Scholarship & Faith - John Gee interview

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess these are possibilities that technically no-one can rule out, but to me it just seems like wild speculation not based on any actual evidence.  

That is what Gee is saying about source-criticism of the Pentateuch. All of this speculation with yet not one single supporting document unearthed. 

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That is what Gee is saying about source-criticism of the Pentateuch. All of this speculation with yet not one single supporting document unearthed. 

Glenn

What's funny to me is that this argument about no supporting documentation is not an argument that helps the Moses authorship theory at all.  There is no supporting evidence documenting Moses authorship and nothing to support the historicity of the Moses story even.  

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/01/mosaic-authoriship-creating-history-creating-torah/

Source textual criticism has established methodology that is accepted and respected by scholars, to argue against the discipline is not an argument from an evidence based position.  

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Source textual criticism has established methodology that is accepted and respected by scholars, to argue against the discipline is not an argument from an evidence based position.  

That is okay. It is accepted and respected by many scholars. It is still a theory. Actually it is a hypothesis. And the evidence for it is the text itself. Is it testable? Has it been tested? I have tried to find anything on that and have yet to dig anything up. And, as noted, there are still scholars that have different opinions. Especially across the waters to the east.

I do know of one time that it was sort of tested. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/review/9/2/S00001-Editors_Introduction_Through_a_Glass_Darkly.html

Glenn

Edited October 17, 2017 by Glenn101

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

That is okay. It is accepted and respected by many scholars. It is still a theory. Actually it is a hypothesis. And the evidence for it is the text itself. Is it testable? Has it been tested? I have tried to find anything on that and have yet to dig anything up. And, as noted, there are still scholars that have different opinions. Especially across the waters to the east.

I do know of one time that it was sort of tested. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/review/9/2/S00001-Editors_Introduction_Through_a_Glass_Darkly.html

Glenn

Trying to argue from a perfectionist position means you are trying to find evidence to support your already established opinion, rather than go along with mainstream scholarship.  Sorry, this isn't reasonable.  

I'm no expert on source criticism, so I'm not going to spend time picking apart apologetic arguments that try to poke holes in scholarly consensus.  This is a tactic of those that want to deny the mainstream.  You see it with climate change deniers, you see it with religious apologetics, you see it in politics.  You have a worldview, it's not supported by the evidence or the scholarship, just admit that and let's move on.

I'm fine with faith based beliefs, what I don't respect is taking your faith and trying to twist scholarship to support your beliefs. 

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Trying to argue from a perfectionist position means you are trying to find evidence to support your already established opinion, rather than go along with mainstream scholarship.  Sorry, this isn't reasonable.  

I'm no expert on source criticism, so I'm not going to spend time picking apart apologetic arguments that try to poke holes in scholarly consensus.  This is a tactic of those that want to deny the mainstream.  You see it with climate change deniers, you see it with religious apologetics, you see it in politics.  You have a worldview, it's not supported by the evidence or the scholarship, just admit that and let's move on.

I'm fine with faith based beliefs, what I don't respect is taking your faith and trying to twist scholarship to support your beliefs. 

I said nothing about faith. I was asking if the hypothesis is testable. If it had been tested. Keeping my questions strictly on a secular level. Comparing climate change deniers to people who disagree with source criticism is comparing apples and pears. There is pretty solid, empirical evidence for climate change. You are placing great faith in something for which there is no consensus and no impirical evidence and seemingly refuse to look at anything that shines a negative light on the subject. 

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I said nothing about faith. I was asking if the hypothesis is testable. If it had been tested. Keeping my questions strictly on a secular level. Comparing climate change deniers to people who disagree with source criticism is comparing apples and pears. There is pretty solid, empirical evidence for climate change. You are placing great faith in something for which there is no consensus and no impirical evidence and seemingly refuse to look at anything that shines a negative light on the subject. 

Glenn

There are many points about the DH that are agreed upon by the mainstream of scholars.  That is what I'm saying.  For you to claim "no consensus" is ignorant of the scholarship.  All the details aren't agreed upon, but many elements are, and there is empirical evidence, just not evidence that meets your standard.  You're essentially trying to reject an entire discipline and that shows your bias.  

What is absolutely clear is that no significant movement in the scholarly community is promoting the Moses authorship theory, that's strongly in the apologetic/religious faith community camp.  

[Glenn101]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are many points about the DH that are agreed upon by the mainstream of scholars.  That is what I'm saying.  For you to claim "no consensus" is ignorant of the scholarship.  All the details aren't agreed upon, but many elements are, and there is empirical evidence, just not evidence that meets your standard.  You're essentially trying to reject an entire discipline and that shows your bias.  

