Fact-Checking the Torah -- so much for history

You are totally exhausted. You are saying “all right, already, you don’t like DH. Why shouldn’t other people hold onto it.”

You haven’t been paying attention. I showed that DH is a conjunction. That means that the truth probability of each of its claims has to be multiplied together to determine the truth probability of the entire concept. That includes every claim made for every verse: whether it splits or not; and which of JEDP it’s assigned to; etc. etc. etc. The product is infinitesimally small.

I showed that DH is based on fallacies, which means that every claim using those fallacies has a ZERO probability of being true. After multiplication, the probability that DH is true is ZERO.

DH also incorporates claims made out of bigotry, not fact. I recommend that you read Carla Sulzbach’s master’s thesis, which I give a link to in the Bibliography. Dr. Sulzbach’s work clearly shows the Protestant anti-Semitism underlying the illogic and false facts of DH.

Make sure to read her translation of R. Hoffman’s critique. If you know German, read the original German of Hoffman to which I also give a link. R. Hoffman’s work will leave you with the bewildered impression that the original DH scholars made things up as they went along, not to prove anything, but to simply turn Torah on its head.

If Wellhausen followed Vatke and Graf in considering the prophets to be a Hegelian antithesis which led to a later synthesis, this is a case of Presentism, imposing a much later viewpoint that didn’t exist when the material came into being. It’s like Philo pretending that the efod gems represent the zodiac.

If Wellhausen furthered use of Hegelian dialectics in DH, meaning for DH to be the antithesis leading to a synthesis, that fell through. Subsequent scholars retired behind Graf’s isolationism. For 140 years.

That doesn’t bother most fans of DH.  Some of them will continue to hold onto it even after every single detail in the concept is shown to be illogical, unfactual, unsupported, or even contradicted by physical and other data. That’s a fact of human nature which we are becoming very familiar with in 2017.

Nevertheless, I rely on some of its fans to be reasonable and that’s why I went into such detail. I wanted to paint big red X’s where they belonged so the fans could see where the holes are. Now they need to look at papers about it in the 21^st century and look for the false facts and fallacies. I feel confident that the people who wrote those papers will wind up discredited. (There’s more at the end of the blog.)

Anybody ready for more big red X's?

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved