Morphemics

Hi.. I noticed your trackback, so I dropped by to see what you have to say. I believe that you have inadvertently been guilty of assuming your conclusion here. Although I believe you are doing so innocently, I think AiG is elevating doctrine over truth. that's the practice that I complained of in my post.

If you make any faith assumptions about the veracity of Bible claims, then the discussion of the evidence for and against Mosaic authorship can be finished when all of the scripture has been looked at.

If you claim that evidence of Moses' illiteracy would falsifify the verbal plenary model, then you are not using that model as an assumption. Instead, you are subjecting that model to a falsification test (one that it passes, in this case). If you are not assuming that the rest of the Bible is "true" in any literal sense, then the traditions that appear in it are only very, very weak evidence of Mosaic authorship (as any ancient tradition might be weak evidence of its subject).

A doctrine assumed on faith simply cannot be falsified.

AiG is defending Mosaic authorship precisely because they wish to advance or defend their doctrines about the Bible. They would not care to give "evidence" of Mosaic authorship, if their doctrines did not require that Moses wrote it because the Bible says so. That is the doctrine they are defending, so it cannot be used as an assumption in their argument.

They could make a case about the internal consistency of their doctrine while assuming their conclusion by showing that each of their doctrines is logically consistent with their assumption. They cannot make a case about the truth of their doctrine while relying on evidence that depends on that very doctrine. In this case, they were making a case for the truth of their doctrine.

Thanks for coming over. First, to AiG. Without defending everything they have to say, I don't think that you've made your case that they elevate doctrine over truth. You will first need to show that the specific 'truth' in question, i.e., the Documentary Hypothesis, is, in fact, true. Since you have stated your intention to do this, I await your next post. Beyond this, you seem to be implying that they are engaged in deliberate prevarication. If so, you should also demonstrate that they believe their own position to be untrue. I will grant poor arguing on their part. It may also be the case that they have no concept of the importance of Mosaic authorship beyond a mere "the Bible says so." I have yet to be convinced of their dishonesty. I don't see the bait and switch tactics of which you accuse them. At most, they're confusing offensive and defensive arguments.

You're welcome to spell it out, but I don't see where I have assumed any conclusions. I freely admit to assuming my major premise, which is the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture, but I have not assumed the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. This is a conclusion validly drawn from the premises. Your first if/then statement is true (assuming that "all of the scripture" means all that is specifically relevant to Mosaic authorship). The next one doesn't follow. There is a difference between the claim that evidence of Moses' illiteracy would falsify the verbal plenary model and the claim that evidence of Moses' illiteracy does falsify the verbal plenary model. The first is hypothetical; the second is actual. If I agree that such evidence does indeed exist, then I cannot consistently assume the verbal, plenary model. However, the mere claim that such evidence would falsify the model is perfectly compatible with a firm belief that no such evidence exists. I believe that my sister's cat is a dumb animal. This assumption would be falsified if the cat were to engage me in conversation. It does not follow because I have outlined conditions for falsification that I no longer assume the cat to be dumb. Any model subjected to a falsification test is always assumed until it fails the test. Your next if/then statement is true; however, I am assuming that the Bible is true in everything that it claims. Consequently, the Bible's endorsement of the Mosaic authorship traditions is all the evidence that I need (although, since we disagree on the major premise, it is not all the evidence that you need).

The statement, "A doctrine assumed on faith simply cannot be falsified," betrays a basic misunderstanding of faith claims. And a perfectly understandable one, considering that a substantial number of the "faithful" exercise their craft with regard to neither evidence nor consequence. Not to mention all the people that accept some form of the faith/reason dichotomy. Faith goes beyond reason, but it is no substitute for reason. The two are complimentary. An honest faith will dare anyone to prove it false. A fundamentalist faith would sooner gouge out its eyes.

I review your initial post and your reply and I realize I have done a horrible job making myself clear... Let me try again.

I think you are conflating axiomatic assumptions, faith assumptions, and what we normally think of as things "known" from science.

Axiomatic assumptions cannot be contradicted by evidence - they define the boundaries of what evidence can possibly demonstrate. Evidence that follows from a set of axiomatic assumptions and related premises are generally spoken of as logical deductions rather than evidence - because they must be true if the system is true.

Faith assumptions lead to faith systems. The whole point of a faith system is to provide a foundation that, for one reason or another, is disagreeable for use as an a priori axiomatic system. For instance, in your words - an honest faith dares you to prove it false - you may want those ideas to be in principle falsifiable. That's one possible reason not to treat a faith system as axiomatic. Another might be because it just doesn't look axiomatic. One might conceivably assume a system where God is considered axiomatically... it seems very uneconomical to assume that God wrote a book, and this book I am holding is the one God wrote. Anyway, it certainly seems deceptive (intentionally or not) to make a deduction from faith and call it evidence. That is similar in kind to making a deduction from scientific evidence, testing it rigorously, then saying that we accept it on faith. It seems very inappropriate to me.

We know about photography in a scientific way. I can make all sorts of successful predictions about what a camera will do, or even how to break one in a hundred interesting ways, because of a scientific understanding of their workings. Therefore, pictures can be evidence.

