Why Byu And The Maxwell Institute Are In Serious, Serious Trouble

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I fear the day when we become like other church's, when one must be a "scholar" to be taken seriously. Although I think losing Dan is a tragdey to the "Maxwell institute". Seems to be a youth trend. BTW, who makes this decision...is it the GA's?

[gtaggart]

Probably because General Authorities, Elder Oaks included, have gone on the record to say that the received text in the English form known as the KJV is, of itself, inspired. Oaks, Scripture Reading and Revelation, Ensign Jan. 1995. Perhaps the 72 elders who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 70 days were inspired. Perhaps, therefore, all the Greek and Hebrew exegesis in the world today is the sort of "ever learning and never" etc. business we read about in modern revelation.

I'm no Luddite, and I know Joseph Smith himself studied Hebrew to have a better understanding of the Bible, but that was Joseph Smith. As for the eunuch of Queen Candace, I doubt Phillip had to do much exegesis to convince him. Nor did the fellow likely speak Greek or Hebrew. Well, I take that back. He was reading the Septuagint.

(Emphasis Supplie)

Bob, where does Elder Oaks say this? I don't see it in the article you cited. Maybe I missed it.

[Calm]

All of this makes me wonder what is going on with a certain faction of the church membership. It seems that wherever I turn lately I am hearing we should do something or change something so we can accomodate, attract or do not anger non-members. How far do we go to be popular?

Well, attracting non-members would tend to raise the likelihood that eventually they might become members.

But I am just talking about how many church leaders in the past have pointed to nonLDS as examples on how to better walk the path. I don't think any of them even meant by the suggestion of studying the lives of good nonmembers we should ignore what we've learn as and from members of our faith or even that we shouldn't put a higher priority on learning from those of our own faith. I am thinking just that we should never set a limit on where and when God might deliver a message to us, with of course the qualification that it is better for us to put the most effort into seeking out messages from places that are most likely to provide them.

I love to read the nonLDS POV simply because I like to see how others' minds work. While I may not be sifting through the stuff looking for inspired truths, I don't reject them when I come across them just because I wasn't looking.

Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

BTW, who makes this decision...is it the GA's?

That is part of the debate. Specifics are undocumented, claims have been made, claims have been denied....

[Bernard Gui]

All of this makes me wonder what is going on with a certain faction of the church membership. It seems that wherever I turn lately I am hearing we should do something or change something so we can accomodate, attract or do not anger non-members. How far do we go to be popular?

Part of the baggage that comes with being a Peculiar People. On the other hand, the Nephites and Lamanites were obliged to make nice and bury the tomahawk when facing annihilation at the hands of the Gadiantons..

Bernard

Edited June 27, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[CASteinman]

Probably because General Authorities, Elder Oaks included, have gone on the record to say that the received text in the English form known as the KJV is, of itself, inspired. Oaks, Scripture Reading and Revelation, Ensign Jan. 1995.

FYI, your reference does not seem to support your statement. Oaks' talk does not mention a particular Bible Version or the "Received text in the English".

I would find it interesting if any general authority had said that in any way that could reasonably be construed to imply that other versions could not be profitably consulted for other points of view. Mainly because I have never seen such a quote... and it would be a bit weird.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The entire thing is silly, in my view. Our founding Prophet of the Restoration stated point-blank that "from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled," and "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors," and "to become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions."

It shouldn't bother us to find that the scriptures have been massively corrupted. They're just paper, subject to all the vicissitudes of history and record-keeping and political wrangling that all such histories are tainted by. (Note well the account of the Savior rebuking the Nephites for not including Samuel the Lamanite's story in their records for what were obviously political reasons.) Scripture is given to people in their weakness; the Book of Mormon says that many plain and precious truths were lost from those scriptures, and that the voices of other people will cry out from the dust to prove the Gospel (the Plan of Salvation) when the testimonies of different nations are allowed to run together. We are specifically counseled not to be a people who cry out that we already have a Bible and there cannot be any more Bible.

So why should it bother us to find that the Old Testament has practically been rewritten, that the Deuteronomists condemned First Temple theology, that male chauvinists burned Asherah and justified their slaughters through retroactive nationalistic histories, that fashionable philosophical monotheism wormed its way into what were obviously originally polytheistic societies, that the Gnostics and the Apocryphal writers and the desert sectaries preserved knowledge of things lost to (or deliberately excluded from) normative Judaism and Christianity? The example of all the editing and recontextualizing going on in the manuscript history of the Doctrine and Covenants alone should show us that the words of scripture are not the meat.

