Talk:Documentary Hypothesis

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. 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. 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.

Sources

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.

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 encylopedia 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 beemn 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).