Did I do a better job with my clarity that time? And thanks for the welcome, by the way. It's nice to meet you, too.

One further clarification... Faith systems are chosen as a foundation because they are undesireable as axiomatic systems, and because it is undesireable to rely upon evidence. As my wife tells me, there is evidence for (insert Doctrine here), but you have to believe by faith. The two words are always contrasted with one another. If a system relies on evidence, then it is not a system of faith.

I can't keep my thoughts organized... Final point. If it AiG was defending Mosaic authorship qua Mosaic authorship, then that's one thing (see the my comments above).. if they were defending Mosaic authorship qua reliability of scripture (as I believe is the case given the nature of their organization and the context of that article), then they were guilty of assuming their conclusion...

Sorry for the serial posting.

You may have pinpointed our fundamental disagreement. You're right; I am, to some degree, conflating axiomatic assumptions, faith assumptions, and scientific knowledge. Quite intentionally, too. Conversely, I think that your separation thereof is unwarranted. At issue is the nature of the object assumed or known. Does it obtain outside of my own experience? That is, are we or are we not talking about objective reality? There is a tendency to have a certain respect for faith claims. People in our society are entitled to their own particular beliefs. It does not follow from this, however, that faith should always be classified as subjective opinion. If my faith is confined to the subjective, then it is inappropriate to think of it in terms of true or false. It "exists" in a different arena altogether and cannot be counted as evidence. But what if my faith is in something that is objectively real? In that case, although I may respect the legal rights of those who don't believe as I do to believe anything they want to, I am under no obligation to agree to the validity, much less to the truth, of their faith assumptions.

Let's look further at subjective systems of faith. Some people may have no problem believing contradictory claims. Others will want to systematize all of their beliefs. In the latter case, even though these beliefs are not true, they can still be distinguished in terms of axioms and logical deductions. The same thing can be said of faith systems that are objectively true. Some beliefs will be axiomatic, others will follow as a matter of logical consequence. You write, "Axiomatic assumptions cannot be contradicted by evidence." This is vague. Is this the case because no such evidence exists or because no such evidence will be acknowledged? I see no reason to regard axiomatic assumptions as a separate category from faith assumptions. Both begin without an initial appeal to evidence; both are, in principle, falsifiable; both form the basis of logical deductions, which, depending on whether or not the original assumption agrees with reality, may or may not constitute evidence. Take a system in which God is assumed axiomatically. This belief in God is a matter of faith. If God does not actually exist, if he is only a product of our collective imagination, then a number of other beliefs may follow from this initial belief, but they will be inconsequential to questions like, "Who is humanly responsible for writing the Pentateuch?" However, if God does exist, then all other beliefs that logically follow from this belief also represent objective reality.

I take as an axiomatic assumption of faith that there exists a God who, if he so desired, would be fully able to communicate with me. I am either right or I am wrong. If I am wrong, then my system of faith cannot count as evidence, despite my claims to the contrary. If I am right, either I have made a lucky guess, or God himself is directly responsible for my belief in him. I personally hold to the latter view; nonetheless, it is inconsequential to the present discussion. Either way, the objective reality of the axiom requires the objective reality of all deductions. For the sake of argument, assume that God exists and that he is capable of communicating. It would not necessarily follow from this that God has communicated, but it does follow that he may have. Bearing this in mind, if I run across something that purports to be a communication from God, the reasonable course of action is to investigate the claim. I do so by checking whether or not it is open to potential falsification. In order for this to be the case, it needs to make historical claims that have partial independent verification. Historical claims because falsification is a function of the real world. Partial independent verification because a complete absence of verification would put potential falsifiers in the position of proving a negative.

The Bible meets all the criteria. It claims to record history, part of this history has been independently verified, and, so far, it has never actually been falsified. [You may beg to differ and, if you can prove the veracity of JEPD, then you will have succeeded in falsifying scripture. A ground rule, though: your proof cannot be based on the a priori assumption that it is impossible for God to engage in written communication. You must at least grant the possibility while presenting evidence that such is not actually the case. Otherwise, we Christians of the "Bible-believing" sort are under no obligation to pay any attention.] Barring any evidence to the contrary, I will believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And if the Bible is the word of an objectively extant Deity, it follows that anything he has to say is objectively true. Just as true, in fact, as any knowledge discovered by scientific investigation. The dichotomy is not between faith and evidence or between faith and reason. It is between subjective belief and objective belief. Belief in science is no less a faith claim than is belief in scripture. The subject matter may occasionally differ, but, where objective truth is concerned, the epistimological issues are identical. A word of caution: beware of the prevalent tendency to define science in terms of naturalistic philosophy while at the same time defining truth in terms of science. This is another unwarranted a priori.

