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. However, trying to get all the sourcing in place to prove each point one at a time is tedious and boring. --Joshua Zambrano 07:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that there is no significant independent scholarship in favour of Mosaic authorship. That is, the only scholars who argue in favour of it are those who are already committed to it as a religious dogma and then go about trying to find arguments for it. Those independent scholars who reject the DH do so in favour of more radical ideas, e.g. that the patriarchs were invented in the Babylonian exile. I don't know how significant their numbers are.

As you mention Samuel, it may be worth pointing out that there are substantial differences between the Masoretic Hebrew text, whose earliest surviving manuscripts are not much more than a thousand years old, and the Greek version, with manuscripts several centuries older. I'm not sure offhand, but I think the Dead Sea scroll fragments tend to support the Greek. Peter Jackson 10:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I dislike is the usage of that term, "independent scholarship". Why does it matter if scholarship is independent, in relation to this debate? I've stated already my belief this divides into scholarship that is Biblical critical and Biblically supportive, and suspect there's going to be little in between since, as a more specialized topic, those engaging in it are often going to have an agenda, whether one way, or the other. Clearly there is scholarship on both sides, why do you want to discard that which supports the Bible? One could also make the case that "the only scholars who argue in favor of the Documentary Hypothesis are already committed to it as an anti-religious dogma and then go about trying to find arguments for it." That the agenda could be finding fault with the Bible is only more evidenced by the flawed reasoning behind alleged inconsistencies by said scholars, which is not the mark of an objective, independent scholar, but a biased one grasping at straws to prove their theory of choice.

For example, take the summary that Zelkowitz says at the end of his paper:

"Most critical bible scholars, however, accept the principle of multiple authorship, and Wellhausen's identification of four basic accounts."

By using the modifier "critical" he can conveniently narrow the subject to only those critical of the Bible, and thus exclude mentioning nearly all scholars who are supportive of Mosaic authorship. For example, the term "critical scholar" is explained at the blog, "Debunking Christianity", as according to Jon Levenson, those who "are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty." The problem with this is the one writing such a definition is likely to interpret anyone who considers the Bible authoritative, "intellectually dishonest" and "uncritical" for giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, a large number of scholars who are in disagreement with the hypothesis are subtly implied as unworthy of inclusion in the discussion, by use of such adjectives "independent" and "critical".

My position is that the whole of academia should be referenced when addressing whether the hypothesis is mainstream and has general support among scholars, not just those critical of the Bible. --Joshua Zambrano 19:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not what "critical" means. It simply means those who don't just blindly accept dogmas but actually examine the evidence with an open mind.

The fact is that fundamentalists' arguments convince nobody but themselves. The reverse is not true. There's the well-known example pf Bishop Colenso, who went as a missionary to the Zulus. He handed out Bibles, which they studied and came back with lots of awkward questions. They eventually convinced him you couldn't take the Bible literally. And the Vatican, not usually regarded as ahotbed of liberalism, abandoned the dogma of Mosaic authorship decades ago.

What do you mean by "the whole of academia"? There are all sorts of universities. There's the Protestant fundamentalist Bob Jones university. There's presumably a Muslim fundamentalist university in Saudi Arabia, where the religious authorities, last I heard, maintained the earth is flat. In India you can get a degree in astrology. Does Citizendium regard all these as equal? I don't think so. I think it has to work on a concept of an academic mainstream.

I'll start a new section below for some references. Peter Jackson 11:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pentateuch

In the opening paragraph, a 'Pentateuch' is referred to. What is this? Could it be explained in a parenthesis or with a link? I am of the opinion that the opening paragraph of any article should be accessible to a reasonably intelligent and well-educated person, without following any links.

Otherwise, good job with the article Johan A. Förberg 19:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good point, it is internally linked in the Traditional Views section, but not in the Lede, so I will substitute both pairs of wording. Thanks for the comments about the article!

Also, I really would be happy to include any sources supportive of the Documentary Hypothesis if anyone wants to provide them. I'm actually having a tough time finding online sources supportive of it! It is far easier to find scholarly sourcing that is critical of it online, than that is supportive, at least from what I'm seeing. It's actually slowing down the writing of the article, because I dislike providing just sources critical of the Documentary Hypothesis, and am looking for more online, readily verifiable sources that present its view positively, and am having problems finding them. I'm finding no shortage of sources that are critical of it though. --Joshua Zambrano 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I finally found a source for one of Friedman's works, "Who Wrote the Bible?", online. Friedman seems to be the driving force behind recent support for the Documentary Hypothesis, and I'm recognizing more and more that other supporters of it often just repeat his arguments. The work will now be cited throughout the article. --Joshua Zambrano 01:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources need not be online. The best sources should be given even if they are not freely available. --Peter Schmitt 01:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Standard reference books from a leading academic publisher.

Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, 1996, page 148:

Certainly few would wish to return to the pre-19th-cent. view that the entire *Pentateuch was written by Moses ...

page 288:

Pentateuch ... by modern scholarship regarded as a compilation of *sources from different dates.

Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, page 246:

The development of the book of Genesis was a long process extended over centuries

page 580:

... it has long been recognized that he [i.e. Moses] cannot have been the author ...

same page:

The overwhelming tendency has been to expalin the origin of the Pentateuch as the outcame of a process of compilation of various documents from different periods in Israelite history.

same page again:

No item in the foregoing reconstruction [i.e. the standard documentary hypothesis] remains unchallenged, and indeed the theory as a whole can no longer be called the consensus view; nevertheless, no other theory has gained any wide support ...

Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible, 2001, page 3:

... the traditional views of authorship were abandoned from the late eighteenth century onwards in academic scholarship

Peter Jackson 11:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I just saw this. I will put these references in the article as primary evidence that the DH has academic consensus. I would think an appropriate place might be ahead of this part in the lede:

"The hypothesis is entirely interpretive, and has no historical evidence supporting claims for sourcing from multiple documents, apart from the analysis of the Bible undertaken by the hypothesis.[5] The topic is one of the most "hotly debated" in the field of Biblical scholarship,[6] and the details of the hypothesis strongly debated even among those who support it, with younger scholars abandoning it for other approaches."

I am thinking a good sentence would be, "The Oxford Dictionary of the Bible declares the Documentary Hypothesis as authoritatively recognized since the 19th century, and while recognizing recent challenges deny it claims to being the consensus view, asserts no other theory has gained widespread support in its place."

Thanks for bringing these sources to light! Let me know how you best think this should be worded and included in the article, as I'm happy to put the mention prominently in the Lede. In fact, one of those paragraphs you provided might be a good choice as a quote for the Lede, let me know if you have any preferences. I'm happy to revise the article to include the information, and am looking for ideas on how best to go about this. --Joshua Zambrano 01:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to edit boldly and get the change implemented, as well as sources you provided, and it probably merits mention elsewhere in the article too with a bit more detail. Maybe a section explaining consensus view or something. Again though, would like to hear your feedback on how to get this best presented in the article. --Joshua Zambrano 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just included the references, and mentioned in the edit history notes that they're your work as well, when making the edit. I've not only placed the prominently in the Lede, but have also created a subsection mentioning in the Background section titled 'Established Theory'. I think one of the encyclopedic quotes you gave might be a good choice for a Lede quotation, and am considering which one might be best. I wouldn't be averse to seeing a few more featured in the new Established Theory sub-section if you want, or more info provided about the quotes there. Happy to work to achieve consensus in presenting the material, let me know how you want to move forward with this. --Joshua Zambrano 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)--Joshua Zambrano 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)