done some research on this topic and looked at syllabi from numerous denominations. (I have been writing the articles on many different denominations and always check on what they teach re the OT). As for "primitive" --anthropologists only have seen 19-20th century societies--not those form 2500+ years ago. (Primitive = simple tools, it does not mean 3000 years old). RJJensen 16:17, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
You did not address my point. It was not saying that Conservapedia is expected to be only for "Fundamentalists." It was that it is not just "some Fundamentalists" reject the Documentary Hypothesis. It is also now rejected by a signficant number of liberal scholars, and also by people like Cyrus Gordon who recognized the continual conflicts produced against its theories as ancient inscriptions were translated and understood. I recognized that for some people (are you one of them?) the term "Fundamentalist" is a pejorative term -- was that the reason you put it here? How about substituting "those who believe, with Jesus and the apostles, in the integrity of Scripture"? That would be an accurate statement; could it be substituted? I don't think you won't let that be put in.
Regarding "Primitive": Certainly these tribes are "modern" in the sense that they are living in the 21st century. But the point is that their most early beliefs, going back we don't know how many centuries or millenia (many of them refer back to the time of their first migration to their present homeland) attest to an early belief in one God. My original paragraph that you omitted is therefore relevant to this discussion of Documentary Hypothesis, since the Hypothesis has always held that monotheism "evolved" as a central tenet. Is this presupposition of the Documentary Hypothesis to be held unfalsifiable by the actual examination of ancient tribal histories and ancient historical texts? See the Monotheism article I just added to to find more explanation, and which also challenges the idea of an evolutionary development or religion that is firmly entrenched in Wikipedia and other liberal sources. I think these ideas should be falisfiable, and evidence that is contrary to its tenets should be allowed to be stated, with appropriate scholarly references.Latent 16:47, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
"is also now rejected by a signficant number of liberal scholars" -- needs a bit of proof, I suggest. What primitive tribes believe 4000 of years ago is an interesting question --archaeologists spend a great deal of time on it--and most of the time they come up with polytheism. The previous text seems to say that our encyclopedia should a) be based on scientific evidence and b) be based on Fundamentalist beliefs that depend very little indeed on scientific evidence, and which are not accepted by most Christians and c) must assume that beliefs and ideas do not evolve. RJJensen 19:49, 3 June 2009 (EDT)



Article I wrote

I wrote an article for Citizendium on this subject that can be merged in here if any of it might be useful. For the most part I think this article is pretty good though it needs more sources. Here's the one I wrote:

I'm not going to try and merge mine in since this one, like I said, is passable, I'll just mention it for now, since the one I wrote was very good also. --Jzyehoshua 03:09, 21 July 2012 (EDT)