Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 03-01-2005, 12:48 AM

In another thread, Celsus posted this (my emphasis)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

The Pentateuch was conservatively dated according to 4 "sources", J, E, D, and P, with J dating to about the 9th century at the earliest. Putting J in the Iron Age I or early II has numerous difficulties, not least of which that the language it was written in hadn't appeared yet, nor had the nation it was about to establish. So of course, it is disputed: John Van Seters has dated J to the Babylonian Exile (6th century), while several others dates it just before that (7th). E is completely disregarded these days, except by R.E. Friedman (and one banned member of this board), and D is usually dated to the Josianic reform (c. 620 BCE), though of course there's disagreement there too. P is generally regarded as post-exilic, around the construction of the Second Temple (Ezra/Nehemiah, 5th-4th century) at the earliest, but suggestions have been made to place it with the Maccabeans (3rd-2nd century). Most people who recognise the continuity between Deuteronomy and Joshua-Kings will give D an exilic date at the earliest, noting the similarity in language with Jeremiah and Isaiah.

This intrigued me, especially the part that I have bolded.

My knowledge of the Documentary Hypothesis is primarily from Friedman's book, which was recommended to me by the aforementioned banned member before he was banned [Get on with it - Ed.]

Can any of our resident scholars expand on this for me.

If 'E' is disregarded, who is that part of the material generally ascribed to?

What is the argument for a lack of 'E'?

If 'E' doesn't exist, what does that do to Friedman's hypotheses about Judea/Israel rivalry being behind the rather competitive J/E theological rivalry?

Celsus · 03-01-2005, 01:13 AM

Well I exaggerated a tad but the point is clear: the desire to hang on to E in the face of intractable problems regarding the distinctions between J and the lack of any continuity in the E material has led most scholars to lose in interest in trying to preserve it. Interestingly enough, J itself has been called into question by H.H. Schmid (see here), along with the entire project of source criticism as a whole. Unfortunately, the discussions get a bit technical after this. I'm working on an entry for Peter's TheoWiki project on the Documentary Hypothesis and also form and source criticism, so maybe things will become clearer then. In the meantime, see here.

Joel

Vorkosigan · 03-01-2005, 02:46 AM

This looks a lot like the problem I ran into with Mark; namely, that the more development and redaction you assign to an author -- in this case the D redactor -- the harder it gets to date. This must be especially true because D is self-consciously creating history.

andrewcriddle · 03-01-2005, 05:53 AM

Ernest Nicolson in 'The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen' 1998 broadly defends the 4 source (JEPD) analysis of the Pentateuch

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer · 03-01-2005, 08:10 AM

I'd like to hear some criticisms of the JPED theory also. A friend was telling me about it, but we haven't gotten really into it.

Donald_McRonald · 03-01-2005, 08:30 AM

How new is this? I don't remember anything about a dispute over E from my days studying the doc hypothesis in high school. (Although it was never really presented in any great depth.)

Celsus · 03-01-2005, 09:31 AM

Divergence from the DH has been going on since the 19th century of course, but it was always the mainstream position. As I said, form criticism (aka traditio-historical criticism) is the obvious immediate contender to source criticism, and that originates with Hermann Gunkel and Sigmund Mowinckel in the late 19th/early 20th century, carried on by the likes of Martin Noth (1970s) and so on. Another rejection of the DH comes from Umberto Cassuto (1941), but he seems to have made little impact and I've never read him. Within the source critics, H.H. Schmid's critique out in the 1970s, as did most of the other arguments against E. I recommend Blenkinsopp's book in the reading list if you are already familiar with the DH. If not, read Friedman then Blenkinsopp. As I said, I'm preparing a piece for Peter and until then you'll just have to hope someone else is willing to stick their neck out and clobber E over the head.

Joel

Anat · 03-01-2005, 12:50 PM

The doublets (and triplets) are still there, though, as are internal inconsistencies which serve as evidence for two or more sources for a particular story. So is the message of the non-E etc hypothesis that multiple sources existed, but we cannot say that source 1 of story X has the same author as source 1 of story Y etc?

