Doctor X

Spin:

Perhaps I misunderstand your use of "Moses?" He is a probably a mythical figure who did not write anything we have.

Regarding the Documentary Hypothesis, it is the established theory with arguments about the details--dating--and, indeed, dividing up authorship into J1, J2, and stuff like that. Friedman argues against such divisions.

Where Friedman is controversial is his dating of the authors. He has a persuassive argument for his dates but he does not, in Who Wrote the Bible?, deal with the argument for post-exilic dates--clear references to Babylonian mythology and religious syncretism. He may have an answer and he may address it in his new book, but one of the criticisms I have of WWtB is his failure to address it.

--J.D.

spin

I'm not sure.

Trying to cut through this -- a mythical figure can't write anything -- you may be right, but consider the specific audience to whom my original statement was written.


spin

Doctor X

Methinks we are both thinking in different clouds. . . .

IF you are using a convenient name as an author--such as calling the writer of Mark "Mark" for convenience--fine.

OR are you arguing against Moses as an actual author?

I was/am not sure based on the context.

As for my other statement, some argue that "Moses" is basically a Jewish Sargon story adapted as part of a mythic past. Neat. Of course, it is possible that some "historical Moses" existed that some stories are based on of which we have no bloody idea what he said or did. My point with that is even such a possible historical figure did not write the texts.

--J.D.

Dean Anderson

This sounds plausible.

Presumably, if we had enough extant papyrii and scrolls we would be able to check if there seemed to be 'canonical' versions that changed little, or if there was a continual development of the text.

But - barring the incredibly unlikely event of a huge cache of wonderfully well perserved documents being found - I guess we will have to keep an open mind at the moment.

My gut feeling is that the truth was probably somewhere between the two positions - with a 'canonical' basis for the documents that then got glossed on a more continual basis (with older glosses finding their way into the canon).

(I had read your reply (and as usual it was helpful to a beginner like me) - my repetition of the question with emphasis was directed at LP675 who irritated me with his post. I wanted him to post some actual substance, rather than just making assertions and appealing - somewhat dubiously - to authority.)

LP675

Spin- “I may not be a big fan of the simplistic version or the alphabet soup version of the documentary hypothesis, but to make the bald statement that it "does not add to our understanding of the pentatuch at all" seems to say the least to be out of touch with the challenges of the literature. When we have parallels, near parallels, combined texts indicating different versions of the one story having been put together, there is clear evidence of a complex text tradition.”

If what you mean by a ‘complex text tradition’ is merely that it was “developed by different people, edited by different people and worked on at different times”, then I would agree it has a complex text tradition. Even the most staunch fundamentalist (who believed the Pentateuch is straight history, written by Moses who had family histories and genealogies written on tablets by firsthand witnesses, who went all the way back to Adam himself) would probably agree with you. Almost any theory involves different people recording stories (or making them up), and having these stories or traditions compiled / edited by other person (or people) at a later date into what we now have.

I do contest however the idea that J,E,P,D speculations can assist us in understanding the Pentateuch. You and I both know the classic J,E,P,D theory makes many more assertions than ‘the Pentateuch has a complex text tradition’. It claims to be able to discern different sources hidden in the text. These sources are distinguished on criteria such as different names for God, duplicate narratives or contradiction in narratives, different vocabulary and different narrative style.

But the Pentateuch isn’t the disjointed mess a lot of them make it out to be, and sorting out different sources on these criteria is wishful thinking. I was going to try to refute point by point the validity of all these criteria for determining sources but I imagine you have heard them already.
(For example divine names are a very poor criteria, that no one pretends holds true for any other part of the bible. “In recent decades the use of divine names for the purpose of source criticism has come under scathing attack. It is clear that it it is not a reliable criterion in ancient Near eastern studies for determining different sources.” Curid ‘Genesis’ p 50.)

(Also Narrative style is a poor criteria, as any author will employ different styles for different subject matter. It’s incredibly subjective and this subjectivity is the cause for the myriads of different opinions on every passage. Obviously a genealogy is going to sound different to a theophany. To me it seems they divide the text according to what they perceive are different styles, then use their divisions to justify dividing the texts into different sources (which seems circular to me).)

Duplicate narratives are a similarly flimsy criteria. ‘duplicate stories were an ancient rhetorical practice ‘in which doublets are the very essence of ancient narrative. Structural redundancy can be used for dramatic effect, Repetition can have didactic purpose’ (Curid again). Spin you mentioned you belive there is evidence for different versions of the same story (and I assume you are implying contradictory versions) having been put together but I would suggest that all such evidence is subjective, and any apparent contradictions I have investigated disappear when you approach the text trying to find coherence (as opposed to trying to find contradictions).

Spin as for your examples of the two versions of descent from Adam, and the repetition with variation of the flood stories, I personally cant see how they are more easily understood as having been developed by different people. The way the writer sets out the genealogies is perfectly logical, even necessary for the progression of the story.

The writer has undertaken to tell what he believes to be the history of the human race (his focus to at least to immediately after the flood), and I think he has done a pretty good job of it. I decided that I would write out the book of genesis myself, and every name I came across I would add to a family tree, and every place mentioned I would follow on a map (I only got a bit past Gen 25 I think). I was astounded at how well the story flowed, and how well the narrative was written. I personally don’t think the story could be told much more coherently.

In my opinion J,E,P,D scholars invent fanciful theories which are not at all compelling unless you are predisposed to accepting these ideas because of your preconceptions of what the history of the text is.

LP675

Hobbitfacyier “That's strange...