In order for counterfeits to be successful, they have to mimic the original, even if they twist it around to support their agenda. Frankly, it is deeply faith-affirming to me to think that the God of War imagined as a Near Eastern Suzerain is not what God is really like. And yet, even if the Man of War is not, in my view, a correct view of our loving Father, that doesn't mean that His anthropomorphism was somehow "primitive" or merely an allegorical myth. In order for the twisted nationalistic history to function as propaganda, it nevertheless necessarily had to contain enough of a mirror of the truth to be effective, even if it was through a glass darkly!

Let's not forget that it's not just some flimsy suggestion that we're supposed to study the history of our own tradition and others; it is a commandment from such places as D&C 93:53, which says "And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen."

In reality and essence, we don't differ so far from others in our religion; only in that we wish all to drink into one principle of love. If we're a peculiar people, we'll be peculiar in our love. One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all that some have said; the characters of the older churches has always been slandered by those who split from them. And if all the world has had the gospel, then we should find that the further back in history we search, the more unified our societies become. Which is precisely what we do find. All people -- and their histories! -- are to be grafted back in to the mother tree; this tendency we have of splitting ourselves into warring tribes who are definitely not like each other is what the Book of Mormon teaches us to reject.

Yet throughout history, that's exactly what we do. Protestants can't be anything like those nasty Catholics; Catholics can't be anything like those nasty Muslims; Muslims can't be anything like those nasty Jews; Jews can't be anything like those nasty Canaanites and Egyptians, who can't be anything like those Greeks, who can't be anything like those Hindus, who can't be anything like those Buddhists or Confucians or Pacific Islanders or Siberian steppe nomads. If we're anything like each other, then our claims to uniqueness are necessarily shattered. But the Pearl of Great Price shows that contact with the Gods has been happening since the very beginning of our species, with an archetypal First-Man Adam ('adm, mankind) being spoken to. We are told that there are wise men we know not of, who have been told of the Elder World and the Divine Council across worlds without number.

As Joseph Smith said: "I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments."

So look. If the Gods (our anthropomorphic, physically-existing ancestors whose Intelligences are as eternal as our own) are real, then they have to be judged on their merits; by their fruits will we know them. If they break the laws of justice by partaking of the spirit of bloodshed, then they cease to be worth worshipping as "Gods" at all. The God who, according to one nationalistic history, commanded Joshua to slaughter helpless infants is not the kind of God I choose to worship, regardless of whether or not He really exists. The God who commands all His followers to love their neighbors is.

The existence of these Gods does not depend in any way on the scraps of paper which have been written down after some people have had experiences with them. If Gods are real, they are living Gods; it's an idolatrous people who seek to fetishize the frail fallible records of them as being the sole determinant of whether they exist. It's entirely possible to extrapolate the mere existence of Gods without a single historical record of them; we ourselves exist as conscious entities who live on a world orbiting a star who at certain points in history possess the capability to build vehicles that allow us to fly, possibly even to other worlds. Either beings of this sort exist out there in the universe or they don't; if they do exist, then either they're seeking to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of other conscious entities, or they're not. Insofar as they are, they have my allegiance and worship; insofar as they are not, I refuse to regard them as being worthy of giving worth to. If they exist and regard us as their adopted children worthy of saving within our bodily tabernacles, then great. If they don't, then we're screwed anyway unless we labor in the vineyard to gain Wisdom enough to save each other and other conscious entities.

In either case, in order to be good people, we have to try to be the Saviors of Men, lest we become salt that has lost its savor. We have to be concentrating on serving each other in whatever way we can; studying medicine to heal each other, studying history so we don't repeat it. The goal of achieving eternal life is the same regardless of whether or not we believe that other Gods have already achieved it; insofar as they do not help their fellows to achieve it, they are not worthy of being worshipped anyway.

If God found himself in the midst of intelligences and could not create Himself, then that means we're all uncreated and free; that's the same worldview as humanism. In Mormonism, humanism and all of history is theology. That doesn't mean all Intelligences (all potential Gods) behave in good ways; nor does it mean that all the histories of those Intelligences are equally reliable. It's the truth that will set us free; the problem is that a written record is not "truth", it is one perspective. So let's be as accurate as possible in our teaching of history; it is utterly unnecessary to lose faith over stuff like the Documentary Hypothesis. Instead of being narrow parochialists determined to base our testimonies on the particular scraps of paper we've happened to inherit, let's recognize that it's a good idea -- regardless of where we learned it -- to believe all things, to prove all things and hold fast that which is good, to hope all things, to endure many things, to seek after anything virtuous, lovely, or of praiseworthy report.