I'm still not following your claim that AiG is guilty of assuming their conclusion, but then, it doesn't really matter. I'm not all that interested in defending AiG. I am very interested in defending the cause of Mosaic authorship. As I indicated in my post, this question goes directly to the claim that the Chirstian faith is grounded on God's revelation in history. If Christ has not risen bodily from the dead, then my fellow Chrsitians and I are just fooling ourselves. But it goes beyond this. Our faith cannot be based on a resurrection fluke. It is not sufficient that a first-century gentleman just happened to come back to life. His death must have been for the express purpose of fulfilling the broken Law of God. That Law, in turn, must actually have been delivered by God to his people. This cannot be the case if that Law was invented centuries after the alleged fact by J, E, P, or D. This is a dangerous claim to make and many of my fellow Christians would rather retreat into fideistic subjectivism than face the consequences, but, if the Documentary Hypothesis is true, then the substance of the Christian faith is false. I would do better to believe something that isn't quite so exclusive or offensive.

Don't worry about the serial posting.

I find your criteria for investigating the claim that some document is a communication from God to be somewhat lacking. IIRC, the Quran makes a couple of independently verifiable (and verified) claims, and is no more falsified in the opinion of Muslims than the Bible is in the opinion of Christians. I feel that the Bible is falsified on any system that is not specially constructed to give the Bible the benefit of every doubt.

It does sound like you are also guilty of assuming your conclusion, in the sense that I mean. Your exact words were: "I am very interested in defending the cause of Mosaic authorship. As I indicated in my post, this question goes directly to the claim that the Chirstian faith is grounded on God's revelation in history." If this is your reason for defending Mosaic authorship, i.e. to support scriptural reliability, then you must use evidence other than scripture to achieve your purpose. You are essentially asking us to accept that the Bible must be true because it says it must be true.

Take Mosaic authorship out of that context, assume with the force of a logical axiom that the Bible is God's revelation, then it is trivial to deduce from scripture that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

If you do that, then while we hold to the system, we can (and must) assume that any seeming observational evidence to the contrary is misinterpreted. It is impossible to prove, with mathematical force, that Moses did not author the Pentateuch, because we know by deduction from our axioms that he did.

On the other hand, if our argument is to be useful for testing the validity of the idea that God revealed the Bible, then it is the accuracy of scriptural testimony that we are interested in, not Mosaic authorship for its own sake. Mosaic authorship is just a single issue of scriptural authority we are questioning. If it is wrong, then the scripture that supports it is wrong. How, then, can the scripture that supports it be used as evidence in favor of it, when it is the reliability of that same scripture that we are trying to support?

I cannot prove JEPD. I'm not sure whether the case is stronger to argue against Mosaic authorship using the internal literary evidence from JEPD, or to argue for JEPD using evidence against Mosaic authorship. I suppose it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Scholars who are trying to defend JEPD as an explanation of the origin of the Pentateuch and a few other books will prefer to use evidence against Mosaic authorship to support JEPD. Others, who are trying to evaluate Mosaic authorship, might use what strength JEPD has in its own right to argue against Mosaic authorship.

My interest is in arguing against AiG's claims about Mosaic authorship and the unlikelihood of JEPD, and so I have to work at it from both sides, and try to point out the danger of assuming one's conclusion in the process. But my point to you is that I cannot "prove" JEPD or "disprove" Mosaic aurthorship. I can give you evidence against Mosaic authorship, some of which is strong, but none of which are mathematical "proof". It is up to you, then, whether you want to switch axiomatic systems to one like mine that accomodates the evidence against Mosaic authorship better, or one that simply cannot explain that evidence.

But if it is a matter of faith, it is somewhat disingenuous to use terms like "evidence" to refer to deductions from it. Faith is specifically designed to function without an evidentiary foundation, so deductions from that system should still be called something that makes it clear they are items of faith - not evidence.

If you deduce from formal axioms, you call it logical deduction or necessity. If you use induction and predictive power versus susceptibility to falsification, you call it evidence. If you are using faith, what's so terrible about calling your result doctrine? Why try to associate it with inductive science by using words like "evidence"?

Even though I have opinions on the internal church disputes over JEPD and the various models of Biblical authority among believers, I will not take sides in the matter.

You said that, barring evidence to the contrary, you would believe the claim that the Bible is the word of God. If so, I feel that you have an unreasonably high standard for "evidence to the contrary", else you are unfamiliar with the evidence. If it is the latter, tune in to my Sunday Sermons more often ;-)

Anyway, nice chatting with you. I enjoy our talk.

You write faster than I do. In any event, I'm also enjoying this talk. Thanks for the input. The criteria I listed for investigating whether a document is a communication from God was meant to be negative, not positive. I'm already coming to this with the assumption that God is perfectly capable of writing a book and getting a variety of points across. I'm not saying that if a book claiming to be scripture has a few independently verified claims and is unfalsified in my opinion that it is, therefore, the Word of God. Only that, if it fails to meet these minimal criteria, I won't accept it as such. The criteria are necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. I am not nearly as familiar with the Quran as with the Bible, so, for now, I'll stipulate to the facts that you have presented. In this case, the Quran meets the same criteria for consideration as the Word of God that the Bible does. I won't accept it, though. Why not? Because the book that I've already accepted is pretty exclusive.

