Now that we've done a little sword crossing.
First I'd like to apologise for the "ha'am ha'arets" comment. I don't know where that one came from and you are right in pointing out that it is beneath us and has no place in civilised discourse. All I can say in my defense is that sometimes my blood sugar goes a little funny and I am likely to write in a tone which I normally wouldn't use. when I reread my post, it was a bit more polemic in tone than I'd rather use. It certainly made me look a bit fanatical, though I do stand by some of my criticisms.
Since the reply page does not go far enough back to keep your post in front of me as I type, I'll try to do the best I can to answer.
I will go back to my coment on the Consensus opinion. You hold a certain segment of the scholarly community to represent the consensus opinion. I respectfully disagree with that assessment of the situation. The scholarly community as a whole is rather divided along lines of philisophy and not as united as you assume. On the one hand, there is the portion of the community which proceeds from the perspective and assumptions of the German school of Biblical criticism. That part of the community, as I pointed out earlier, have their roots in Marxist an Hegelian (even their approach was originally called the dialetical approach to Biblical Studies in frank acknowledgement of their origins) Philosophy. Their goal was from, the begining, to undermine any thought of the Bible as what it claims to be, inspired by God. "Q Document", "Yahwist and Elohist", and similiar theories are products of that school of thinking. That school of Scholarship now have control of the theology departments of Secular and secularised prestigious Universities and their journals. Because they have such presitigious bully pulpits, their thinking is presented as mainstream, the consensus opinion.
In contrast with that is the other School of thought. what you might call the conservative camp of scholars. They are largely associated with private religious institutions, Including universities, seminaries, and other institutions. Not all of them are by any means fanatical as they are often portayed by the popular media; many of them are folks who did an examination of the "consensus" and found it wanting. These folks are the majority of biblical scholars, just the same as the majority of biblical archealogists are not in the, so called, consensus camp in that profession. But since they they are not associated with the more prestigious institutions, they and their research are generally ignored by the prestigious secularised journals and the elite media.
Now Leo, what I am trying to do is to point out that the "consensus view" doesn't really represent the majority opinion, rather, it only represents the opinion of the camp which controls the elite universities. They are actually in the minority. However, since they hold the prestigious positions, it is their view which is held out as the consensus, not the scholarly community as a whole.
I noticed you didn't attack what I said about the internal evidence arguments of the German school not squaring with the data beyond a vague reference to the Dead sea Scrolls. I mentioned that the critiques which still form the weight of the consensus opinion on the debate about the age of the book of Daniel and other biblical texts were proven without ground a long time ago by a scholar by the name of Robert wilson and others. There is good reason why his arguements still stand and are accepted by the majority of scholars despite all the years that have passed since his life and death.
For those who don't know of him, Dr. Wilson was a formidable critic of the "Higher critics" during the first half of the twentieth century. Dr. Wilson decided to become the most formidable scholar of his time and succeeded in a manner which no one has surpassed. During his years of study and research, he mastered Ugharitic, Aramaic, Coptic, Egyptian, Greek, Hebrew, Persian, and more than thirty other ancient languages associated with the middle east. He was thorough in his studies and researches to the point that his findings were pretty much the last word during his lifetime. He rose to a prominent position at Princeton University where he held the Prestigious William Henry Green Professor chair of Semitic Languages and Old Testament Criticism. He appears to have been pushed out of that university when the it was secularised and the German school of scholars brought on board through the efforts of the scientific departments in the late 1920s. He helped to found the Westminster Theological Seminary after he left Princeton. At the time of his death, in 1930, the only discoveries left to be made in the field are the Dead Sea Srcoll and the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. So Dr. wilson had access to just about everything else to research and use as a basis for his conclusions.
Since Dr. wilson was primarily a linguist and textual critic, he was in a solid position to examine the internal evidence of the texts and decide the validity of the higher critics position and theories. Remember, most of the theories, Q document, Yawist and Elohist, were around in his day, they are not all that new. Also remember that he was more than competent to decide the probable date of writing for the various books of the Bible based on the internal language and comparisons with known documents of contemporary antiquity.
What Dr. Wilson found was that the internal evidence in the biblical texts was far more consistent with the traditional dates of authorship than with the dates proposed by higher critics. He came to this conclusion through an examination of the historical linguistics involved as well as a comparison of lists of kings in the ancient documents of their own lands and similiar methodologies. In his opinion, the texts were just as they should be for documents of their traditional periods. Dr. Wilson's attention to detail was legendary as many a critic learned to their dismay when they tried to refute him. He set a standard which is yet to be surpassed by anybody in either scholastic camp. Many of the arguments he used are still used by modern scholars in the traditionalist camp.
I think the least offensive way to conclude this post is to reiterate that the Consensus scholars which our good friend Leo lays such store by are only a portion of the folks doing research in Biblical Scholarship today. They are not even in the majority camp. There are a lot more conservative universities and seminaries than the prestigious liberal and secular institutions Leo's scholars reside in. Their percieved authority derives more from the prestige of their institutions than anything else.
Leo, I'll admit that an uncompromising inspirationist's view point is something to be suspicious of. But then, so is an uncompromising position which holds as its assumption that there is no such thing as inspiration. I also see your point about holding one set of scriptures as being above examination. I am not quite as selective as you think. I have looked at the liberal school's position and find it suspect. And Leo, I didn't just take the WTBTs' word for it.
At this point, I am working on updating my knowledge on the subject since I am now free to pursue avenues which were verboten while I was a Dub. That is why I appear a bit ignorant in my argumentation. you may not believe it, but I do have alot of respect for you though I disagree. And I am learning from you as well, though I doubt you see it.
Forscher
