Celsus

That would be multiple authorship. The standard DH as I understand it is that there are J, E, D, and P, as successive independent strands interwoven by redactors at different points. If J is an author rather than a compiler, I can understand that as still falling within the larger DH framework.

<Alphabet soup mode on> But what do you call it if E is combined with J, since no one has been able to show the distinctiveness between E and J? (that's what Van Seters does) What of Schmid and his theory of Deuteronomic editing of JE that practically makes the first compilation of the Pentateuch a D composition? What do you call it when P is made to be the superstructure within which various sources (possibly things like J or E, but not strictly) are interwoven within the framework that P sets out? (which is what Blenkinsopp does) The reworking of older materials to form new documents (the author of P, for example, using J and E?) is called the supplementary hypothesis.<Alphabet soup mode off>

Finally the most obvious counter to the DH is tradition-historical criticism that simply sees multiple parts put together without much form. They are combined late, and do not correspond to J or E (and Rendtorff for example says there is no continuous pre-exilic sources). Only P is retained.
Actually, traditionally, the dating of sources is pre-exilic and post-exilic dating has been a more recent phenomenon. In fact, the tendency toward earlier dating is a conservative feature, which is exactly what you'd expect from him. And dating is hardly the major source of contention. What are Friedman's arguments for pre-exilic dating? I hope him and Dever aren't arguing in circles--I can't see a large literate tradition/scribal school in pre-exilic Israel.
That means that P is a story of generations, following genealogies in which older stories are borrowed to flesh out the details. They may or may not be called "J" or "E", and they certainly no longer require it.
You mean cranky.
I lean toward Van Seters' version at the moment (mainly because it's simple enough for me to understand), but have not done enough study. I certainly see P as a grubby-fingered editor pulling in all sorts of sources together, and I find nothing about E to be confident about, and think the story of generations is the best theory out there for explaining the structure of the material.
Well I may just get the book anyway, but I don't see how it will be much more than question-begging unless he's clearly shown that certain passages are contentious. Is there a separate E?

Joel

Doctor X

Crank [Stop that.--Ed.] Celsus:

Actually they have. Friedman dealt with this back in Who Wrote the Bible?. However, the fact remains that the J writer never uses the name Elohim in narration and the E writer consistently does. They have different political viewpoints. You have doublets between J and E.

I am not familiar with Schmid or Van Seters specifically. This seems less an argument against the DH than an argument of the details. D rejects the P ordering of things--attacks it. I do not believe Friedman argues that D is the Redactor that combines J and E.

Consistent with Friedman. P follows the stories of J and E. It seems to me--and take this with a grain of salt because I may not have gotten far enough yet--that P did not attach his text around J and E--or more probably J/E after combination by the J/E redactor. It would be another Redactor who would combine P with J/E. This makes sense, since P contradicts J/E stories--by making Aaron the "Big Guy" rather than Moses, for example. He also has a specific style of writing--uses many terms that the others do not use. Also--according to Friedman; I have no idea myself--J/E are an earlier Hebrew than P.

Hrrrmmm . . . if that is technically true, then we may be arguing semantics. Friedman seems to refer to the whole thing as the Documentary Hypothesis and, like evolution, understands the theory has developed. For example, in WWtB? he describes how he held one theory on the D author against Baruch Halperin, methinks, and later concluded he was wrong and Halperin was correct.

I am afraid the evidence is otherwise. If you look at the book, you can follow a coherent J narrative, for example. Now, the R-J/E did not necessarily retain all of E, for example. Friedman shows how the overall R uses bridging material. This may explain your objection above--why a gap between, say Noah and an Abraham? The problem is this is a bit like Q. We only have what the redactors/editors chose to keep of J and E. We have no idea if that "is it"--probably not--or what was deleted.

Really, I guess I consider "old" anything older than me! The stuff I have run into over the last twenty years--age of sources!--has rather assumed post-exilic sources. I can understand the "conservative" view to retain these as "historical" document--or at least reflecting them. However, Friedman is hardly a conservative in that fashion. He recognizes that though he may have pre-exilic dates this does not make the texts any less mythic.

This gets into the linguistics--I would have to quote large portions of the Introduction--such as on the age of the Hebrew. The sources also have historical correspondence.

Why not? It would not have to be that large.

I think the genealogies are part of the Redactor's stuff and other sources unidentified--it is not ALL JEP!--to create time-links between the narratives to give a coherent "history" for the POST-exilic Israel.

Perhaps you could recommend a particular Van Seter reference? What you describe is similar to Friedman. I would agree with him that since P contradicts the J/E material--diminishes Moses, for example, he did not expect to have his work "included" with them! To perhaps oversimplify, P is an Aaronid "response" to the Mosaic priesthood's J and E.

Yes. This is what is so great about it. EACH source is in a different color and type so you can see readily the separation. According to his Introduction, he translated each source separately.

--J.D.

Amlodhi

You're right, it is inexpensive.

I have, (and have read repeatedly), R. Friedman's, "WWtB". At that time, I had considered using highliter's to color code a copy of the bible torah myself, but I never did get the job done.

$21 (+ S&H) for a hardcover copy of this work, with the added benefit of commentary and citations, seems like a reasonable offer to me.

Thanks for the heads up.