...because Wenham here takes the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis as being the established and default view - and bases his essay on the assumption that it is essentially the correct view - he certainly doesn't think it is 'wild speculation'.”

Sorry if I gave the impression Wenham thought J,E,D,P was wild speculation. I think it is, but Wenham does indeed treat it as good stuff . The quote in question was preceded by :

“However, the present ferment among scholars working on the Pentateuch should not be misinterpreted. The typical OT introduction or critical commentary on Genesis tends to assume the JEDP theory in a fairly traditional form, and it still forms the heart of most lecture courses on the Pentateuch. No new consensus has evolved to replace Wellhausen’s basic theory, so it still continues to be assumed by many scholars, though there is now widespread recognition of the hypothetical character of the results of modern criticism…”

spin

I don't really have little interest in some citable fellow's opinions. We are dealing with texts, not with what people say about them. And it seems to me that you've said very little at all other than generic repudiations.

Who on earth seriously thinks that the pentateuch is a disjointed mess? That separate strands can be discerned within the text's fabric doesn't mean that a work is incoherent. Why should the use of different sources necessarily make a text disjointed? Perhaps the weaving together of two versions of the flood (with their own indivdiual interests) may seem disjointed to the aesthetics of some, but it is an interesting example of a redactor at work.

You may consider the use of divine names a "very poor" criterion. I consider it insufficient, but reflective. However, you will not notice when you make nett separations of criteria, dealing with them in isolation, so as not to consider the way they work together.

Such a criterion I haven't used, so I need say nothing about it.

I do love bald assertions. I think your authority needs to talk specifics regarding duplicate narratives, especially when they bear different divine names and deal with different with conflicting cultic indications.

Conflicting is not necessary, but they usually contain differing versions. The second creation does conflict with the first in its necessary ordering of events, its raw materials and its orientation.

I fear your suggestions of subjectivity lead to not dealing with contents of narrative at all and that your idea of coherence is not a sufficient condition to deal with the differing nature of various narratives.

I'm a little at loss here. The two descents from Adam are antediluvian, at least in position. The first even presupposes a continuance from the descendents of Lamech, for they gave rise to a) all those who live in tents and raise livestock, b) all those who play instruments and c) all those who work in metals. This mentioning of these groups doesn't make much sense if the writer knew that there was to be a flood and that only Noah's descendents would survive. I would consider that the writers of the two genealogies were working under different presuppositions. The second clearly knowing the flood narrative for his genealogy supplies its members with ages which conveniently have them dead before, and in one case in the same year as, the flood.

As to the flood narratives, surely the notion of one writer talking of the animals that went in as going in in pairs while the other made the separation between clean and unclean animals with the clean going in in seven pairs creates a sufficiently clear conflict.

Here is a spearation I made of the narrative in a recent thread (the terms Yahwist and Elohist are only used for convenience):

There is substantial repetition in the narrative which neatly divides into two separate narrative schemes with different interests. One for example is interested in calendrical issues, while the other is interested in sacrificing. (And hopefully you can see that the notion of the ark coming to rest on the mountains of Ararat in the Elohist version renders the Jahwist bird story in search of land irrelevant, if we were reading the differences in the stories.)

I don't really know what this has achieved: perhaps it shows the facility with which you smooth texts as you read, especially when texts have been read so often in the past so that the rough burrs pass unnoticed through over-familiarity.

I can understand you saying this and I believe that you believe it. It's a shame that you have given no substance to your beliefs as they stand. I see no efforts on your part to deal with the wealth of material which has spurred so many scholars to adhere in some form to the source documentary hypothesis, material that I am quite happy to discuss with you here, if you would like to go into specifics.


spin

Toto

LP675 - is that Currid or Curid? (in any case, a book referenced only by evangelicals some of whom can't even spell his name.)

Dean Anderson

You appear to be missing the point, here.

Individually, a passage using a different name for God or a passage that is duplicated or a passage that is written in a slightly different style is scant evidence for multiple authorship.

However, you are forgetting about the cumulative effect of lots of small pieces of evidence.

To show you an example, imagine I have something and various witnesses say that it was big, grey and wrinkled with large ears and a trunk. I would say that the description would be good evidence that I had an elephant, but using the approach that you uye:

Trees are big, so being big is not necessarily evidence of elephantness.

Stones can be grey, so being grey is not necessarily evidence of elephantness.

Raisins are wrinkled, so being wrinkled is not necessarily evidence of elephantness.

Rabbits have large ears, so having large ears is not necessarily evidence of elephantness.

Cars have trunks, so having a trunk is not necessarily evidence of elephantness.

Therefore (by your logic) if I have something big, grey and wrinkled with large ears and a trunk, there is no evidence that I have an elephant.

Do you see how even though each individual piece of evidence is not sufficient evidence, when taken cumulatively they unambiguously point in a certain direction?

In the case of the Pentateuch, that direction is multiple authorship.

(Edited: To clean up VBulletin tags)

LP675

Sorry for the long delay



I dont think I am missing the point. I dont think it is 'scant' evidence. I think it is 'no' evidence. Therefore of course from my perspective there is no cumulative effect.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pervy Hobbit Fancier To show you an example ... Do you see how even though each individual piece of evidence is not sufficient evidence, when taken cumulatively they unambiguously point in a certain direction? (Edited: To clean up VBulletin tags)

No, despite your example I remain unmoved. It must be my stony hard fundamentalist heart, or my narrow (ultra) conservative evangelical mindset . (just kidding, it wasnt such a bad example if you predisposed to those kinds of J,E,P,D tendancies)