From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:15:36 +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:
>>                       (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 about Wellhausen's theory "are
those who never bothered to look at the evidence". There are anumber of both
conservative and liberal theologians who disgree with Wellhausen's thesis
BECAUSE they have looked at the evidence.

I agree that it is important to know what a particular theory says (your veiled
implication that I don't), BUT it is ALSO important to see HOW a particular
theory has EVOLVED, to recognise the ENVIROMENT in which it developed (ie.
influences affecting its development) AND its own subsequent influences on said
enviroment. Only by  examining these aspects are you able to RECOGNISE a
PARADIGM-SHIFT,  particularly when the basis of theory initiating the shift is
subsquently questioned, and Wellhausen's theory represents such.

Firstly, I wish to point out that Wellhausen's theory is important NOT because
of introducing the sources J and E (that credit goes to Astruc and Eichhorn a
hundred year before), BUT BECAUSE of his late dating of  the sources AND
because of his work being popularised in the English speaking world.

Secondly, I disagree with your statement that archaeology had nothing to do with
the theory (and its subsequent popular acceptance). Three influences to
consider- Hegelian philosophy, the (then) new concept of Darwinian evolution
and archaeology. The first two are fundamental in the subjective concept
(Wellhausen's theory being AN EVOLUTION OF RELIGION), while the objective
evidence for late dating of the different sources was based in archaeological
studies. Furthermore the wide acceptance of W's theory was aided by the
popularisation of archaeology. ( We can thank Napoleon's Egyptian campaign for
that :-) ). However, it is subsequent ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence that has
questioned W's subjective basis. But, because of the paradigm-shift the
acceptance of the compilation of the Pentaeuch from late sources is commonly
held. Hence, specifically refering to Gen:1-3 (what t.o is about), Gen1 is
perceived as being a late account (of P but originally thought of as E), while
Gen2 is perceived as being earlier, being itself the result of compilation of J
and E).

Your view that W's theory was "entirely based" on distinctive writing styles
highlights the weakness of JEPD, subjective interpretation of style and word
use ( the latter especially as YOU don't allow for historical evidence- ie.
archaeology; a position most criticists would disagree with). For example
Varder identified TWENTY NINE different sources for GENESIS ALONE. As a
scientist I ask the question "What OBECTIVE evidence is there to treat the
creation accounts as seperate or one work?" There is no archaeological evidence
to support their separation. As a scientist I ask the question "What is the
basis for the SUBJECTIVE evidence that considers them as seperate or as one?"
The basis is the paradigm from which one operates - whether one considers them
as written by one author, or by many. As a scientist my conclusion is that the
use of Wellhausen's theory to validate the evolutionary position against the
creationist is NOT JUSTIFIABLE. There are more valid (objective) grounds on
which to debate the issue of origins.
Gary

 
Newsgroups: talk.origins