Talk:Documentary hypothesis

Well

The page is gradually starting to take shape, slowly but surely. It still has a LOT of work to be done, in analyzing more of the alleged inconsistencies, and providing a section on criticism, as well as another possible section on support or level of support among scholars - I need to think through what else to include. This is a start that I need to work on; and am nowhere near finished, but it's got a basis now anyway. --Joshua Zambrano 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am making sure to source everything heavily as I go along, making the going slow, but it should be worth it. --Joshua Zambrano 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtually all of the "sources" are tendentious, sectarian organizations or publishers. By labeling certain claims "erroneous," the article would appear to fail to adhere to Citizendium's policy of neutrality and objectivity. A tract is not an encyclopedia article. Bruce M. Tindall 01:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtually all of those sources involve credentialed, scholarly research. You may dislike them because they don't provide the material you want, but the credentials for the authors are there. Ultimately, this is not a debate of scholarly vs. unscholarly, but of Biblically-supportive scholars and scholars critical of the Bible. You want to deny voice to those who support the Bible and would provide the alternative viewpoint by calling them 'sectarian' when those on the other side are just as much so. This is certainly better than the lone source that was provided for a much broader topic at the Authors of the Bible page.--Joshua Zambrano 05:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And, on the definition page, to call the theory "un-evidenced" not only is in my opinion another violation of the objectivity policy, but also betrays a serious lack of understanding on the author's part of what constitutes scholarly evidence. I have therefore edited the definition to remove the word. If the author of this article denies that textual criticism has any scholarly validity, in the absence of an original copy of the P, J, etc., manuscripts, then I challenge him to produce an [i]original[/i] copy of Genesis written by the hand of Moses (preferably notarized by Aaron) to support the hypothesis he is attempting to impose on this CZ article. Bruce M. Tindall 02:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because it is un-evidenced. There is zero hard documentary or archaeological evidence to show any of those documents ever existed. They all rely on the highly questionable interpretations of a select group of liberal, Biblically-critical scholars, and whose interpretations can often be shown readily false. Even IF there were inconsistencies, it would not lay claim to the corollary stated, that there were multiple authors. As such, there is zero evidence even if assuming the inconsistencies to be true - which they're not.

As for your challenge, I'll thank you to not try using the Strawman Fallacy on me, since A) I never objected to textual criticism, and B) this doesn't even deal with textual criticism overall, but what is known as higher criticism. You've got your terminology mixed up. --Joshua Zambrano 05:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right that I shouldn't have used the word erroneous though. And even if it is un-evidenced, I shouldn't be putting that in the definition, you're right. I will avoid using such descriptors from now on. The theory annoys me, something I've stated, but I did let myself use terms like that I shouldn't have, without realizing it. I will be more careful from now on. I still stand by my sources though, which I think are perfectly suitable. I'll remove the term 'erroneously' from the article. --Joshua Zambrano 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, please provide specific proposals for sources that you think should be included, and I'd be happy to reference them. I have a lot of sources I'm looking at right now, just trying to sort through all the information on this subject, and haven't yet put them in. Right now there's so much, I'm just trying to figure out how to organize it all. I knew when I started the project it would be a huge subject to tackle. --Joshua Zambrano 05:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What makes it tough is that each one of these alleged inconsistencies is a subject in itself. Now, I could address each one of them easily enough by my own logic and reasoning, but as a former Wikipedian, I believe in trying to show where it is reliably sourced elsewhere, and thus must comb through research papers constantly to try and represent the views of both sides. And to do this on each statement made is tedious; trying to ascertain what the primary arguments for both sides are on each issue, as well as how to source them. I am also trying to make sure I don't neglect any valid talking points or lines of logic for either side. --Joshua Zambrano 05:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)--Joshua Zambrano 05:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to show what I mean about the bad reasoning, I've put sections on the Exodus 24 and Genesis 6-9 sections on the page. I would've preferred to put a lot of sources showing this reasoning is sourced elsewhere first, rather than my own words, but it shows what I mean about the poor reading comprehension. Zelkowitz is just not able to read the text and understand it at a basic level, unable to recognize the 40 days referred to the rain specifically, and the 150 days to the flood waters, and for Exodus 24, assuming that Moses being asked to go up to the mountain was the same as him going up, and not recognizing the key word 'mount' in v. 12 showing that Moses was being asked to ascend either to the mountain or mountain top, and that they'd been asked to go somewhere lower before this. Like I said, basic reading comprehension. I feel silly pointing this stuff out, frankly. It should be obvious. --Joshua Zambrano 06:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Also at issue is going to be what Zelkewitz calls "simplest explanations". He repeatedly says things like, "The simplest explanation is that the compiler of the books of Samuel used more than one already existing account of the origins of the monarchy, and that these accounts did not agree among themselves" and "Where this kind of repetition is found, the simplest explanation is often that two versions of the same story have both been allowed to remain in the finished form of the book, unreconciled with each other."

Now, as I can easily show, he doesn't even have the actual contradictions right, since he can't even read the text well enough to note the details a middle schooler should be able to recognize from a straight-forward reading. But even then, the conclusions made don't even follow. Such a conclusion isn't the only or even the simplest explanation available. As has been shown, he failed to recognize the simplest explanation from a straightforward reading of the text each time, but even then, there would be alternate explanations. Repetition for example has long been a key to story-telling, in making sure details are remembered. To say the mere fact of repetition is evidence of multiple authors is of course erroneous. It could also indicate flaws in textual transmission, forgetfulness or mental instability, a lack of recognizing key wording in the original Hebrew text, use of an introduction/overview per Genesis 1, or any other number of causes.

The best I've seen the argument put revealing how bad the set of flawed assumptions at the root of the theory is, is here:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/09/24/The-Documentary-Hypothesis.aspx#Article

The article points to a number of underlying presuppositions by the Documentary Hypothesis, that there was an evolutionary, linear approach to Israelite history (Wellhausen built his theory on a now-discredited evolutionary philosophy by Hegel), that the texts could be separated on the mere basis of style, that the redactors would even use a simple "cut and paste" style to put their documents together (ludicrous), and, given the vast cultural differences now existing, that the early framers of the Documentary Hypothesis thought they could figure out the purposes and methods of the redactors while the redactors themselves didn't notice. At some point, I want to put this into the criticisms section, but I figured if I put it in without heavier sourcing, you or others will say I'm simply providing a 'sectarian' source, so I wanted some additional sourcing before mentioning these very obvious flaws of the Documentary Hypothesis. --Joshua Zambrano 07:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)--Joshua Zambrano 07:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the only reason I didn't put these points in earlier is I like to move slowly, sourcing everything as I go to avoid all possible objections pertaining to sourcing, with everything said backed up as irrefutably as possible. Otherwise I could've included it all a day or 2 ago. But I recognize some will be inclined to write it off as being extraordinary claims unless sources are likewise extraordinary, so I wanted to provide writing only which I could back up very strongly at the time. --Joshua Zambrano 07:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)