I think you may have misunderstood my reference to "God's revelation in history." I was not referring to scripture, nor is my reason for supporting Mosiac authorship to support scriptural reliability. I am saying that, at different points throughout history, up until and including the life of Christ, various historical events themselves have constituted the revelation of God. It isn't simply that subsequent inscripturation of these events is revelation (and it is), but that the very event itself, at the point in time in which it occurred, is the revelation of God. God, quite literally, reveals himself in history. Examples of this act revelation can be found in the Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, the giving of the Law at Sinai, the Exile, and the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ (among numerous lesser events). The events that I have been primarily concerned with in this discussion are the death and resurrection of Christ, and the Law at Mt. Sinai. The possibility of our salvation is not grounded in the imitation of a good moral example; rather, it is the sole activity of God. It is grounded in the historical event of the death and resurrection of Christ understood and organically connected to the equally historical event of the giving of the Law at Sinai. If any one of these historical events never happened, then we remain in our sin.

So then, how is this connected to JEPD? It is not necessarily the case that if the Pentateuch was composed by multiple authors in post-Exilic times that it would be in error or that the events recorded would not have occurred. The problem is found in the intent of the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis. This is not merely an innocent literary observation. The Jehovists, Elohimists, Priests, and Deuteronomists are not just a neutral sampling of authors inspired by the Holy Spirit. According to the terms of the Documentary Hypothesis, they represent different factions within Judaism, each of which developed its own peculiar concept of the person and worship of God. These groups wrote at various times throughout Israeli history. The documents remained separate until a post-Exilic redactor pieced them together. Unfortunately, he didn't do a very good job.

Redaction criticism begins by noting apparent contradictions within the Pentateuch and then assigning each side to a different author. The first example is found in the dual creation accounts of Genesis 1 & 2. If one were to read these literally, they contradict each other. Seven days as opposed to one day, plants come before people in the first account and vice versa in the other. The way in which one chooses to approach these accounts depends entirely on a priori assumptions about the Bible. If you assume that it is not the Word of God, then recognizing a contradiction is the path of least resistence, you choose this option. Surely a single author would not make so glaring a mistake, so there must have been more than one contributor. You further notice that the account in chapter 1 refers to God as Elohim, while the account in chapter 2 refers to him as Yahweh (Jehovah under the older pronunciation). You note that the dual names of God continue throughout the Pentateuch along with a subtle shift in perspective with each usage. And so the designation for your first two authors: J and E. As you get into the latter portions of Exodus and practically the whole of Leviticus, you note the prescribed form for worshipping God has radically changed. It conforms to neither J nor E so it must represent the work of a third set of authors, the Priests (P). D, the Deuteronomist, is thought to have written during the time of King Josiah. It is commonly believed that he is also responsible for other historical books in the Bible outside of the Pentateuch. A critical tradition that assigns Joshua to this author prefers to speak of the Hexateuch. This is the thinking behind the Documentary Hypothesis. By definition, it undermines the very possibility that the Pentateuch is divinely inspired; much less that the major events recorded therein constitute divine revelation.

Or, you could assume that the Bible is the Word of God and, as such, cannot contradict itself. If the dual creation accounts, taken literally, contradict each other, then, perhaps, at least one of them was not meant to be taken literally. This is not to suggest that the Creation is not an historical event, that there were not a real Adam and a real Eve, just that it may be necessary at times to take into account the various functions and styles of different kinds of literature. To my fellow believers of the literal sequential six 24-hour day creation persuasion: maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider the merits of the Framework Hypothesis. The shifts in perspective as to the person or worship of God would not need to result from different authors, but from a progression of revelation.

A relatively recent response to redaction criticism has been found in the field of literary form criticism. Especially encouraging is the emerging recognition of chiastic structure in Hebrew literature; a field, which, if it continues as promised, will provide valuable evidence in favor of a unified literary mind behind each section of scripture. In addition to the Documentary Hypothesis, this approach would also address the second major critical OT theory - the existence of "Deutero-Isaiah." The basic idea here is that the predictions recorded in the latter half of Isaiah, being far too accurate, must have been written after the fact by another author (Daniel gets the same kind of treatment). There is a major shift in literary style between chapters 39 and 40, but this is adequately accounted for by the change in subject matter. A second author hypothesis is not required. Getting back to the Pentateuch, I suspect that the structural evidence will show, not a patchwork of contradictory perspectives, but the work of a single literary genius. In the end, though, the question is not going to be resolved by a battle of evidences. The evidence chosen will be determined by one of two intial assumptions. Either the Pentateuch is or it is not the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

I also believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch on the simple basis that scripture claims that Moses wrote it. This does not, however, asssume the conclusion. I am not saying that the Bible is true because it says that it is true. On the contrary, the Bible is true for the simple fact that it is the Word of God. That it also claims to be true is a matter of consistency. The actual fact of Mosaic authorship does not affect the veracity of the Bible either way. God could have arranged things in such a way that Moses never existed. The relevant point here is not that Moses actually wrote, but that scripture claims that he wrote. Scripture could just as well have kept silent on the subject. However, having made the claim, it is imperative to the status of scripture as inerrant revelation that this claim be true. This is not circular reasoning . I am saying that Mosaic authorship is true because the Bible says that it is true. But I am not completing the circle by saying that the Bible is true because Mosaic authorship is true. Don't confuse this second statement with saying that the Bible would not be true if the claim to Mosaic authorship were not true. The Documentary Hypothesis is implying a modus tollens argument, which takes the form of if p then q, not q, therefore not p. Fleshed out, it is, "If the Bible is inerrant in everything that it claims, then the claim of Mosaic authorship is true. It is not the case that the claim to Mosaic authorship is true. Therefore, the Bible is not inerrant in anything that it claims." My response is not to beg the question, but to counter with a modus ponens. "If the Bible is inerrant in everything that it claims, then the claim of Mosaic authorship is true. The Bible is inerrant in everything that it claims. Therefore, the claim of Mosaic authorship is true." Strictly speaking, the proof of Mosaic authorship is not found in the statements of scripture to that effect, but in the inerrancy of scripture.