Amlodhi

Doctor X

I tried doing that! With most Bibles, like the RSV, it is very hard to do that--like take notes--because the paper is thin. It is a good quality book with quality paper, so you can highlight it and underline.

--J.D.

Amlodhi

Yes, I know. Since so many of the fundamentalist Christians I know use the KJV, I wanted to use a KJV as a foundation text on which to add my notations. I tried for years to find a wide margin bible that had thick enough pages for adequate note taking.

Unfortunately, even in the "wide margin" bibles, the margins weren't that wide and the pages were (as you say) made with what I called the "sacred rice paper".

I finally found a place where I could order a KJV in a loose-leaf binder format. However, the pages were small (and thin) and there was no significant margin for note taking.

After some thought, I ordered the loose-leaf KJV and, removing the pages from the binder, took them to a professional print shop and had each page printed (front and back, just like the original) on full-size, quality strength pages.

Having the print of the original smaller page placed center on the larger pages gave me ample room for copious notes (and of course, a paper thickness that would allow it).

Using a 3-hole punch and reinforcers, I made the new pages fit larger loose-leaf binders. These I divided into categories: torah, major prophets, minor prophets, writings, gospels, epistles, etc. I then placed each of the categories into a separate binder with sub-categories (book, chapter, etc.) in each binder separated by reference tabs.

There were times during the process that I wondered if it was worth it, but the system has proven itself to be very useful. Because, as mentioned, so many people I talk with use the KJV as a reference, it is handy to be able to record new-found information directly onto the KJV background text.

Anyway, pardon the off-topic digression and thanks again everyone for the heads up on Friedman's new book. I am eager to receive it.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Soul Invictus

Mageth,

I'd have to second Doctor X's recommendation for WWTB. I bought it and it's a great reference and he has extensive sources for additional research purposes. I'm going to Barnes and Noble tonight to peruse The Bible with Sources Revealed. I'm sure I'll end up buying this one as well.

Doctor X,

I think you need to contact Mr. Friedman and ask him for your finder's fees!

Mageth

Originally posted by Soul Invictus
Mageth,

I'd have to second Doctor X's recommendation for WWTB. I bought it and it's a great reference and he has extensive sources for additional research purposes. I'm going to Barnes and Noble tonight to peruse The Bible with Sources Revealed. I'm sure I'll end up buying this one as well.

I'm 70+ pages into WWTB as we speak, and quite enjoying it! And yes, the other book is just one more for me to buy and put into my reading pile, dammit!

Doctor X

Soul Invictus:

I actually joked about this when I forwarded Celsus's comments and questions--I wanted to make sure I represented him correctly. He responded he would check with the publisher!! I responded that it was a joke.

Besides, I am only interested in collecting souls. . . .

Celsus:

I passed on your questions/comments/bitching [Stop that.--Ed.] and here is a response:

My copy of The Hidden Book in the Bible arrived today, so it will be awhile before I can summarize it.

--J.D.

atheist

Well, you can have mine. It's not worth anything, anyway.

I ordered WWtB and the tBwSR, and will find time to read it after I'm done On the Shoulders of Giants (Stephen Hawking). I used to read a lot about the history of the bible. This should be a refreshing take on what I've read previously, which often tried to defend the infallibility and literal truth of the Bible.

Amlodhi

Hi Celsus,

I also can't see why this would be a problem. According to the archaeological interpretation of Israel Finkelstein, the northern kingdom of Israel experienced tremendous affluence during the Omride dynasty in the 9th century.

After the dispersion of the northern kingdom, Judah experienced a tremendous population explosion, especially in the urban area of Jerusalem. Again, according to Finkelstein, there is evidence of a significant increase in overall literacy in Judah at this time, precipitating a shift from oral to written tradition.

This interpretation is also consistent with the tradition of "discovering" the book of the law in the temple just prior to the time of Josiah in the mid- 7th century. It has been my impression that most scholars understood this "book of the law" (which was most likely written at this period rather than "discovered") to be, at least, some form of the book of deuteronomy.

I have both Friedman's "WWtB" and "The Hidden Book in the Bible", and will go back and review. But if IIRC, Friedman dates some of the sources to the time of the united kingdom c. 10th century b.c. While I don't claim the expertise of either Van Seter or Friedman, I would have to disagree with Friedman here and echo your statement quoted above in regard to this early of a date, i.e, I don't see how there could have been a sufficient literate/scribal school in either Israel or Judah in the 10th century.

However, again, according to the archaeological evidence, the mid-9th to mid-8th century for Israel and the mid-7th century for Judah would not only allow a window for the production of these texts, but the social, political and religious situation at this time would seem to almost demand it.

The extent of post-exilic revision is a confusing dilemma that I have not yet sorted out (and neither apparently has anyone else). However, while I cannot see the sources dated as early as Friedman would have it, neither can I see evidence for the extent of virtually pure post-exilic invention advocated by Van Seter.

At this point, I lean to some basic source material being written in Israel 9th to 8th century, the incorporation of this material into additonal material written in Judah in the 7th century, with a degree of revisionism and editing in the post-exilic period. In addition, the original source material written in Israel and Judah during these periods was likely based in part on oral (and possibly even brief snippets of written) traditions.

This has my interest rekindled, I will await the delivery of Friedman's latest book, review both Van Seter and Friedman and read with interest your continued discussion with Doctor X, etal.

Namaste'

Amlodhi