35 replies to this topic

[David Bokovoy]

It's no secret that one of my favorite people in the world is Bill Hamblin.  He is not only a former professor, and mentor in my life, but very much a friend.  Having had several conversations with him over the years, I can state that we typically see eye to eye on issues, and that we are very much kindred spirits.  

There is one issue, however, that has recently been discussed here on the boards where he and I do not see eye to eye.  And I'm OK that he's wrong.  I still love him and wanted to share my views on a couple of interesting points that he raised.

Quote

Here I part company with David a bit.  I don't think there should be any required "orthodoxy" regarding documentary hypothesis or NT higher criticism.  While I understand them, I am not a true believer in any particular theory.  I'm an agnostic on these theories. (Historians in general tend to be very skeptical of such literary theories, especially since there is no empirical evidence for any of them, as with most biblical theories.)  

And here I have to part company a bit with Bill.  While I agree that it is good to be somewhat skeptical of literary theories that explain the origins of the Pentateuch, we actually do have important empirical evidence to support the Documentary Hypothesis.  The foundation of the Documentary Hypothesis rests upon the attestation of unnecessary repetition and doublets or duplicated stories within the book of Genesis. Examples of these doublets would include the two accounts of creation in the first and second chapters of Genesis, and the two accounts of Sarah being taken by a foreign king; etc. (Gen.12 and Gen.20).

We actually have empirical examples that various biblical texts were preserved in duplicate forms such as doubly transmitted psalms and the revision of Samuel-Kings in 1-2 Chronicles.  These sources illustrate that independent and separate versions of biblical sources existed in ancient Israel and were the product of scribal tradition.  Moreover, using ancient Mesopotamian scribal work as a comparative guide, we actually have important empirical models of Near Eastern texts not only growing with time, but of scribes amalgamating separate sources to produce a new literary work in the manner theorized by source critics for the production of the Pentateuch.

For an introduction to the type of empirical evidence that exists for source criticism in the Hebrew Bible, I would recommend the book Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism edited by Jeffrey Tigay.

Quote

On the other hand, I think anyone who wants to do biblical scholarship needs to understand them.  (The paradox here is that I'm much more skeptical about biblical critical theory than the biblical critics themselves, who claim skepticism while parroting the current orthodoxy.)

As witnessed through the various new models that have come forth in recent years, the issue of biblical critical theory is not simply a matter of parroting the current orthodoxy.  The problem is that biblical texts have a number of distinct textual indications that they constitute an amalgamated collection.  One would be hard pressed to find any biblical scholars who would deny the fact that there are separate sources, for example, in the book of Genesis.  What happens with scholars is not simply a parroting, for example, of the Documentary Hypothesis.  Instead, each scholar, especially when they begin their studies, tries to make sense of the evidence, and he or she is only able to do so time and time again by adopting some form of higher criticism to explain theological discrepancies, shifting in genre, and doublets; not to mention vocabulary differences, etc.

Quote

I also distinguish between historical-critical methods--which are universal in all historical-related fields--and critical theories, such as the documentary hypothesis.  The DH is one critical theory of the OT derived from the use of historical-critical method, but it is by no means actually demonstrable.  

Here I also have to take issue with Bill, for in reality, the Documentary Hypothesis is quite demonstrable as a working model for the production of the text; see, for example, Richard Elliot Freedman's The Bible with its Sources Revealed.  Though continental scholars have in recent years adopted a supplementary or fragmentary model rather than a “documentary” view, one would be hard pressed to find a single biblical scholar who did not accept the fact that the Pentateuch is an amalgamated work, written by different scribes, with oftentimes differing historical/religious views.

Quote

It makes sense of a lot of characteristics of the OT, but by no means makes sense of everything.  Furthermore, I suspect the reality  is far more complicated than biblical scholars have guessed.  Furthermore, given the nature of the sociology of knowledge in the modern academy, contemporary theories such as JEDP are due for a major shake-up.  (One does not get tenure by agreeing with the scholars of past generations.)  

Though there are obviously different points of views on some of the details, the basic model for source criticism in the Hebrew Bible has withstood serious academic scrutiny for over 150 years.  If there is a major shake-up, it will be a refinement, not abandonment.