[mfbukowski]

David, I was somewhat stunned by the disclosure that Dana and Dave were called on the carpet for alluding to the Documentary Hypothesis in their excellent book, Jehovah and the World of the OT. After my article on the DH came out in Dialogue, I heard from a CES guy who was also doing grad work in Bible somewhere in Florida. He had a student who was also doing grad work in Bible. He had shared my article with his student, and they were able to negotiate their studies just fine, and he was thanking me for the article.

Conversely, he told me that his evangelical friends in the program were just being slaughtered. One guy's faith was so shattered that he was meeting with his pastor on a daily basis trying to stem the damage. My friend tried to gently suggest that the Bible can be reliable without being inerrant in the classical sense, but he refused to even consider such a thing, as Biblical inerrancy was the ground of his faith in the first place.

Lucky for these guys I didn't have a BYU administrator telling me not to publish that article...

Very scary stuff. This is all so sad that people cannot cope with this kind of thing, and give up on one of the most wonderful aspects of life because of fundamentalism.

[Yirgacheffe]

...since we reap fluff, we end up fluffy minded.

I love your turn of phrase here, it made me laugh.

[volgadon]

I majored in History and Minored in Near Eastern studies at BYU. Outside of my own personal readings in scholarly work, my first classroom exposure to the Documentary Hypothesis came after I left BYU in 1998 and began my graduate studies. As I believe I've shared before, your article gave me a lot of hope that I was not alone in trying to place these issues in the context of my faith.

However, there are unequivocally certain approaches to scripture that even if one adopts in one's own personal construct, without openly professing in the context of one's teachings, that are simply not acceptable. Another would be Blake Ostler's "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20 (Spring 1987).

Returning to the matter of ancillary degrees to biblical studies, as I shared, this in and of itself is not the problem, since outside specialities can often bring additional insights to the text. The problem is that many of those in RE that have pursued these areas have done so in order to specifically avoid dealing with these issues; so they have strong feelings about these matters.

While I will not mention his name, there is an Egyptologist (not John Gee) who once shared with me that while his main interest was Hebrew Bible, he chose Egyptology in order to avoid facing such issues as the Documentary Hypothesis and that in his opinion, we as Latter-day Saints can't really learn anything from non-LDS scholars about the Bible.

I think I know which Egyptologist you mean, in which case that is a story I won't get into publicly.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

And it would appear that this will continue to be the trend for the near future.

To those who maintain that serious academic study of scripture erodes faith, I would recommend considering the following quote:

"Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah's ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-'Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.' Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. 'Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.' So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud "the simple faith;" which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence- this plea in bar of effort-"thus far and no farther.” Seventy’s Course of Theology, 5:1-2.

Wow..... great quote. I believe, truly I do, in time.......we will get away from this simplistic faith and gain in great leaps and advances our knowledge without worrying about what it does to faith.....

[Kerry A. Shirts]

As one whose dissertation is entitled “Yahweh as a Sexual Deity in J’s Prehistory,” I’ll just simply add that I believe Dever has made some important observations on early Israelite religious conceptions and leave it at that.

Best,

--DB

And I also think the concern of atheism or believer in scholarship isn't nearly as important as analyzing the evidence and details of the reason, logic, and analysis used. I understand and agree largely that there is some influence of one's background, but of course.....but to simply toss anything off by an atheist is absolutely as logical as anti-Mormons who toss off anything written because it's from a Mormon....... It's surely more important to examine the content of articles and books, not making the background the point of labeling someone or something and thereby merely dismissing anything they write or wrote. I am not accusing you of this Bro. Crockett, I am just hoping it doesn't happen..... I am reading the atheists right now, and have found that they cut the Gordonian knot of faith and lousy reasoning and weak evidence completely away and getting right down to the issues in rather powerful ways. I am somewhat surprised actually at how truly good and sound many of their arguments are..... they cause one to think in ways that our church never can do, because they have different parameters and ways of thinking and analyzing evidence as proof or reliability or even probability.....it's an eye opening exercise for me, without question.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Very scary stuff. This is all so sad that people cannot cope with this kind of thing, and give up on one of the most wonderful aspects of life because of fundamentalism.

We Mormons are largely in the very same boat though, only with a different set of assumptions than the Fundamentalists........

[mfbukowski]

We Mormons are largely in the very same boat though, only with a different set of assumptions than the Fundamentalists........

Not me!