To which you will respond, "What proof?" I know, but then I'm not trying to prove anything to you. As much as I am enjoying this conversation, and as much as I genuinely appreciate the respect with which you have conducted yourself (I've run across several Reformed folk who aren't nearly as generous), the most that I can hope to gain from this is a mutual understanding of why each of us takes the position that we do. Any proof that may be offered on either side of this debate will only be accepted in light of our respective major premise. And there is simply no way that I am going to be able to argue you into believing in the inerrancy of scripture. Insofar as I have been speaking in terms of "evidence" and "proof," I am addressing fellow conservative Christians who may be listening in on this conversation and who may be questioning the internal coherence of our system of belief.

Now, back to the faith/evidence question. We're about as far apart as it gets on this one. A lot of orthodox believers have bought into this, but faith is not, in any way, opposed to evidence. In fact, in Hebrews 11:1, faith is partially defined as "evidence." You might, from your own presuppositions, argue that this definition is ridiculous; nevertheless, since you're dealing with a bunch of people who, for whatever reason, think that everything the Bible says is true, perhaps you could refrain from words like "disingenuous." This goes to motive. Though I can't speak for everyone, I can assure you that there is no attempt at dishonesty here. My apologies if it comes across that way. Apart from the biblical usage of the word "evidence," you ask, "If you are using faith, what's so terrible about calling your result doctrine? Why try to associate it with inductive science by using words like "evidence"?" For one thing, you stated in your original post, "I disagree that Christianity and truth are compatible." I am a conservative, orthodox Christian. I believe that Christianity, better yet, that Christ himself is truth. Call me stubborn, but I am not about to concede your point. To do so would involve a radical change in my identity. Once again, we're back to fundamental presuppositions. I'm still looking forward to your next Sunday post.

Now that I understand you more clearly on a couple of points, I can at least narrow the range of what I wish to dispute with you.

I did understand you to mean something like "sufficient" grounds for considering a book's claim before. Now that I see you were pointing out what would be necessary but not sufficient, I no longer feel it inadequate to your purpose. Of course, by definition it would be inadequate to the purpose of fully evaluating the book's claim. So I wonder what you would consider sufficient evidence of the claims of a book to be God's word.

Where it concerns JEPD. I do think the evidence shows good reason to reject Mosaic authorship, but I don't think it conclusively settles any particular documentary hypothesis. JEPD is shorthand for the most popular sort of documentary hypothesis, but the text is flexible. It may be an internal dispute to Christians, but I would weigh in and say that harmonizing JEPD with your views about God's action in history is no more a stretch than harmonizing the two Nativities from Matthew and Luke. If you can keep a straight face while calling them non-contradictory, then you could certainly do the same while calling JEPD a version of verbal plenary inspiration. But I guess that's none of my business.

I also understand now that the way you are using your argument it is fully non-circular. I am still rather convinced that AiG is guilty as charged, but that is really somewhat tangential to my difficulty with them. My real problem with them is the white-wash they give to the evidence about Mosaic authorship because of their doctrine. If they were as serious about the truth as they were about their religion, they would be giving a fair and rigorous hearing to all of the evidence, not sweeping the bulk of it under the rug with a wave of the hand.

As far as convincing one another, I must say that I find it depressing to have it explained to me that no matter how compelling my arguments, nor how problematic you might discover your own theories to be, you are only doing this as an exercise in mutual understanding. I would rather hear that you have hopes of discovering flaws in your thinking if they exist and of convincing me of flaws in mine. In short, I would hope that we both are trying to get a little bit closer to the truth than we already are - or at least expose our position to doubt or reinforcement as appropriate.

I will close with one more appeal to making clear the distinction between evidence as the term is commonly understood and doctrine. If your faith system has as strong a claim to truth as science does, then you are not playing into my hands by admitting the status of your deductions as doctrine instead of evidence. Final note, modern notions of evidence were not in use when Hebrews was written or translated to the English. Unless you think it is a departure from your view on Biblical inerrancy to say that rabbits do not chew cud, or that insects go on six legs, or that bats are not birds, I don't think you should use any Biblical mention of the word "evidence" to support the notion that doctrine can be a form of evidence. Can you see where I am going with that?