Quote

(It is interesting to note that the self-description of the editorializes of the BOM reflect precisely the type of editing that is often posited to have occurred in the Bible.  That ancient scripture went through a complex editorial process as found in the BOM is consistent with modern theory, but radically inconsistent with biblical theory of the early 19th century.)

I agree.  The Book of Mormon itself is an edited compilation of various sources.

Quote

Another thing to note is that there is a wide range of opinions and interpretations of current biblical theory.  There is simply not a consensus among scholars.  Which sections were put in by which editor, what is the date of the editors, etc. are all widely debated.  Look at the minimalist controversies if you want to see some of the fissure lines

.
That’s true.  There are differences in opinion in how the various biblical sources relate to one another and when, historically, they were produced.  However, there are some compelling observations that have just come forth in recent years.

Quote

Finally, I'm not sure if the documentary hypothesis, etc. is really of much value to the ordinary student who is not majoring in a ANE related field.  I've looked at textbooks on the Old Testament, for example, that spend over 50% of their time talking about the various theories of the OT, instead of actually reading the text.  It's really quite amazing.  

It’s a balancing act.  While I would agree that there’s no need to know how the Bible developed historically to draw inspiration from the text, if one wishes to understand the text itself, both a diachronic and a synchronic reading are necessary.

Quote

What is important to me is the text and its meaning, not whether a particular verse was added by a redactor, or if J dates from the ninth century or is post-exilic.  I've been to many sessions in the Society for Biblical Literature which are devoted entirely to arguing about theories of the text, rather than actually reading the text.

I would simply argue that one cannot truly understand the text and its meaning without recognizing its separate voices.  In this sense, both a synchronic and a diachronic reading are necessary.  Perhaps I can illustrate this point by sharing the following article.  I trust that this will not make Dan uncomfortable, since this has been a widely publicized matter; and I’ve made my own view more than clear.  But let’s use this recent event to illustrate how important it is to deal with higher criticism in order to understand the text and its meaning.

In terms of the Pentateuch, we are dealing with a very complicated lengthy work that shows clear signs for being an amalgamated collection, reflective of the empirical evidence for scribal efforts in the ancient Near East.  In many ways, reading the Pentateuch is like reading the following essay.  It’s an amalgamation of three separate texts that narrate the same event.  Here are my questions:

Can you dissect the various sources?

What evidence is there as you read that you’re dealing with three separate versions of these events, rather than a single article written by one person?  

In what way can identifying these separate sources help the reader make sense of the present text and its meaning?  

If you ignore the fact that there are separate sources in this essay, can you understand the text and its meaning:

The Firing of Dan Peterson

As this “Mormon moment” continues to ratchet up public scrutiny of the LDS Church, Mormon apologists are assessing the best way to shield the faith: Play offense or stick to defense? Last week, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University fired Daniel Peterson, who served as editor of the Mormon Studies Review since its founding 23 years ago. The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship is continually striving to align its work with the academy's highest objectives and standards, as befits an organized research unit at Brigham Young University. Our areas of endeavor include the study of LDS scripture and other religious texts and related fields of religious scholarship, including the burgeoning field of Mormon studies.

To better serve these goals, last year we renamed our venerable FARMS Review to Mormon Studies Review.
Peterson, a recognized expert on Islamic and Arabic studies and a weekly columnist for the LDS Church-owned Deseret News, remains employed at BYU and as the editor of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. Since it has now been publicly announced, I suppose that I can break the self-imposed public silence that I’ve maintained, with only a couple of minor exceptions, regarding my dismissal as editor of the Mormon Studies Review, published by Brigham Young University’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, after founding it and directing it for twenty-three years.

I regard this as an utterly wrongheaded and disastrous decision, and will not pretend to support it, he wrote in an email to Bradford and copied to several of his friends.  It’s a betrayal of Elder Maxwell [the late Mormon apostle], who explicitly approved of what we were doing. In 1998, FARMS was brought into BYU under the umbrella of the Maxwell Institute, and the Mormon Studies Review came with it. Review writers responded to critics’ allegations by dissecting their arguments — and motives — sometimes writing scathing and often personal attacks on those who challenged LDS origins.

It was, they believed, the essence of apologetics. It’s scarcely a secret that I haven’t received my dismissal enthusiastically.  Thanks to somebody’s leak of two emails, this has already been all over the Web and I’m told it will soon appear, without my participation or involvement, in the mainstream media.  We have not yet set a launch date for the new Review, but we will post further developments on our website as they occur.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 01 July 2012 - 03:11 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

David!  How dare you disagree with me!  Don't you know we mogbots can have no differences of interpretation!  Get with the program, dude!  You must parrot everything I say!

