rob117

Hey; returning after a long hiatus.

I'm wondering what other interested amateurs on the site think of classical 4-source documentary hypothesis. I used to think it was pretty convincing, but as I do more research it becomes less so, at least in its conventional view of 4 independent documents.

I think the conventional view of the Deuteronomist is pretty solid. I also agree with the strand of scholarship that sees P not as a continuous source, but as a body of diverse legal and narrative material written by priests, most of it dating to the late monarchy, but edited and added to the Pentateuch in the early post-exilic period.

However, when dealing with the material attributed to "JE," most of it seems to be far too unified to be able to be broken up into independent strands. The majority of the JE material is coherent as is, and attempting to break this up into separate J and E components (especially in Exodus and Numbers) totally disrupts the flow of the narrative. Yes, there are several doublets and contradictions within this material, but I think these are much more parsimoniously explained as later accretions of individual divergent traditions to a continuous base document. Alternatively, some of the stories could have been circulating independently in more than one written form before being incorporated by the main author into his document.

As for the date of JE, I'm less sure. As pointed out by Finkelstein in The Bible Unearthed, geographical anachronisms (e.g. the importance of Gerar in the narratives about Abraham/Isaac and the Philistines, the mention of Nineveh first in the list of Nimrod's Assyrian cities, the mention of Kadesh-Barnea as on the border of Edomite territory) would seem to put JE in the 7th or early 6th century BC. However, fitting it into this period in relation to the other biblical texts is problematic. Finkelstein opts for a Josianic date and associates it with the reform, but this doesn't take into account the fact that Deuteronomy (which pretty much everyone accepts as Josianic) seems to have had access to what was substantially the JE document-- it refers to the Exodus and Numbers material in exactly the same order that it appears in the strands identified as JE (and does not refer to the "P" material)-- as well as the fact that the JE patriarchal stories as well as the Covenant Code sanction multiple altars, which were anathema to Josiah's reform. That leaves the reign of Manasseh or early in the reign of Josiah (before the reform); however, in this period the official cult was polythestic, whereas the JE document includes two versions of the 10 commandments, both of which are monotheistic or at least monolatrous.

A possible solution to this would be to posit an earlier, non-monotheistic JE in the mid-late 8th century. The monotheistic 10 commandments would have been added in the time of Hezekiah, and the anachronistic 7th-century material would represent later traditions that accreted to the document in the course of the 7th century or later.

Any thoughts on this?

bacht

I wish I knew enough to give you useful feedback, it's an interesting subject area. After reading The Bible Unearthed I don't know when to date the older stories in the Former Prophets. It does seem like the traditions about Abraham and Moses are pre-7th C but I wouldn't be able to defend that position.

One possibility I've wondered about is whether some of the material was originally northern (Israelite/Samaritan) and was incorporated into the Judahite writings after the Assyrian conquest.

John Kesler

In The Bible With Sources Revealed (or via: amazon.co.uk), Richard Elliott Friedman says on page 153 regarding the Exodus-20 version of the Ten Commandments: "The text of the Ten Commandments here does not appear to belong to any of the major sources. It is likely to be an independent document, which was inserted here by the Redactor. A slightly different version was used by the Deuteronomistic Historian in Deuteronomy 5." Regarding the Exodus-34 version, Friedman says on page 179: "Exodus 34:14-26 is the J text of the Ten Commandments." On page 177 he says, "...In the combined JE text, it would be awkward to picture God just commanding Moses to make some tablets, as if there were no history in this matter, so RJE adds the explanation that these are a replacement for the earlier tablets that were shattered."

rob117

That's interesting. That still leaves the J text of the 10 commandments though, which in its present form is monotheistic; also Deuteronomy, which usually follows JE, does not mention J's version of the commandments, but only the Ethical Decalogue.

One of the reasons the existence of an E document seems iffy to me is the Golden Calf story. This material is usually attributed to E (supposedly a northern writer), and the bash against the official northern cult is explained as it being by a dissident within the Northern Kingdom. But I don't find it very likely that at this time of very limited literacy a "national history" would be produced critiquing the official cultus. Prophetic condemnations (e.g. Hosea), yes, but a national history? It's possible, but given the fragmentary nature of the alleged E document and its narrative and stylistic affinity with J, I think other explanations are better. The reconstruction of the E document has Moses smashing the tablets of the law and then not going up to get another copy; this would be very odd. The story as it stands is coherent. Moses gets tablets, smashes them, and gets another copy. Friedman's suggestion (that the author of E was jabbing at the legitimacy of Jerusalem's claim to have the tablets) is a bit too bold of an assumption about the author's motives.

The fact of the matter is we really don't know anything about state religion in Judah before the time of Hezekiah. Evidence for centralization under Hezekiah is ambiguous; there's the alleged putting out of use of the Arad Temple, which Dever and others date to Hezekiah; but I think Finkelstein and several others (including Na'aman I believe) date the putting out of use of this temple to Josianic times-- so the stratigraphy is disputed. There's also the fact that Sennacherib pictures his troops looting incense altars at the siege of Lachish-- which would indicate that there was a functioning temple there. So if Hezekiah attempted centralization at all it seems to have been either half-assed or a total failure-- although I don't doubt that he was a member of the "Yahweh-alone" party. JE could be Hezekianic then-- supporting monotheism, but not roundly condemning multiple altars.