Only those who are fundamentalists are in the same boat. I've got my own raft, just paddling along as happy as I can be! You too can be a non-literalist and get your own raft!

[CASteinman]

We Mormons are largely in the very same boat though, only with a different set of assumptions than the Fundamentalists........

Incorrect.

[Calm]

Wow..... great quote. I believe, truly I do, in time.......we will get away from this simplistic faith and gain in great leaps and advances our knowledge without worrying about what it does to faith.....

I think a lot may have to do with a sense of not having this long historical heritage in comparison with Catholics and Protestants (though many of the Protestant sects are newer than us, they still seem to tie themselves to the "historical Christian faith"). I get this sense from many Catholics of a certain sereneness when it comes to discussing stuff that they might not be involved in, but that others might get into. They can look back and see that their Church has gone through pretty much everything good and bad and still survived so they don't feel threatened by controversy or innovation...it will in the end if it survives be used for the good of the Faith.

LDS have this attitude in some ways due to the concept of the "true living faith" we teach along with the "prophet will never leave the Church astray", but we haven't experienced it yet, our Church has survived so much, but "everything" and certainly not for 2000 years (as those who see themselves as part of the historic Christian faith would likely interpret that age of their faith). When that certainty becomes part of our collective, "genetic" being, then I can see more neutrality or actual interest in exploration outside of the 'approved' box.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Incorrect.

Not incorrect.......the church will not adopt and teach the Documentary hypothesis with its obvious logic and full conclusions. If any biblical scholarly conclusions give a different answer from the church, the church will always stick with the tradition interpretations, analysis, and logic. We don't update.

[Calm]

We don't update.

But we can....and that, imo, makes all the difference or rather will because of what it means for the future. Edited June 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I think a lot may have to do with a sense of not having this long historical heritage in comparison with Catholics and Protestants (though many of the Protestant sects are newer than us, they still seem to tie themselves to the "historical Christian faith"). I get this sense from many Catholics of a certain sereneness when it comes to discussing stuff that they might not be involved in, but that others might get into. They can look back and see that their Church has gone through pretty much everything good and bad and still survived so they don't feel threatened by controversy or innovation...it will in the end if it survives be used for the good of the Faith.

LDS have this attitude in some ways due to the concept of the "true living faith" we teach along with the "prophet will never leave the Church astray", but we haven't experienced it yet, our Church has survived so much, but "everything" and certainly not for 2000 years (as those who see themselves as part of the historic Christian faith would likely interpret that age of their faith). When that certainty becomes part of our collective, "genetic" being, then I can see more neutrality or actual interest in exploration outside of the 'approved' box.

A most stimulating thought Cal........ yes, with the passage and accumulation of time, perhaps nothing will be controversial or important anymore..... I'm honestly only somewhat kidding with that smart alecry....for which I most sincerely and with all my heart and soul apologize for any inconvenience with which my lousy humor may have caused......

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Ok, but I'm curious how they taught it Matt. Because I believe that while now sometimes these, as well as issues in higher criticism for the NT, are addressed in certain classes, I have it on good authority that they are most often done so in order to refute scholarly theories.

Would you mind sharing what were the "other possible views" you were taught?

No prob David. At least my group was taught the Documentary Hypothesis as being pretty much the only accepted view. I don't recall any professor ever teaching it was false. The "other possible views" is more in relation to modifications of the view. JEPD, JEPDR, J and E actually being the same, Single Redactor/Compiler school versus actual JEPD amalgamation over time, additions of other influences such as Davidic loyalists, etc. Essentially, not a single person ever taught or accepted in academic papers the view that the Tanakh was what it stated it was. One of my better received papers was on the additions of various monarchic fall stories in Kings and the complete impossibility of reconciliation, while showing how R tried.

There was also some upcoming thesis work by someone Dana knew (this was two or three years ago) that had at that time shown a lot of promise according to what Dana had seen, regarding overturning a lot of JEPD views, while of course still holding to a general concept of the documentary hypothesis. So.. you know.. standard academic journal and thesis back and forth on various details. The stuff that some believe never happens in academia, only between factions of Mormons.:-)

It should be noted they are fairly adept at sticking together and avoiding too much conflict with a very few personalities at BYU in the Religion Department. They've adopted a "live and let live" stance in most areas. Not always, but they are pretty smart cookies.