On the other hand, I agree absolutely that the Bible has been edited.  That's not an area of disagreement.  The issue is whether that editing process is best understood as described in the Documentary Hypothesis, JEDP.  I think it is far more complex and fragmentary.

When I say there is no empirical evidence for the DH, what I mean is that there are no actual physical texts supporting the theory.  That is, there is no text of J.  It requires a hypothetical text.  Furthermore, there is no comprehensive agreement about the date of J, who is the author of J, and there are many disputed questions concerning which specific verses (or verse fragments) should be in J.

For example, is J 10th century?  Or is it 7th century?  Or is it post-exilic?  Serious scholars have argued for each of these.  Now a historian, not inculcated in graduate school in the secular biblical orthodoxy of the DH (that is, someone like me), would look at the situation and feel there may be cause to suspect that if the DH can't be accurately dated to within half a millennium, it may be that there is something wrong with the theory.  Or, to put it another way: what is the value of a theory that is unable to date its hypothetical text to within 500 years?

On the other hand, the DH explains a lot of things in the Bible.  The problem is that, it doesn't explain a lot of other things.

It's also disturbing that whenever there is a passage that doesn't fit the theory, it is attributed to a "redactor."  When we reach this state--where evidence that doesn't match the theory doesn't disprove the theory--then the theory becomes fundamentally unverifiable.  

So, I predict that within 20 years there will be a serious collapse of the DH.  If I'm right, you have to cook me a BBQ.  If I'm wrong, I'll let you cook me a BBQ.  Is it a bet?

[Pahoran]

David and Bill, may I say that I'm enjoying this discussion.

David, the flaw in your analogy is that, in your example text, we know the sources from which it had been cobbled.  We've seen them in their pristine purity, so all that remains is to recognise the quotes.  That is, I humbly suggest, a different problem than detecting possible literary disjunctions and hypothesizing hitherto unseen urtexten therefrom.  We aren't speculating about possible P, T or M sources there (or any other letters in the alphabet) because we don't have to.

An interesting exercise might be to give it to someone working "on a desert island" without access to the sources, but who is schooled in the source-critical methodologies underlying the DH, and see if they are able to segment it correctly.  If they are, the next step might be to cobble together something a bit less obvious, and see how they do with that.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Valentinus]

Love the discussion but this is way over my head...lol.

[maklelan]

Bill Hamblin, on 01 July 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

David!  How dare you disagree with me!  Don't you know we mogbots can have no differences of interpretation!  Get with the program, dude!  You must parrot everything I say!

On the other hand, I agree absolutely that the Bible has been edited.  That's not an area of disagreement.  The issue is whether that editing process is best understood as described in the Documentary Hypothesis, JEDP.  I think it is far more complex and fragmentary.

When I say there is no empirical evidence for the DH, what I mean is that there are no actual physical texts supporting the theory.  That is, there is no text of J.  It requires a hypothetical text.  Furthermore, there is no comprehensive agreement about the date of J, who is the author of J, and there are many disputed questions concerning which specific verses (or verse fragments) should be in J.

For example, is J 10th century?  Or is it 7th century?  Or is it post-exilic?  Serious scholars have argued for each of these.

Many pentateuchal scholars today reject the existence of an independent J source, and divide the Pentateuch just into P, non-P, and D. This gets rid of a lot of the problems with J, E, and their redactions. The evidence for both is tenuous outside of the beginning of Genesis anyway.

Bill Hamblin, on 01 July 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

Now a historian, not inculcated in graduate school in the secular biblical orthodoxy of the DH (that is, someone like me), would look at the situation and feel there may be cause to suspect that if the DH can't be accurately dated to within half a millennium, it may be that there is something wrong with the theory.  Or, to put it another way: what is the value of a theory that is unable to date its hypothetical text to within 500 years?

On the other hand, the DH explains a lot of things in the Bible.  The problem is that, it doesn't explain a lot of other things.

It's also disturbing that whenever there is a passage that doesn't fit the theory, it is attributed to a "redactor."  When we reach this state--where evidence that doesn't match the theory doesn't disprove the theory--then the theory becomes fundamentally unverifiable.  

