Summations Only

Yep, and lots written for it. If you want to address the arguments for it go ahead.

Is that how you saw it? Here is how it looked to me.You claimed that 'the evidence showed...' in a post to me (which you quoted), so I asked you to produce that evidence. My question was very explicit, but when you responded you simply gave me an excuse for not producing based on something Faith said. Given that you made your claim to me, and I asked for clarification, that response appears to me to be chicken do-do. Your mileage may vary.After I pestered you for a source for a few posts, it turns out that you were really referring to a scholarly hypothesis rather than some theory based on a consensus about the evidence anyway.Apparently, simply asking for evidence is wasting time. I appreciate the fact that you finally got around to putting something up, but I'm not going through that stuff again with yet another Biblical author about whom the evidence is likely even sketchier. Again, there are hypotheses, which are someone's putative explanation of facts and then there are hypotheses in name only which have been tested to the point of being theories. In which bucket does the Documentary hypothesis fall?

quote:

---

Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist,

---

Apparently some modern scholars do not reject the tradition.Percy, do you think such statements are conclusive on the matter? I don't find them very persuasive. Unless you are prepared to drag out the primary materials and dissect them, or at least the opinions in question, what is there really to debate? Why would Faith or anyone else change their mind based on the material in that Wikipedia quote.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you talking about the original Hebrew? Do you read Hebrew?ABE: I just read the first few verses of Genesis 1, in English of course. Is there a problem in the English that you can point out? This familiar passage seems to me to be quite consistent in style.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure you don't notice the times this is done to me. I can't count the number of well-thought-out and supported posts I've written that have met with total trashing. And there's only one of me to dozens of you.

Not quite. Just look at politics and science and economics and philosophy and ...Look at Global Warming or oil exploration of fracking or endangered species or ecology or genetic modified foodstuff or ...

You might have been less clear than you think that you were asking for yourself and not Faith, but if not then I certainly didn't misread you on purpose. You can trust that I thought you were requesting that I back up points for Faith, not you, that I thought they'd already been backed up, and that to put further effort into it for Faith would be a waste of time.I understand you have a different view, but I hope we can disagree without it becoming personal. Yes, of course, the fundamentalists for the most part. We were talking about the author of Mark here. Most scholars reject the view that Mark wrote Mark. Characterizing the view shared by most modern scholars as "a few scholars' hypotheses" is, as I said before, "misleadingly minimizing the degree of support for what is a strongly majority view."The same is true of the documentary hypothesis and the other hypotheses it has spawned. Majority scholarship rejects the views of the fundamentalists and adheres to the documentary hypothesis or one of its derivatives, for example, as related in the article Pentateuchal Studies Today: If I can take the liberty of using the term documentary hypotheses to refer to the documentary hypothesis and all its derivatives, it is clear that the documentary hypotheses are not just "a few scholars' hypotheses." It represents by far the most widely held view on Pentateuch origins in the world.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Faith,I misspoke, I meant to refer to the opening chapters of the flood, not Genesis. Here's a breakdown between priestly and Yahwist sources: You get the idea. Source is Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?.--Percy

Dean Anderson once put up a Web page of the KJV Pentateuch with each word colored according to which of four sources the word was attributed. Then he took it down for some reason. He gave me a copy but withheld permission to put it on the Web.It's a shame. Whatever you think of the DH in general or whichever DH variant he chose, it is a very effective presentation with information contained in the blocks or lines or dots of color, and the ability to easily read each source separately.

I did find this that is based on Richard Friedman: --Percy

Is this the way a "hypothesis" should be described?ABE: Interestingly that site says the Documentary Hypothesis is pretty much dead now, having been replaced by other hypotheses. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That has been pointed out several times in this thread Faith.Historical criticism began the process; for example the fact that neither of the Biblical Floods ever happened was about the first breakthrough.But today there is Documentary Criticism (looking at sources and timing), Textual Criticism (documenting all the contradictions), and the importance of Redaction Criticism.Just as with evolution, every new line of inquiry, every new technology, every new discovery just plain adds to the evidence that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God.

I think it's been mentioned at least several times in this thread that the documentary hypothesis has spawned more detailed hypotheses that also postulate multiple authors, something the Wikipedia page you just cited also explains. A few messages ago I proposed referring to the whole shebang as documentary hypotheses, but maybe multiple author hypotheses would be a better term.That the Pentateuch is the result of multiple authors over a long period of time is the dominant hypothesis of Pentateuch origins in the world today.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Actually there seem to be fewer authors since two were combined, though perhaps I didn't read far enough. More, fewer, what does it matter.Nobody of course bothered to notice that the description I noted is not the way one properly refers to an hypothesis. Reminds me of the ToE where all the terminology is put in terms of absolute fact when it's just a lot of unprovable suppositions. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The combining of separate documents into the main text wouldn't be particularly a problem in itself, since Moses could have used many means in putting together the Pentateuch, the problem is denying Moses as the author or responsible overseer of the work, and of course changing the dating. Changing the dating is a great crime of vandalism against God's word as it completely mangles the content of many of the books, both historical and prophetic books, but Daniel in particular. This is unforgiveable.

It's far from just supposition Faith.The Hypothesis is basically "Is there evidence that the Bible is the words of men instead of the inerrant word of God?"The answer is "Yup, lots and lost of evidence in support of the former but no evidence to support the later.So the question is not about supposition but rather evidence.As I have pointed out to you the first big type of evidence was historical and factual; that the earth revolved around the Sun and the Earth was younger than the Sun. Next came the overwhelming evidence that the Biblical floods never happened.So what is seen is not supposition but rather conclusions based on evidence.Over time additional lines of inquiry were based on additional evidence and not simply suppositions. We've covered many of those lines of evidence and the facts that support conclusions in this very thread. What was found was that every new technology, every new discovery, provided additional evidence that the Bible is just the words of men.