I don't have an answer for " sufficient evidence of the claims of a book to be God's word." The best I can do is to say why I believe this of the Bible. Call it 'faith' if you will; I won't mind and, besides, you'd be right anyway. You may also call it entirely unoriginal on my part. The WCF I.5: We may be moved and iduced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavinliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection therof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The important point is the last part about the inward work of the Holy Spirit. It does, at first glance, look very circular. How do you know that the Holy Spirit works in your heart? Because the Bible tells me so. How do you know that the Bible is right about this? Because the Holy Spirit is working in my heart. Yeah, right. But then, that's not the argument. The first question doesn't belong here. Yes, it is the case that the Bible makes this claim; however, the claim or my knowledge thereof is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there actually is a Holy Spirit doing this kind of work. I don't need to know how it works in order for it to work. That I am subsequently told is a bonus. Perhaps I could illustrate the point with mind-altering drugs. Is it necessary that I know how they work or even that I've taken some for them to work? Basically, someone just has to slip them to me and I'll start believing all sorts of things. [You may only use this illustration for its intended purpose.] You are free to reject the notion that there even is a Holy Spirit, but this rejection will no more make him disappear if he does exist than my affirmation will bring him into being if he doesn't. Other than that, there do not exist enough naturalistic reasons to believe that any particular book was written by God. A supernatural subject requires a supernatural explanation.

As to your to your evidence to reject Mosaic authorship, all I can say is: present it. I'd be surprised if it was all that compelling, but I am willing to listen. So as not to waste time, though, I would like to point out a distinction. Compelling evidence in favor of multiple documentary sources is not necessarily the same thing as compelling evidence against a single author. It may be that the most you will be able to do is show that, if the Bible is considered as any other book, it could go either way. Oh, and the same thing goes for your claim that the birth narratives are contradictory. Give me specifics.

You seem to be broadening the scope of the Documentary Hypothesis. So far, I've understood that you meant it to be synonymous with JEPD. I'm still rejecting that aspect of it. However, depending on how far you're willing to take it, I might agree. Basically, I don't anticipate objecting to anything that is compatible with Mosaic authorship. I have no problem with the idea that Moses had a subsequent editor. For instance, the final chapter in Deuteronomy that talks about Moses' death or the interjection that describes Moses as the meekest man alive are commonly believed not to be authored by Moses (however, given the doctrine of inspiration, there is no reason why he couldn't have written these).

I don't know about AiG in particular, but I am familiar with the fundamentalist type. I grew up in their churches but I can't agree with their anti-intellectual methods. As far as I'm concerned, bring on your evidence. If Chritianity is true, then I have nothing to worry about; if it isn't, I don't want to believe. While you're talking about sweeping the bulk of the evidence "under the rug with a wave of the hand," it does seem to me that that is what you were doing by rejecting scriptural testimony for Mosaic authorship. Okay, for now, I won't make you call it "evidence", but what reason do you have for the idea that there is no correspondance between faith and truth? If you contend that the Bible is not reliable as a matter of fact, without addressing the question of whether or not an inerrant book could exist, then bring out your evidence. If you contend that an inerrant book cannot exist, then present your arguments: show me the logical deductions and let me examine your premises.

I agree with you on the whole idea of getting closer to the truth and discovering flaws in our thinking. I also think that, if we're both open to examining our ideas, there is potential convincing to be had in both directions. I'm afraid I overstated the case by saying, "I'm not trying to prove anything to you." Any offense was unintended. I had just finished a section in which a particular proof rested on the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. I'm actually using the word in a stronger sense. It isn't merely "inerrant," as in, it just happens not to be wrong anywhere. The idea is "infallible," as in, it is incapable of being wrong. At this point, we're getting into doctrinal territory in the same category as the triunity of God or the dual nature of Christ. Go back to the infallibility of scripture. I think that I could convince you, or maybe someone else who doesn't happen to believe it, that it is philosophically possible for an infallible book to exist. But there is not enough evidence in the world to convince anyone that Bible actually is that book. It is impossible to reach a supernatural conclusion from a natural starting point. It's the same thing with my own belief that the Bible is the Word of God- I would not beleive this if it were not for the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. The arguments are important, but unless this witness takes place, they will not finally work. Scripture puts it like this in I Corinthians 1:14, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (ESV). If the question is limited to Mosaic authorship, there's no particular reason why I couldn't eventually get you to accept it. But then Mosaic authorship proves just that: Moses wrote it. But if you are ever going to believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God with the authority to dictate your faith and practice, and if you are going to believe this to the point of acting upon it (there are a lot of fakes out there who merely claim belief), this will happen if and only if the Holy Spirit causes it to happen and not a moment sooner or later. [Can you see now why so many people, even Christians, just can't stand Calvinism?]

Now about the faith/evidence thing, I think I do see where you're going. I beleive in inerrancy and yet Leviticus 11 talks about cud-chewing hares, bats that are birds, and insects that go on all fours. These are only errors for those who insist that we must import modern-day notions into ancient texts. The cud-chewing is phenomenological: hares move their mouths in such a way that they look like they're chewing the cud (I seem to recall another explanation that the word is mistranslated so that another animal is meant, but I'm not sure where that was). The bat is just a matter of a different classification system. As to those four-legged insects, the expression "go on all fours" is not intended to give an exact leg count. It encompasses any animal that does not walk upright. In the same way, it is not appropriate to transport modern scientific notions of evidence into the Bible if they did not exist at the time it was written. Okay, but there were forensic notions of evidence, and that's how I'm using the term. The word in Hebrews 11:1 is "pragma." In this particular usage, it is related to legal cases or lawsuits. Faith is being called something that one can present to a judge in order to obtain a favorable verdict. Or, in legal parlance, "evidence." Forensic evidence can include scientific evidence, but it is not limited to it.