So, I predict that within 20 years there will be a serious collapse of the DH.  If I'm right, you have to cook me a BBQ.  If I'm wrong, I'll let you cook me a BBQ.  Is it a bet?

I want in on the BBQ whatever the outcome.

[maklelan]

Pahoran, on 01 July 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

David and Bill, may I say that I'm enjoying this discussion.

David, the flaw in your analogy is that, in your example text, we know the sources from which it had been cobbled.  We've seen them in their pristine purity, so all that remains is to recognise the quotes.  That is, I humbly suggest, a different problem than detecting possible literary disjunctions and hypothesizing hitherto unseen urtexten therefrom.  We aren't speculating about possible P, T or M sources there (or any other letters in the alphabet) because we don't have to.

The value of the texts David referenced (and many others), is that they show the kinds of unique literary phenomena that crop up as the result of their being cobbling together. Tigay's edited volume, as well as the beginning of David M. Carr's Reading the Fractures of Genesis and several other publications, show that the places in the Pentateuch where scholars have suggested literary seams are found manifest the exact same literary phenomena.

[volgadon]

Pahoran, on 01 July 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

David and Bill, may I say that I'm enjoying this discussion.

David, the flaw in your analogy is that, in your example text, we know the sources from which it had been cobbled.  We've seen them in their pristine purity, so all that remains is to recognise the quotes.  That is, I humbly suggest, a different problem than detecting possible literary disjunctions and hypothesizing hitherto unseen urtexten therefrom.  We aren't speculating about possible P, T or M sources there (or any other letters in the alphabet) because we don't have to.

An interesting exercise might be to give it to someone working "on a desert island" without access to the sources, but who is schooled in the source-critical methodologies underlying the DH, and see if they are able to segment it correctly.  If they are, the next step might be to cobble together something a bit less obvious, and see how they do with that.

Regards,
Pahoran

Try this. Without googling, identify the different authors used in cobbling this passage together. Doesn't have to be by name.

Great and terrible was the year of Our Lord 1918, of the Revolution, the second. Its summer abundant with warmth and
sun, its winter with snow, but in days of blood as in days of peace, the years fly like an arrow, and the thick frost of a hoary white December,
overtook me unawares.
I approached the place I was destined for. Around me, as far as I could see, was nothing but a dull wilderness crossed by hills and gulfs. Everywhere was deep snow. Our kibitka drove along the small road, along the track made by the sledges of the peasants. At last the coachman began to look sideways, finally taking off his hat and turning to me, said, "Master, shall we not return."
"What for?"
"The weather begins to be threatening. The wind rises visibly, do you see how it drives the snow away."
"What then."
"But do you not see there?" pointing with his whip to the east, where a farm was barely visible.
The Malakhitov farm, as I found out, was at the very end of the village. The gate of the cattle-yard opened northward towards the Don.
A steep, fifty-foot slope between chalky, mossgrown banks, and there was the shore, frozen now. A little cloud, though somewhat distant, was above us.  
The wind, however, did not seem to me strong enough, and I hoped to reach yet in time the next station, so I gave orders to drive on. The coachman obeyed his orders, looking, however, always towards the east. The horses continued to trot along. The wind increased every moment in strength .The little cloud changed into a large white mass which mounted slowly, spread itself all around, and at last covered the whole of the heavens. It was a fine thin snow which fel,l till then. All at once, however, large flakes began to pour down, the wind roared, and a terrible snow storm enveloped us. The heavens and all around were one mass of snow; we could not see a single step before us. Even the heavens were filled with wrath in the year of Our Lord 1918.

Edited by volgadon, 01 July 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Bill Hamblin, on 01 July 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

David!  How dare you disagree with me!  Don't you know we mogbots can have no differences of interpretation!  Get with the program, dude!  You must parrot everything I say!

On the other hand, I agree absolutely that the Bible has been edited.  That's not an area of disagreement.  The issue is whether that editing process is best understood as described in the Documentary Hypothesis, JEDP.  I think it is far more complex and fragmentary.

When I say there is no empirical evidence for the DH, what I mean is that there are no actual physical texts supporting the theory.  That is, there is no text of J.  It requires a hypothetical text.  Furthermore, there is no comprehensive agreement about the date of J, who is the author of J, and there are many disputed questions concerning which specific verses (or verse fragments) should be in J.

