Re: [asa] JDEP

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Mon Sep 04 2006 - 14:24:31 EDT

On 9/3/2006, wrote:

The concensus among historians and archeologists is that there were
no patriarchs. .."

On 9/4/2006, wrote:

>In a message dated 9/3/2006 8:00:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> writes:

>@ Correction: "The consensus among historians and archeologists
>----who are biased in a certain direction ------is that there were
>no patriarchs."
>That's an accusation... not a fact. ..

@ "Accusation"????? If you, or those whom you choose to cite,
choose to "feel accused", that's your prerogative.

I'm not a legalist who would attempt to lay guilt-trips on anyone,
however, so attributing such motives to someone like me is
laughable. Maybe you haven't noticed, but my favorite C.S.Lewis
quote is the one concerning "moral busybodies" (nka "progressives"),
who torment others day and night because they have the approval of
---- here it comes sports fans --- their own conscience.

BTW - show me the names of "thinking" people who aren't biased in one
direction or another regarding any substantive matter.

Are those crickets I hear chirping?

>.. don't accuse me of bias and then provide snips from a guy who has
>one of the most unequivocally biased positions I've ever read. He's
>created two warring camps here. ".....But Abraham said, 'They
>have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said,
>'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead,
>they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and
>the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise
>from the dead.'" ~ Jesus Christ (] Luke 16:19-31 [)
>.. [He] does not even include me in his categories. I have an
>objective view of religion and have no difficulty putting my faith
>in Christ. Where am I above? ~ rich faussette

@ You tell me. :)

~ Janice ....."This paper will, hopefully, demonstrate that at the
root of the documentary hypothesis there is not a firmly established,
historically defensible presentation of the fragmentary nature of the
Torah. Rather, [JDEP] at its root is a theory based on the
application of the naturalistic assumptions of seventeenth and
eighteenth century humanists to the Biblical text. As Walter Kaiser
points out, some modern proponents of the documentary hypothesis
would like to wish that foundation does not exist, however it must
exist for them, or the whole building collapses. ..

...The Elimination of the Supernatural

Wellhausen's position on the place of the supernatural and divine
revelation does not seem to be as cut-and-dried as it might be to
many of his modern-day followers. In his Prolegomena, he does not
deny the existence of God, nor does he reject the claims of the Old
Testament writers to having received the Word of God. On the other
hand, his obvious willingness to move outside the Scriptures to find
naturalistic answers to his questions that were, in many ways,
contrary to the Scriptures shows, at best, a highly deficient view of
the authority of the Word of God. Indeed, to arrive at the
conclusions he arrived at, one would have to abandon completely the
notion of God-breathed Scripture, given the amount of error, myth,
and misrepresentation that his view necessarily
demands. Nevertheless, W. Robertson Smith, in his introduction to
the English translation of the Prolegomena states quite emphatically
that the book is for the person "who has faith enough to see the hand
of God as clearly in a long providential development as in a sudden miracle."

What is undeniable, however, is that the foundation of the
documentary hypothesis is heavily influenced by naturalistic,
humanistic philosophy. Orr reports the view of Keunen, who stated
that the religion of Israel is one of many religions, and not
anything more; this is, apparently, the view of "modern theological
science." In his work, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, Keunen states:
So soon as we derive a separate part of Israel's religious life
directly from God, and allow the supernatural or immediate revelation
to intervene in even one single point, so long also our view of the
whole continues to be incorrect... It is the supposition of a natural
development alone which accounts for all the phenomena
In other words, the moment one admits the intervention of special
revelation or the supernatural into the study of the Israel's
religious history, it is at that moment that one is guaranteed to
come up with erroneous results. It is only by considering religious
history along natural processes of development that one is, according
to Keunen, guaranteed to come up with satisfactory results. This
view was also expressed by Pfeiffer: "The Old Testament owes its
origin to the religious aspirations of the Jews."

Prior to Pfeiffer and Keunen, Comte (1798-1857), representing what
was known as the "Positivist" approach, applied a methodology to the
study of religion that was founded on the premise that science, with
its verifiable laws of succession and resemblance, can explain all
natural phenomena without the need to appeal to the supernatural. It
is evident that this approach of "positive science" greatly
influenced the thinking of the - [you know what sort of] - higher
critics of the nineteenth century.

In short, the documentary hypothesis emerged out of a time of growing
emphasis on the centrality of man in history and nature. This
thought found its apex with Darwin's speculations on evolution, and
this incorporated itself with the view of history adopted by the
proponents of this hypothesis. Such an emphasis on the importance of
rationalistic thought and the preeminence of man could not tolerate a
view of history that placed God in Sovereign control, and that
allowed for His guidance and intervention in the affairs of men.
Their rejection of the supernatural was based on the assumption that
all things happen as a result of natural phenomena, and therefore
they could be assured of a natural explanation for everything.

The Evolution of Religion ... [snip] Read on:

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 4 14:25:06 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 04 2006 - 14:25:06 EDT