You write, "If your faith system has as strong a claim to truth as science does, then you are not playing into my hands by admitting the status of your deductions as doctrine instead of evidence." The statement is formally valid, but the actual status of my faith system is irrelevant to the point. I am playing into your hands as long as you do not beleive that my faith system has as strong a claim to truth as science does. Science deals with the natural world, with empirical things subject to experimentation. There's nothing wrong with that. The scientifc method is reliable. Scientific knowledge is knowledge. The problem comes in when philosophical naturalism is conflated with science. Now the equation is reversed: Knowledge is scientific knowledge. Science becomes the sole arbiter of what can be true. Matters of faith and doctrine are relegated to the subjective realm. Beliefs that would be contradictory in the natural realm are completely acceptable because religion is a private matter that helps the individual. The only thing that matters in religion is its psychological and civic benifits. And a great number of religious people don't mind this at all. However, we who are of the persuasion that the supernatural realm is as objectively real as the natural do mind. Relegating evidence to scientific terms, especially when science is so widely confused with philosophical naturalism, essentially shuts us up before we can say anything of substance. If you want to object to using the words of scripture in a case for Mosaic authorship, that's fine. But you're going to have to base that objection on something a bit more than, "It ain't scientific."

Current notions of faith fit perfectly into subjectivist notions of religion. Faith is belief in myself, positive thinking, and "The Little Engine That Could." This is nothing like the biblical notion of faith. Faith is always in an object. It's power is found, not in itself, nor in the one who has the faith, but in the one who is the object of that faith. It is not something that we do, but is given to us by God. It is the only instrument of our legal right standing before God. In Hebrews 11, faith is called the "evidence of things not seen." More recent translations use the word "sign" or, more often, "conviction." The last word especially doesn't quite capture it. "Conviction" implies that faith is my subjective belief that a supernatural world exists. But a subjective belief is no guarantee that such is the case. The chapter goes on to give various examples from the lives of OT people. By faith, this person did that, etc. Verse 10 describes Abraham looking forward to a city "whose designer and builder is God." And yet he spends his life wandering around and living in tents. The point, as with the other examples, is not about subjective belief. It is not for us to feel sorry for Abraham because he was duped into thinking he'd get to upgrade his living conditions. No, his faith was legal evidence, both to himself and to those who observe him by reading the biblical account, that such a city, designed and built by God, actually exists. If the faith arose from within Abraham, it wouldn't mean a thing. However, in the biblical understanding of the term, faith originates in its object. It's source is the God who built the city. Just as in nature the thing produced is evidence of the source -daylight of the sun, rain of clouds, children of parents, hairy furniture of pets- even so, faith is evidence of God and of the things of God. If AiG is expecting non-believers to simply accept the testimony of scripture about Mosaic authorship, well, they're just insane. But for a Christian, the declarations of the Word of God are about as strong and as relevant as the evidence gets.

I had no idea when I posted last Sunday's Sermon that it would get the kind of responses that it has. It seems I'm carrying this discussion on with several people at once. For that reason, I'm going to consolidate my response to all of you and bundle it with my continuation of the discussion of the Pentateuch in my next Sunday Sermon. Then, maybe we can see where it goes from there.

I appreciate your time and tone. I just want to mention a couple of nit-picky things before I go. We'll see if block-quote works here:

For instance, the final chapter in Deuteronomy that talks about Moses' death or the interjection that describes Moses as the meekest man alive are commonly believed not to be authored by Moses (however, given the doctrine of inspiration, there is no reason why he couldn't have written these).

Under the doctrine of inspiration, Moses might have written of himself as being very humble. He could only write of himself as already dead and buried by writing in the future tense. By writing in the past tense, he indicated that the event, from a temporal perspective, had already taken place.

it does seem to me that that is what you were doing by rejecting scriptural testimony for Mosaic authorship. Okay, for now, I won't make you call it "evidence", but what reason do you have for the idea that there is no correspondance between faith and truth? If you contend that the Bible is not reliable as a matter of fact, without addressing the question of whether or not an inerrant book could exist, then bring out your evidence. If you contend that an inerrant book cannot exist, then present your arguments: show me the logical deductions and let me examine your premises.

It's beyond the scope of what I am doing right now to definitively prove that faith and truth are at odds. (In fact, I'm not sure that's possible. That's why I support my point by showing examples of how some people of faith are more zealous after doctrine than after truth. You can seek one more fervently or at the expense of the other without the two being congenitally opposed.) However, I am not sweeping evidence under the rug when I don't count the evidence of scripture. Faith and scripture might be true, but until it is shown to be true, it is tradition, and it only counts as evidence as much as any other tradition that is remotely removed from the events it describes.