This is true of the entire Bible... BOTH testaments even.......

[Nevo]

maklelan, on 01 July 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

Many pentateuchal scholars today reject the existence of an independent J source, and divide the Pentateuch just into P, non-P, and D.

I assume one of those would be David Carr:

"Some of the terminological criteria most beloved by traditional source critics, e.g., variation in divine designation (YHWH versus Elohim) or terms for maidservant (‘amah versus shiphah) vary a significant amount in manuscripts that we have, let alone the centuries of textual transmission before our existing manuscripts. I still think there is strong enough evidence for distinguishing Priestly and non-Priestly traditions from one another. And I think there likely are very early chunks of material in the Bible, including parts of the Pentateuch. But the case for early, intertwined “J” and “E” sources (within the non-Priestly strand of the Pentateuch) is largely built on sand rather than rock. It pales in comparison to the case for the distinction between Priestly and non-Priestly strands in the Pentateuch." (source)

Has anyone here read his new book, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible? It looks interesting.

[rameumptom]

I am a big believer in regards to the Documentary Hypothesis. I do believe there may be  more to it, as well, that has yet to be discovered.

For those not able to easily follow the discussion here, I recently wrote an article regarding the DH and how it ties in with the Book of Mormon at Feast Upon the Word Blog

It answers several things, and not only helps us to understand the early OT books, but perhaps also the BoM.  So, even though I'm going to remain friends with Bill, I'm on David's side on this argument.

[David Bokovoy]

Nevo, on 01 July 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I assume one of those would be David Carr:

"Some of the terminological criteria most beloved by traditional source critics, e.g., variation in divine designation (YHWH versus Elohim) or terms for maidservant (‘amah versus shiphah) vary a significant amount in manuscripts that we have, let alone the centuries of textual transmission before our existing manuscripts. I still think there is strong enough evidence for distinguishing Priestly and non-Priestly traditions from one another. And I think there likely are very early chunks of material in the Bible, including parts of the Pentateuch. But the case for early, intertwined “J” and “E” sources (within the non-Priestly strand of the Pentateuch) is largely built on sand rather than rock. It pales in comparison to the case for the distinction between Priestly and non-Priestly strands in the Pentateuch." (source)

Has anyone here read his new book, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible? It looks interesting.

I have read it, but I'll confess, not yet in detail.  I needed to search to see his main arguments in relationship to certain issues addressed in my dissertation.  The main argument in Pentateuchal studies is whether or not the Pentateuch is a compilation of documents, fragments, or supplemental sources.  Most American and Israeli scholars still accept a documentary model, whereas many European scholars have mostly done away with J, E. and to some extent, even P.

No matter which model they adopt, very few scholars currently question the existence of non-P literary forms in Genesis.  Thus, technically, whatever the non-Priestly material is called is less important.  The documentary approach, which I personally find most compelling, still has a strong following and new arguments have been put forward recently reaffirming its validity (Baden, Schwartz, Stackert, Hendel, Friedman, et al.)

The main area of interest I found with Carr's study was his approach to scribal practices in ancient Israel.  In his explanation for the similarities between Genesis and Mesopotamian sources such as Atra-hasis, Gilgamesh, and Enūma Elish, David Carr originally offered a standard traditions view of the “source” behind J’s Mesopotamian influence:

Quote

[Mesopotamian] texts like this provide provocative pointers to possible influence of the Sumero-Akkadian tradition on texts written long after that tradition is attested in the Syro-Palestinian area.  Yet it is quite unclear how such influence would have taken place or what kind of textual-educational system Israel itself had.  Perhaps earliest Israel was influenced somewhat by the last remnants of the Sumero-Akkadian tradition in Canaan, and it is still possible that some later scribal circles in Israel were influenced by elements like treaty formulae that were most pertinent to the sorts of international diplomacy with Assyria in which they were engaged. David Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 61.

A major point in Carr's research had been that similarities between the Pentateuch and Mesopotamian sources were a result of oral tradition coming from a Canaanite influence.  In his most recent study, however, Carr states that David Wright’s work on the use of the Laws of Hammurapi for the formation of the Covenant Code in Exodus shows that “the Covenant Code stands as another biblical example of creative adaptation of a prominent non-biblical precursor text;” David Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford, 2011), 470.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 02 July 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[David Bokovoy]

Bill Hamblin, on 01 July 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

David!  How dare you disagree with me!  Don't you know we mogbots can have no differences of interpretation!  Get with the program, dude!  You must parrot everything I say!

