Doctor X

Right . . . I have often recommended Richard Elliot Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? as a good introduction to multiple authorship of the OT and the Documentary Hypothesis.

One issue I have had with it is the dating of the various authors. Since the myths of the OT--creation, flood--are clearly dependent on other myths it has been assumed that texts refering to them date during or after the Babylonian exile.

Indeed, grabbing a random reference, I found:

this follows the view of a lot of scholars.

Friedman dates many of the authors as pre-exilic, since P depends on J and E and he argues that P is pre-exilic. I wondered then how did the myths get to the writers. I wondered if there was evidence that they were "popular" or well known.

I had the opportunity to communicate with Prof. Friedman. This is the response he gave me which he has given permission to post:

I have linked in the references below. I will eventually get his book and let people know what I think of it.

--J.D.

Reference:

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible?. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997.

Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003.

Niehr, H, "The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion," The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, Edelman DV., Ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eardmans Pub. Co., 1995. ISBN 0802841619

Mageth

I ordered my copy of Who Wrote The Bible over the weekend.

MiddleMan

As I stated in another thread some time ago, I purchased Friedman's newest book, The Bible with Sources Revealed and truly feel that the Introduction alone is well worth the cover price.

To combat those who disagree with the DH (I see the same tenor from Sources Revealed is in his letter to you, Dr.!) Friedman recommends reading and then responding to the evidence for the DH he compiled not only in WWTB, but the Appendix of his The Hidden Book in the Bible (pp. 350-378) and his articles "Solomon and the Great Histories," in Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology- THe First Temple Period edited by Ann Killebrew and Andrew Vaughn; "An Essay on Method," in Le-David Maskil, edited by Richard Elliott Friedman and William Henry Propp; "Some Recent Non-arguments Concerning the Documentary Hypothesis," in Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, edited by Michael Fox te al; and "Late for a Very Important Date," Bible Review 9:6 (1993): 12-16.

Again, I cannot recommend WWTB and Sources Revealed highly enough. If you have neither, get them both!

Doctor X

MiddleMan:

I do remember your recommendation and put the book on my "list." I did not know that the introduction would cover the issue. After corresponding with him I moved the book "up the list."

What does he use for the translation? His own? RSV?

--J.D.

MiddleMan

His own.

And I agree, I don't think his Introduction would cover the issue but it nonetheless is a great read. I'm glad to know his book has moved up on your list! I'm a really big fan of his.

Doctor X

MiddleMan et al.:

It arrived yesterday and quite a book it is.

Reasons Why You MUST Get This:

It is a well-made book. You can highlight it, make notes, discipline your cat with it. Most "Bibles" are on thin paper because of the size, which makes note-taking and such difficult.

It is done well The non-color Who Wrote the Bible? gives as an example the sources of the Flood Myth. You can see it, but it is not clear.

This is in color. You can see and understand the divisions clearly. Every page has a reminder.

It is not just a translation and division of the Sources Throughout the translation, Prof. Friedman gives notes on textual issues. Now, I am no Hebrew expert. I have looked at some textual issues and he seems to deal with them.

Introduction it is a nice, concise, and devestating summary of the evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis. Friedman has two issues to defend.

Documentary Hypothesis Frankly, the majority of scholars accept this. They can quibble over J1 J2s and the dates of the authors, but they accept the multi-authorship. Only the cranks who insist Moses wrote it and the world is 10,000 years old reject this. This is for laypeople and student first stepping into biblical scholarship. It is a nice introduction. In fact, it should be a FYI here. The next time someone posts, "no scholar takes the DH seriously" or it has been "debunked," send them to Friedman's introduction.

Dating as in other areas, based on the myths used the explanation is that most of the sources are POST-exilic. Friedman presents the evidence for his dating. I am not sophisticated enough to tell you whether or not it will be accepted, but he does provide a whole list of evidece to refute.

INEXPENSIVE seriously!

--J.D.

MiddleMan

::Cheering and Clapping!::

Hurrah! You nailed it! I'm so glad you like the book. I knew you would! I told you his Intro is spectacular. I love how he gets right into the meat and slaps the critics' heads with it. He issues the challenge like a man who KNOWS he's right. I really respect that.

I think you made an excellent suggesting that Friedman's Intro should be an FYI here. I agree completely. I also like your observation that "The next time someone posts, 'no scholar takes the DH seriously' or it has been 'debunked,' send them to Friedman's introduction." That is one of the reasons I am so hot on his Intro. I've run into those same old canards time and again and this Intro stops such nonsense cold.

Again, I'm really glad you have the book and seem to like it as much as I do. Everyone else: Seriously do yourself a favor and if the DH interests you, get this new book by Friedman. You'll really like it. (This is NOT a paid endorsement!)

Doctor X

Indeed!

Remember, kids, it is INEXPENSIVE.

All of the cool posters are reading it . . .

. . . you do not want to be "different" now do you?

--J.D.

Celsus

I think you should be more specific about what you mean by the "Documentary Hypothesis". As told by Wellhausen, clearly the majority of scholars today reject it. And I don't see how Van Seters' Supplementary Hypothesis can be ruled out, nor can form critics be so easily dismissed. Secondly, the idea of P as a unifying element cannot be considered part of the "Documentary hypothesis", surely. I don't know what Friedman has to say about the function and content of P, so I won't say more.
Absolutely wrong. For one, I reject it, and don't insist Moses wrote it or that the world is 10,000 years old.
Actually, I think it would beg a serious question as to how sources are identified, since there is absolutely no consensus on many passages. Does he show multiple theories of who says what in his book?

Joel

Doctor X

Celsus:

It is what Friedman calls it. The basic idea of Wellhausen--multiple authors that can be recognized by language, content, doublets, et cetera--is retained.

Not easily dismissed. Friedman gives a very good list of evidence people who disagree must address and explain. Now, from my understanding, the major "bone of contention" has been dating. Traditionally, the dating of the sources have been primarily post-exilic. Friedman gives a very good argument for why most of them are pre-exilic. He lists Van Seters' works in his bibliography. I have not stumbled upon his discussion of him however.

I am not certain I understand you point. Friedman mentions that on theory has been that P "surrounds" J/E. However, he feels it is a work in and of itself that is based on J/E. I am not sure that is a big difference to the Documentary Hypothesis.

But you are a crank! [Stop that!--Ed.] Well, I would have to ask to what, specifically, do you reject? I would actually be interested in reading what your objections are. I would recommend consulting his Introduction since it is very concise, and you can target you objections to it.

He is clear in his opinion that the sources are coherent enough you do not need J1-10 or P1-37. He does identify other sources and redactors. His Who Wrote the Bible? give his reasons for determining which passage goes where. I have not read through the book enough to see if he does that in this book; however, he does seem to make the effort to explain his translations and why certain texts go where.

--J.D.