From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:46:22 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Oct4.162629@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.130253.202956@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
> writes:                  [stuff deleted]
>>                       (Wellhausen's Redactors hypothesis)
> 
>   But this "New Theory" is not based on the first step.  It has been suggested
> long before people even really knew what archeology was.  There was no analysis
> of the archeological evidence, no assumptions of the trustworthiness or accuracy
> of the Bible, and no assumptions about the places/people/events therin.
> 
>   The hypothesis was entirely based on the observation that the Penteauch
> alternates between 4 distinct writing styles.  Even the most stedfast hebrew
> scholars agree there are at least 3.  The only people who argue about it are the
> people who never bothered to look at the evidence.
> 
>   Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   

I beg to differ that the only people who argue are those who "never bother to
look at the evidence". The Wellhausen theory (proposed by him between
1876-1884) has subsequently been rejected  both by people of conservative and
theological persuasion BECAUSE OF EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

I agree, it IS important to know what a theory says (your veiled implication
that I don't). However it is ALSO important to see HOW a theory EVOLVED, AND in
what ENVIRONMENT it did so. These two points are important to recognise a
PARADIGM SHIFT, the factors that caused it and its subsequent influences,
PARTICULARLY IF THE FACTORS THAT CAUSED IT ARE SUBSEQUENTLY INVALIDATED.

Wellhausen's theory represents such a paradigm shift in the English speaking
world. A part of the enviromental factors was the popularisation of
archaeology.(We can thank Napoleon's Egyptian adventures for that!) However,
more importantly, archaeology DID play a direct role in Wellhausen's theory.
And here I must query your understanding of Wellhausen's theory. W's theory is
important NOT because of its raising of the Documentary hypothesis (that credit
belongs to Jean Astruc and JG Eichhorn more that a century before W) BUT BECAUSE
OF HIS LATE DATING OF THE REDACTORS AND ORIGINAL AUTHORS - and this is EXACTLY
where archaeology plays its part.

It is important to recognise that the archaeological support for W's theory has
subsequently be queried because of more recent archaeological dicoveries.
However as a result of the paradigm shift the wider acceptance of the
identification of the JEPD sources to historically-based cultures is still
maintained INSPITE OF THE INCORRECT BASIS OF WELLHAUSEN'S THESIS.

It is because of THIS that I posted my original objection for using
Wellhausen's JEPD theory to refute Genesis:1-3. My objection still stands.

Apart from subjective interpretations relating to style of authorship, there is
NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE (eg archaeological finds of seperate manuscripts) for
separating the two creation accounts in Gen:1-2, nor for considering Gen 2 to
be a composite of a J and an E source. There has been alot of dicussion in t.o.
on whether Gen1+2 have two seperate sources and thus are two different creation
accounts or have one source and thus represent two different perspectives of
the same account. This discussion will never be resolved until the debators
recognise that they are operating from different paradigms - REFLECTING THE
PARADIGM-SHIFT involved in Wellhausen's JEPD theory. As a scientist I tend to
ask for objective evidence, and I must conclude that AS FAR AS Gen:1-3 GOES,
the evidence is stronger for considering them as one source. How one
interperates this in terms of the evolutionary theory is an entirely different
matter! :-)
Gary

Newsgroups: talk.origins