On the other hand, I agree absolutely that the Bible has been edited.  That's not an area of disagreement.  The issue is whether that editing process is best understood as described in the Documentary Hypothesis, JEDP.  I think it is far more complex and fragmentary.

It sounds, my good friend, like you may like a lot of the European models that have surfaced in recent years.  A lot of very intelligent people have opted for a complex fragmentary nature to the Pentateuchal sources.

Quote

It's also disturbing that whenever there is a passage that doesn't fit the theory, it is attributed to a "redactor."  When we reach this state--where evidence that doesn't match the theory doesn't disprove the theory--then the theory becomes fundamentally unverifiable.

Wouldn't you agree though, based upon the example of Mormon, that a redactor or editor would have to insert his own voice into a compilation in order to smooth out the assembly.  Shouldn't we expect to find an editor's voice independent of his sources?

Quote

So, I predict that within 20 years there will be a serious collapse of the DH.  If I'm right, you have to cook me a BBQ.  If I'm wrong, I'll let you cook me a BBQ.  Is it a bet?

Despite your prediction, you remain my favorite friend to cook for.  No doubt.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 02 July 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[wenglund]

This thread is a great example of how criticisms can be sardonic in tone, and yet quite amenable and endearing as well as informative. It demonstrates that good scholasticism isn't at odds with good humor, and that one need not react to criticism or counter-criticism so egoistically or defensively. We can all learn something from this beyond the DH issue. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

rameumptom, on 02 July 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

I am a big believer in regards to the Documentary Hypothesis. I do believe there may be  more to it, as well, that has yet to be discovered.

For those not able to easily follow the discussion here, I recently wrote an article regarding the DH and how it ties in with the Book of Mormon at Feast Upon the Word Blog

It answers several things, and not only helps us to understand the early OT books, but perhaps also the BoM.  So, even though I'm going to remain friends with Bill, I'm on David's side on this argument.

Thanks, Gerald.  It's interesting to consider the impact of source criticism on the Book of Mormon.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 02 July 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Bill Hamblin]

David Bokovoy, on 02 July 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Most American and Israeli scholars still accept a documentary model, whereas many European scholars have mostly done away with J, E. and to some extent, even P.

No matter which model they adopt, very few scholars currently question the existence of non-P literary forms in Genesis.  Thus, technically, whatever the non-Priestly material is called is less important.  The documentary approach, which I personally find most compelling, still has a strong following and new arguments have been put forward recently reaffirming its validity (Baden, Schwartz, Stackert, Hendel, Friedman, et al.)

But this is the problem.  Everyone agrees that there is more than one source.  But no one agrees on how many sources, the date, the criteria for selecting, etc.  So what the theory boils down to is that there are multiple sources in the Pentateuch.  Is that the best the theory can offer?  Some say there is a J.  Some say there is no J.  And those who accept a J source can't agree on a date within a 500 year span.  In any other field but biblical studies, the inability to date a source within a 500 year span would be seen as a perfectly good reason to jettison the theory.  But instead they say there is no J, only non-P.  How is this helpful?  

Another serious problem is circular reasoning in these arguments.  P likes genealogies.  (How do we know that?  Because a source identified as P has a genealogy.)  Therefore, whenever there is a genealogy it must be P.  How do we know?  Because P likes genealogies.  Is it impossible that somebody other than P was interested in genealogies?

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Bill,

Bill Hamblin, on 02 July 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

But this is the problem.  Everyone agrees that there is more than one source.  But no one agrees on how many sources, the date, the criteria for selecting, etc.

There is much that is agreed upon in terms of higher criticism.  However, I would simply state that universal agreement is not necessary to establish the validity of an argument.  There will always be those who resist scientific observations, no matter how compelling.

Quote

So what the theory boils down to is that there are multiple sources in the Pentateuch.  Is that the best the theory can offer?

The theory contributes much, much more than simply an observation that there are multiple sources in the Pentateuch.  It helps to identify religious concerns and theological conceptions held by various schools of thought in ancient Israel.  The theory explains why the text not only features doublets, but also inconsistencies.  Without the observation that there are documentary sources in the Pentateuch, the text itself makes little sense.  Just like the example I gave of the article on Dan in the initial post.