Toto · 03-01-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Ernest Nicolson in 'The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen' 1998 broadly defends the 4 source (JEPD) analysis of the Pentateuch

Andrew Criddle

Amazon link

review

Quote:

Nicholson's goal is two-fold: to summarize the new theories and to defend the older consensus. In the first part of the book, he sketches the rise of the classical Documentary Hypothesis to its apogee in the work of Julius Wellhausen; then he describes the modifications of that theory under the influence of form criticism and tradition history which culminated in the studies of von Rad and Noth. In the longer second half, Nicholson examines the various attacks on the Documentary Hypothesis in the past quarter century, concentrating on the work of Rolf Rendtorff, Erhard Blum (both of whom describe the basic building blocks of the Pentateuch in new ways while rejecting the notion of discrete documents known as JE, P, and D), Norman Whybray (who views the Pentateuch as a literary unity built from motley older materials that cannot for the most part be reconstructed), and several scholars including Christoph Levin and John van Seters who retain the sigla of the Documentary Hypothesis but diverge from its main outlines in far-reaching ways (for example, by dating J-type material to the postexilic period and viewing it as dependent on Deuteronomy and related literature). In the last chapter he also addresses the work of synchronic readers who do not so much deny the Documentary Hypothesis as they move beyond it or ignore it.

This book, then, treats the gamut of modern Christian scholarship on the Pentateuch in the last two centuries, and this comprehensive approach proves extremely useful. Nicholson notes how the theories of the past quarter century often recall older ones, especially from the dawn of modern biblical studies in the generation before Wellhausen. Particularly helpful is frequent reference to three basic models of composition: documentary, supplementary, and fragmentary. A documentary model speaks of originally discrete texts that have been brought together to form a more complex work; in a supplementary model, an original base text has been expanded by a series of additions and revisions; a fragmentary model acknowledges that the Pentateuch is built from older texts but denies that they originally comprised extended (much less recoverable) narratives. These three paradigms greatly aid the reader in distinguishing among competing theories that in many respects resemble or modify each other. Thus many mid-twentieth century variations of the Documentary Hypothesis add an element of the supplementary model to the hypothesis, asserting, for example, that E was never an independent source but rather a series of additions to J. Similarly, these terms help the reader understand the relationships between older and newer contributions to Pentateuchal criticism.

. . .

CJD · 03-01-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Pervy asked:
If 'E' is disregarded, who is that part of the material generally ascribed to?

Generally speaking, in my understanding, that would be "J".

CJD

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2005, 01:13 AM	#2
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Well I exaggerated a tad but the point is clear: the desire to hang on to E in the face of intractable problems regarding the distinctions between J and the lack of any continuity in the E material has led most scholars to lose in interest in trying to preserve it. Interestingly enough, J itself has been called into question by H.H. Schmid (see here), along with the entire project of source criticism as a whole. Unfortunately, the discussions get a bit technical after this. I'm working on an entry for Peter's TheoWiki project on the Documentary Hypothesis and also form and source criticism, so maybe things will become clearer then. In the meantime, see here. Joel

03-01-2005, 02:46 AM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	This looks a lot like the problem I ran into with Mark; namely, that the more development and redaction you assign to an author -- in this case the D redactor -- the harder it gets to date. This must be especially true because D is self-consciously creating history.

03-01-2005, 05:53 AM	#4
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Ernest Nicolson in 'The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen' 1998 broadly defends the 4 source (JEPD) analysis of the Pentateuch Andrew Criddle

03-01-2005, 08:10 AM	#5
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I'd like to hear some criticisms of the JPED theory also. A friend was telling me about it, but we haven't gotten really into it.

03-01-2005, 08:30 AM	#6
Donald_McRonald Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York/Boston/Amsterdam Posts: 261	How new is this? I don't remember anything about a dispute over E from my days studying the doc hypothesis in high school. (Although it was never really presented in any great depth.)

03-01-2005, 09:31 AM	#7
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Divergence from the DH has been going on since the 19th century of course, but it was always the mainstream position. As I said, form criticism (aka traditio-historical criticism) is the obvious immediate contender to source criticism, and that originates with Hermann Gunkel and Sigmund Mowinckel in the late 19th/early 20th century, carried on by the likes of Martin Noth (1970s) and so on. Another rejection of the DH comes from Umberto Cassuto (1941), but he seems to have made little impact and I've never read him. Within the source critics, H.H. Schmid's critique out in the 1970s, as did most of the other arguments against E. I recommend Blenkinsopp's book in the reading list if you are already familiar with the DH. If not, read Friedman then Blenkinsopp. As I said, I'm preparing a piece for Peter and until then you'll just have to hope someone else is willing to stick their neck out and clobber E over the head. Joel

03-01-2005, 12:50 PM	#8
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	The doublets (and triplets) are still there, though, as are internal inconsistencies which serve as evidence for two or more sources for a particular story. So is the message of the non-E etc hypothesis that multiple sources existed, but we cannot say that source 1 of story X has the same author as source 1 of story Y etc?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.