I am awaiting your consolidated response. In the meantime, on to the nit-picky things. What strange power would be preventing Moses from writing in the past tense of something that had not yet happened? The same sort of thing happens in the NT through the use of an "epistolary aorist." The writer of a letter will describe something yet future to himself as already having taken place. By the time the readers get the letter, the event has already occurred. For example, Acts 23:26-30 records a letter in which Claudius Lysius writes to Felix and says of Paul, "I sent (epempsa) him to you at once." We know that, at the time of the writing, Claudius had done no such thing- vs. 31-35 describe how the soldiers subsequently delivered both the letter and Paul. There is no reason to suppose that Moses is not doing something similar in Deuteronomy 34: the book was not read until after Moses had died. The determining factor for tense is often the perspective of the intended audience.

You're right that you don't need to prove that faith and truth are at odds; however, as long as you will not count faith and scripture as evidence unless they first have been shown to be true, the practical results are the same: you are acting as though faith and truth are at odds. It is no valid criterion for evidence that it be proven true before it can be considered. In a forensic context, the veracity of the evidence presented is a matter, not of law, but of fact.

I'm pretty sure I'll have to look further at the case you speak of where a person is speaking in the past tense about something yet to happen. Normally, if you say something already happened, you mean it already happened, unless you are using some form non-literal device such as hyperbole. In any case, the mere possibility that Moses wrote in the past tense of his doesn't make the fact of such a third person, past tense reference very strong evidence against Mosaic authorship of that passage.

On the other point, testimony and tradition of unknown veracity and provenance have very low evidentiary value. You cannot prove that my statement about the monsters under my bed is irreconcilable with truth. You are, nevertheless, not required to treat it as being good evidence of monsters under my bed. By rejecting my statement as evidence, you are not in effect treating my testimony as irreconcilable with truth - you are merely observing that you have not been shown that it is truth.

Your statement about the use of non-literal devices is one of the keys to interpreting the Bible correctly. I find that a common mistake among both liberals and fundamentalists is to assume that the Bible means exactly, literally what it says. The liberals then see contradictions while the fundamentalists dismiss their higher brain function in order to believe everything they think they're reading. But, aside from questions of inspiration and historicity, the Bible is a book of literature with all the freedom to express itself in the variety of ways that any other such book would have. It is very important to distinguish among the literary genres of specific passages of scripture.

The point is not whether testimony is ultimately rejected, but when rejection thereof may be considered. If I were to appear in court as a witness on the matter of monsters under your bed and my testimony was, "Smijer said that he has monsters under his bed," the opposing counsel would object on grounds of hearsay. If you were to say, "I have monsters under my bed," the testimony could not be dismissed on the grounds of its unliklihood. It would be left up to a jury to accept or reject it. The first is a question of law, the second of fact. Once the testimony makes it around any legal objections, it has been entered into evidence and, as such, is evidence. If the jury rejects it, it rejects the testimony altogether; it does not reject it as evidence. The evidentiary value of testimony is a distinct concept from its evidentiary status. If testimony entered into evidence is rejected, it may still be reconcilable with the truth but not strong enough for further consideration. If legal testimony is thrown out before it can be entered into evidence, then to to say, "you are not in effect treating my testimony as irreconcilable with truth - you are merely observing that you have not been shown that it is truth.," is a distinction without a difference.

Related to the subject at hand, you might say that scripture, being "testimony and tradition of unknown veracity and provenance," is, therefore, hearsay and inadmissable. This begs the question. I, along with my fellow orthodox Christians, deny this allegation. It is our testimony that, through the inward witness of the Holy Spirit, the divine author of scripture has sworn an oath to its veracity. At which point the proceedings grind to a halt. The issue of hearsay itself now becomes a question of fact. So how are we going to deal with it? I cannot prove to you that scripture is the Word of God; consequently, I cannot expect you to give it the same evidentiary weight that I would. On the other hand, you cannot prove that it isn't. So let's set it aside for the moment. We can go on with all the other evidence acceptable to both of us. You may be convinced that this evidence does not argue against Mosaic authorship while retaining your belief that such authorship does not prove inspiration. On the other hand, I may convinced that, all things being equal, the evidence does favor a documentary hypothesis. Nevertheless, we have merely set aside the question of divine inspiration. Since I accept it, all things are not equal, and I am still convinced of Mosaic authorship. But you, while not accepting it, have conceded that matters of faith, such as scriptural inerrancy, are not irreconcilable with truth. That being the case, if it could be shown to be true, then scriptural testimony about Mosaic authorship would trump all other evidence to the contrary every time.

This is a basic mistake of many JEPD proponents. They assume that evidence in favor of multiple authors is sufficient evidence against the veracity and inspritation of scripture. But this kind of thinking fails to note the distinction between rejecting evidence and setting it aside. And if they are rejecting the testimony of scripture, then their reasons for so doing are either baseless or circular. As for your own project, if you want to bring out evidence in favor of a documentary hypothesis, I'll hear you out. You might even convince me that you have a good case. You may not, however, without falling into a circle yourself, turn around and use your conclusions to argue against scriptural inerrancy.