Quote

Some say there is a J.  Some say there is no J.

Whatever the source is called is somewhat irrelevant, as is the issue of whether it is a documentary source or a supplementary source (at least in terms of understanding the different voices in the Pentateuch).  There is a separate, non-Priestly source in the opening chapters of Genesis.  There is almost universal agreement on this matter.  And I personally find the standard view that there is an earlier documentary source (call it J) that P interacts with to be a very, very compelling argument.

Quote

And those who accept a J source can't agree on a date within a 500 year span.  In any other field but biblical studies, the inability to date a source within a 500 year span would be seen as a perfectly good reason to jettison the theory.

While I have some strong feelings on the dating of J to the Neo-Assyrian time period, and I recognize the fact that placing a source in a specific historical context can help to make sense of certain literary features, the goal of Pentateuchal studies is not so much to date the various sources, but rather, to understand them in terms of their religious conceptions.

It's only you crazy historians that get all worked up over dates.

Quote

Another serious problem is circular reasoning in these arguments.  P likes genealogies.  (How do we know that?  Because a source identified as P has a genealogy.)  Therefore, whenever there is a genealogy it must be P.  How do we know?  Because P likes genealogies.  Is it impossible that somebody other than P was interested in genealogies?

A propensity to focus upon genealogical lists is only one of many features attested in the Priestly source.  If that was all there was to the theory then of course identifying documentary sources would be simply a matter of circular reasoning.  Instead, the issue is much more like a complicated puzzle with various parts and pieces that all fit together to make a beautiful picture.

For example, as has long been noted by source critics, responding to J’s assertion that Noah took for himself seven pairs of clean animals for the purpose of sacrifice, P rewrites the earlier Israelite tradition so that God commands Noah to bring only two creatures, male and female, from all flesh (compare Gen. 7:2 with 6:9).

So documentary analysis is not simply an issue of circular reasoning on basic issues such as genealogy lists; etc.  It answers the question concerning why a section of the text that uses Elohim as a divine name states that Noah only brought two of each animal species on the arc, whereas another section of the text that uses Yahweh as a divine name states that Noah brought seven pairs of clean animals for the purpose of sacrifice.

It explains why the first creation story in Genesis which uses Elohim as a divine name states that men and women were created on the sixth day, after the animals, whereas the second creation story which uses Yahweh as a divine name identifies man as being created on day one, followed by the animals, followed by the woman.

As the puzzle comes together, we see that P constitutes a rewritten version of the earlier J source, intentionally changing its earlier cultic elements by rejecting J’s cultic performances that occur prior to the tabernacle revelation.  In this effort, P retained J’s motif regarding animal slaughter as a permissible act, yet transformed this performance into a profane rather than a ritual slaughter.  We also see that P's creation story doesn't end with the sabbath day, but with the establishment of the temple ritual, etc.

So it’s not simply a matter of circular reasoning that when we see a genealogy list we attribute it to P, since P likes genealogy.  As we put the puzzle together, we start to see that various pieces work together, including genealogy lists, in a highly consistent manner for which we have no explanation whatsoever without the assistance of source criticism.  

Much love.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 03 July 2012 - 09:21 AM.

[Bill Hamblin]

David, stop criticizing me!!!  It's soooooo mean!  You make me feel bad.  And my personal feelings are the supreme arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable in scholarship!

[William Schryver]

David,

If you have the time, I would like you to address the question of how, in your opinion, the creation stories in the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham relate to the two different stories in Genesis.

-WS

[David Bokovoy]

Bill Hamblin, on 03 July 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

David, stop criticizing me!!!  It's soooooo mean!  You make me feel bad.  And my personal feelings are the supreme arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable in scholarship!

I love you, Bill.  Even though you are wrong, you are still the smartest guy I know.  And I remain your devoted fan.  Hope that helps.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 03 July 2012 - 10:09 AM.

[David Bokovoy]

William Schryver, on 03 July 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

David,

If you have the time, I would like you to address the question of how, in your opinion, the creation stories in the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham relate to the two different stories in Genesis.

-WS

I would love to have the discussion with you, Will.  It directly relates to the issues we're addressing, so feel free to share ideas, insights, and/or questions directly into the thread.