I'm forbidden from commenting at Triablogue, but that hasn't stopped their continuing inanity.
Commenter Mr Fosi complains:
'Google search results showing that "documentary hypothesis" appears within the syllabi of some classes at "evangelical" schools is not proof of your claim (that I have paraphrased) that it is a "widely accepted hypothesis taught as sound methodology at the majority of evangelical schools".'Here is what I actually wrote:
If you cannot accept that even Evangelical Seminaries teach the documentary hypothesis, then seriously I have to wonder...Did I say that Evangelical seminaries taught the DH as "sound methodology"? No I did not. I said they taught it, which they clearly do - as it is the standard understanding in Biblical scholarship. Certainly many reject it - where they reject anything which contradicts the "truth" of the Bible.
Here is Conservapedia of all sources on the subject: "The great majority of Bible experts accept one or another version of the Documentary Hypothesis. However it is rejected by some Fundamentalists... The Documentary Hypothesis is taught in at most universities and seminaries."
As Fundamentalist scholar Bryant Wood withered
"...in academia it's an established fact that this whole time period is legendary... there’s a strong anti-Bible bias in the academic journals that publish archaeological findings..."Here's more of Mr Fosi, lecturing the ether:
"I bring it up not to ridicule you, but to provide one bit of evidence that, contrary to your fallacious claim, that I have noticed your links. The point here is not that you haven't furnished links or information, but that what you have provided does not appear support the claims you are making."According to his profile, Mr Fosi is "struggling to finish his phd". I hate to think in what.
subscribe to PTET
4 comments:
"Did I say that Evangelical seminaries taught the DH as "sound methodology"? No I did not. I said they taught it, which they clearly do - as it is the standard understanding in Biblical scholarship."
Of course you didn't use those terms, but they represent the paraphrased substance of your argument. "Sound methodology" vs "standard understanding in Biblical scholarship".
"According to his profile, Mr Fosi is "struggling to finish his phd". I hate to think in what."
After how you represented yourself over at TB, I suppose this shot shouldn't be surprising... Still disappointing though.
I dropped by hoping that you would make the most of the invitation to lay out your argument. Too bad, really.
Maybe I'll see you around TB, but I suspect not.
Hi Mr Fosi
Thanks for taking the time to drop by. I really appreciate it.
"Of course you didn't use those terms, but they represent the paraphrased substance of your argument. "Sound methodology" vs "standard understanding in Biblical scholarship".
The documentary hypothesis *is* the standard understanding - the consensus - in Biblical scholarship. Even Conservapedia - a YEC resource - says it is. Even the Fundamentalist Scholar Bryant Wood says that it is. Both think the DH is *wrong* of course - but they recognize that the majority of Bible Scholars hold some form of it to be correct.
"Consensus" does not mean than 100% of people agree with it. It does not mean that there are no disagreements within that consensus. It does not mean that the consensus is not open to challenge to debate.
It would be absurd to say there is not a consensus amongst Biblical Scholars that Jesus was a real person just because some people claim he wasn't; or that there is no consensus amongst biologists that the theory of evolution is essentially correct just because some say it isn't.
You say you took the time to try to understand my argument, but you (a) still keep insisting that I was arguing something I wasn't; and (b) you don't even seem to realize I have been banned from commenting at TB - even tho I say as much in the first line of this very thread.
"After how you represented yourself over at TB, I suppose this shot shouldn't be surprising... Still disappointing though."
Disappointing? Steve Hays at Triablogue deleted my last posts there and banned me from commenting. To any casual reader, it looks as if I left the thread not only without answering Steve's posts - and also that I ran away from your accusation that I had made a claim I couldn't back up.
Steve has deliberately and maliciously misled his readers as to what happened. Even you don't seem to realize what happened.
Here's a clue. In a new thread at Triablogue, Steve Hays crowed about various experts who he said supported Mosaic Authorship of the Old Testament. When I pointed out that a number of these scholars, including Kenneth Kitchen an John Currid both thought much of the early OT was still mythological rather than historical, he threw a hissy fit, deleted my several of my posts, and banned me from commenting at Triablogue.
"I dropped by hoping that you would make the most of the invitation to lay out your argument. Too bad, really."
I have laid out my argument. It's quite odd that you seem to insist that I am arguing something I'm not.
If there's anything at all you'd like to discuss I'd be delighted.
Unfotunately it won't be at TB because, as you didn't seem to have realized, I can't.
Best wishes for your PHD...
P
A very quick quote: "the Vatican itself estimates that 90% of academics in the field of biblical scholarship support [the Documentary Hypothesis]".
Another note. After further research, I realise John Currid does not in fact think that *any* part of the Biblie is mythological - because he holds that "the Bible is absolutely and finally authoritative as the inerrant Word of God".
Whether this means he still can be described as a credible scholar is a different matter...
It's worth pointing out Kenneth Kitchen also thinks the historicity of the OT goes very far back - although he says elements of it, such as the ages of the patriarchs, are "pure myth".
I live and learn...
Post a Comment