Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: daved@westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Documentary Hypothesis: the State of the Question? Message-ID: Date: 17 Nov 90 04:50:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 27 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I'm arguing the plausibility of the Documentary Hypothesis (apropos of Genesis-- the Yavist, the Elohist, etc.) with a Biblical conservative (but not a fundamentalist (?) or a literalist). What is the best evidence for the hypothesis? 'Scholarly consensus' doesn't seem to get us anywhere. If anyone has some recent (1970 - ) citations, these would be indeed useful. Dave Davis QOTD: "We should consider it as one of the most astonishing errors of the present age that so many people listen to the words of pseudoprophets who, in place of the dogmas of religion offer scientific dogmas with medieval impatience but without historical justification." --Baron Lorand von Eotvos [There's a class of book called Introduction to [Old|New] Testament. They are typically used in first semester college OT and NT courses. I suggest finding a University or seminary bookstore and looking at what they use in the OT or NT course. (If a seminary, make sure it isn't a fundamentalist one, given what you are looking for.) That's probably more expeditious than giving you a specific book, which you'd probably have to order. A commentary on Genesis, such as Speiser's in the Anchor Bible (the one I happen to have at home) will of course also deal with this issue, but typically the Introductions will give more justification of methodology. --clh]