We also don't know anything about religion in the time of Ahaz-- Kings says he sacrificed his son and made an Asherah, but Isaiah, who had personal access to the king, seems to make no criticism of his religious practices. Isaiah criticized popular idolatry, and was not afraid to criticize Ahaz's politics to his face (e.g. the "Immanuel" prophecy), so if he disapproved of Ahaz's personal religious practices we should hear about it. Perhaps Isaiah disapproved of the cult of the dead and Baal-worship, but didn't think Asherah or child-sacrifice were that big of a deal (he may have even approved of child sacrifice; see Isaiah 30). Or perhaps the Kings material about Ahaz is false-- Ahaz was remembered as a "bad king" in Judean historical consciousness for his political choices (submission to Assyria), so the zealous Deuteronomists could have simply assumed that he had been religiously flawed (to them) as well.

Loomis

It’s a huge subject. Imho the Documentary Hypothesis doesn’t really explain very much. At best it’s a gross oversimplification. Fwiw I’m a big fan of authors like Mark S. Smith and John Day, and I think they do a much better job of explaining what the OT is about than authors like Friedman.

Friedman is bent on preserving the credibility of people who wear stupid hats, and the fallacy of monotheism.

rob117

I agree that Friedman seems hell-bent on defending early monotheism (he even accepts the MT version of Deuteronomy 32:8 as "Sons of Israel," which the LXX and DSS evidence is roundly against).

Still, Day and Smith do not criticize the Documentary Hypothesis in principle, and the fact is that the document as it stands clearly contains doublets and contradictions. Positing earlier sources that were conflated is the best way to explain this, and the internal evidence of Deuteronomy seems to point to the existence of a document roughly equivalent to Friedman's JE.

Loomis

If you want something stimulating to think about then think about this.

Exodus 32:4
He accepted (the gold) from their hand, fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molten bull. Then they said, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

What god is that verse talking about?

This one? :devil1:

Numbers 23:22
El who brought them up out of Egypt has horns like a wild bull.

What other bull fits the description? :wave:

David Hillman

Much of Genesis must have been written quite late. The story of Abraham in Egypt is a pre-enactment of the Exodus and must have been written after that book. The story of Joseph and his brothers, judging by its sentiments, was surely written by a Benjaminite, as a complete novel, showing Benjamin and Joseph as the favourites of Jacob. The original was probably written after the Babylonians took Jerusalem and before the return under Ezra, when the southern part of the province of Israel and much of Judah was ruled by the Babylonians through Benjamin. This would have been also when the stories of the flood, the tower of Babel and so on were written. Much of Genesis, and Judges and Samuel consists of layers of argument between Benjamin and Judah in the late Babylonian and early Persian Period about who are the true political heirs of Israel. In Genesis Bethel, Shechem, Shiloh, Gibeon, are given more importance than Jerusalem. Against this are the stories that the Gibeonites and Shechemites are not true Israelites, the nasty stories against Gibeon and Benjamin in Judges, and the revisions of the original stories of the Benjamite prophet and king Saul that blacken his name. The Genesis story of Joseph is then very slightly changed to make Judah a more important brother at the expense of Reuben. Deuteronomy must come later when Jerusalem is an important client state of the Persians, and Judah is seen as one of the children of Israel.

rob117

This reconstruction makes far too many assumptions about the political motives of the authors, and assumes the falsity of traditions about early sacred places. It also assumes that Judah was not seen as Israelite until the Persian period, for which there is no external evidence, and ignores the internal evidence for a Josianic Deuteronomy.

There is no way Samuel is post-exilic. It presupposes common sacrifice at multiple altars and makes no condemnation of the worship of other gods (aside from the Deuteronomistic additions). The story of Saul and the witch of Endor can also be seen as pro-necromancy-- Saul (the villain) suppresses necromancy, but then turns to it himself, and it is through the medium of necromancy that Samuel makes his final prophecy against Saul.

Yes, the Golden Calf story is polemic against the northern cult which used more of the older El-imagery for Yahweh than the southern cult. This is why I think this story is Judean. Yet the El-imagery still appears in all over the place in biblical poetry.

David Hillman

Benjamin, meaning son of my right hand i.e son of the South, was the eponym of those who must have been at one time the most Southern of the Children of Israel so Judah as such was not included. In some traditions Benjamin,s power reaches as far as Jerusalem. When a kingdom of Judah is known to history it is not a part of the historically known kingdom of Israel.
It seems to me transparent that the story of Joseph and his brothers is written to praise the house of Joseph and of his younger brother Benjamin. Many of the other stories of Genesis celebrate sites in Israel rather than Judah, Jacob associated with Shechem and Bethel, the earliest battles and holy sites being largely in the Benjaminite area. These stories are not likely to have been originally written by Judaeans.
There are anti Benjamanite as well as pro Benjaminite stories throughout Judges and Samuel (Gibeah and Gibeon were said in the Saul story to be the centres of his power so the stories against the Gibeonites and the men of Gibeah were part of the reply to the tales of good king Saul).
When is the argument between Judah and Benjamin most likely to be told in story and counterstory?
There is no historical evidence that the stories of good king Josiah, or his discovery of an ancient book are actually true. When were such stories most likely to be told?
I am not sure, but the periods following the end of the Davidic kingdom seem most likely to me.