What is absolutely clear is that no significant movement in the scholarly community is promoting the Moses authorship theory, that's strongly in the apologetic/religious faith community camp.  

Hope you keep harping on my bias but you are hardly less biased in the opposite direction. I am not ignorant of the scholarship on the subject. You will find that the European Community, while not completely rejecting the DH, have been questioning some of the assumptions and conclusions that form the basis of the DH. That is not a consensus.

As for empirical for a standard I try to use the standard dictionary definition.

From Dictionary.com
empirical
[em-pir-i-kuh l] 
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

There is no part of that definition that is part of the DH. The only test that I have found thus far, which you have not acknowledged, show that trying to discern interpolations, redactions, etc. in a text has a low success rate. And I am biased?

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Hope you keep harping on my bias but you are hardly less biased in the opposite direction. I am not ignorant of the scholarship on the subject. You will find that the European Community, while not completely rejecting the DH, have been questioning some of the assumptions and conclusions that form the basis of the DH. That is not a consensus.

As for empirical for a standard I try to use the standard dictionary definition.

From Dictionary.com
empirical
[em-pir-i-kuh l] 
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

There is no part of that definition that is part of the DH. The only test that I have found thus far, which you have not acknowledged, show that trying to discern interpolations, redactions, etc. in a text has a low success rate. And I am biased?

Glenn

I know everyone is biased to one degree or another, and that is part of the challenge is logically thinking through the biases we bring to the table.  What you seem to be wanting to do is dismiss the whole discipline of biblical source criticism based on some differences in particulars, but even those European scholars that you reference, I would imagine accept the basic ideas about the time the text was written and that multiple authors wrote the text.  I imagine none of them are promoting a Moses authorship or are criticizing the entire discipline.  

As for your dictionary definition of empirical, it sounds like this completely meets the standards for that definition.  What about source criticism isn't derived from the experiences these scholars have with studying the texts.  Maybe I don't understand how you are using this word in this context specifically.  

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I know everyone is biased to one degree or another, and that is part of the challenge is logically thinking through the biases we bring to the table.  What you seem to be wanting to do is dismiss the whole discipline of biblical source criticism based on some differences in particulars, but even those European scholars that you reference, I would imagine accept the basic ideas about the time the text was written and that multiple authors wrote the text.  I imagine none of them are promoting a Moses authorship or are criticizing the entire discipline.  

As for your dictionary definition of empirical, it sounds like this completely meets the standards for that definition.  What about source criticism isn't derived from the experiences these scholars have with studying the texts.  Maybe I don't understand how you are using this word in this context specifically.  

hope, I am not going to take this any further. I have stated a couple of reasons I have reservations about source criticism of the Pentateuch that are not faith related. But I am no more of an expert on the matter than you. There are parts of it that I do not really have a problem with. I am looking at the development of computer based textual analysis to maybe shed some light on some aspects of the situation but do not believe that can fully resolve all of the issues.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

hope, I am not going to take this any further. I have stated a couple of reasons I have reservations about source criticism of the Pentateuch that are not faith related. But I am no more of an expert on the matter than you. There are parts of it that I do not really have a problem with. I am looking at the development of computer based textual analysis to maybe shed some light on some aspects of the situation but do not believe that can fully resolve all of the issues.

Glenn

Fair enough, I wish you well on your studies.  If you come across any new insights, feel free to share, and I'll do the same.  

[Ryan Dahle]

Here is Stephen Smoot's take on this issue from his blog: 

"Gee does not dispute that the author of Genesis “had some access to written or oral sources,” but “whether or not source criticism can correctly identify those sources” (p. 137). Gee is skeptical that source critics are capable of doing such, even going so far as insisting that “if one accepts the historicity of the Book of Abraham, then one cannot accept the validity of source criticism. Likewise, if one accepts the validity of source criticism, then one cannot accept the historicity of the Book of Abraham. The two are incompatible” (p. 138). While I am personally not entirely sure that the two are incompatible, Gee’s bigger point is one worth considering: when it comes to the Book of Abraham, do we grant the text any evidentiary precedence against other theories? And, if so, how much?"

I'm not entirely sure what I think of the documentary hypothesis myself. I don't know enough about the details. But I felt like Jeff Lindsay's overview of the literature and opinions on the subject was a helpful primer for me, at least as far as the Documentary Hypothesis relates to the expanded LDS scriptural canon: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dream-map-part-2-of-2/