As a side note, various texts we read were along the likes of The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark Smith, all the main books on historicity that rip the Tanakh to shreds, etc. Good classes, good times. I am certain that some religion professors I had, if they walked into any of our classes, would have had a heart attack and made a major fuss. We kept to ourselves pretty well. My last near-outing run-in was with a Pearl of Great Price instructor in the Religion Department. Having been trained in analyzing text, and needing to write a simple ten page essay, I thought I would write about how I believed the text of Moses 1 does not support Divine Investiture of Authority as posited by recent people. I meticulously traced the erroneous belief of God not personally appearing to man except Joseph Smith through a series of documents and lazy revisements of views dating back to a more neutral church document from I believe 1910 or there around, and that Moses 1 clearly had Christ and God the Father present at various times, as also the Holy Ghost. A full and powerful second endowment kind of setting. Anyway, I was essentially branded as opposing the prophets, leaning on the wisdom of man, etc. He used lots of circular logic, and I was in constant arguments with him on many topics (I have never been a quiet student). When I talked to Dana about it, he agreed with my right for the paper following well within guidelines and plausibility, but this particular professor told me in the end that if I turned it in as a final, he would fail me on it. Lovely stuff. Fortunately the ANES professors were great early on at helping myself and others fully understand that some people just don't get it, and those who don't get it feel the same way about us.

[David Bokovoy]

Fortunately the ANES professors were great early on at helping myself and others fully understand that some people just don't get it, and those who don't get it feel the same way about us.

Thanks, Matt, for sharing this information. I still care very much about BYU and its success. I'm very pleased to learn that you had such a positive experience in the ANES program. True enough, the Documentary Hypothesis isn't going anywhere. Most recently, it's basic validity has been argued successfully by Baden, Schwartz, Stackert, Hendel, and Friedman,

It is still the basic model accepted by American and Israeli scholars for understanding the development of the Pentateuch. In recent years, many continental scholars, however, have abandoned the traditional theory of documentary sources in the Pentateuch as a relevant model for explaining its development, and in its place adopted a “Fragmentary” or “Supplementary” Hypothesis.

This assessment does not mean to suggest that continental studies have entirely rejected the basic premise of separate sources within the Pentateuch. “The newer contributions to Pentateuchal research from Europe do not aim at overthrowing the Documentary Hypothesis,” writes Konrad Schmid, “rather, they strive to understand the composition of the Pentateuch in the most appropriate terms, which… includes ‘documentary’ elements as well.”[1]

I have a basic survey of these issues in the initial chapter of my dissertation if you're ever interested in following up on these views.

Best,

--DB

[1] Schmid, "Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis?" in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Brauch J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 17-18.

[Nevo]

I have a basic survey of these issues in the initial chapter of my dissertation if you're ever interested in following up on these views.

Hi David,

Will your dissertation be available on ProQuest Digital Dissertations any time soon? I looked for it about a month ago but did not see it. Also, I noticed that Baden's Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis was recently released as part of the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library series. I assume this is a reworked version of his dissertation. Would you recommend it for the "educated layperson" or is it very technical?

[Bill Hamblin]

Ok, but I'm curious how they taught it Matt. Because I believe that while now sometimes these, as well as issues in higher criticism for the NT, are addressed in certain classes, I have it on good authority that they are most often done so in order to refute scholarly theories.

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.) 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.)

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. 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.) (It is interesting to note that the self-description of the editorializers 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.)

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.

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. 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.

[David Bokovoy]

Hi David,

Will your dissertation be available on ProQuest Digital Dissertations any time soon? I looked for it about a month ago but did not see it. Also, I noticed that Baden's Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis was recently released as part of the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library series. I assume this is a reworked version of his dissertation. Would you recommend it for the "educated layperson" or is it very technical?

Should be available around August I believe, but if you'll send me an email, I'd be happy to send you a copy.

I would highly recommend Baden's book J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), which is indeed, a revision of his dissertation.

Presently, most scholars who accept the basic model of documentary sources in the Pentateuch acknowledge the premise that though originally a separate, independent source, P was very much dependent (at least conceptually) upon either J itself, or a combined JE document, serving as a rebuttal to earlier Israelite theological views. Baden's study, however, calls into question this view. He writes:

"P does not… follow the overarching narrative of the combined JE document, [so] how much more so does it fail to follow the larger design of either J or E independently? If we compare P to J or E alone, we find substantially more differences between the two presentations than we do when we compare P to JE... There is no evidence that P is dependent on either" (p. 207).

Baden’s critique relies upon what he perceives as a lack of direct verbal correspondence between the independent Priestly source and additional Pentateuchal material. Though in my opinion, Baden’s work quite effectively demonstrates that a combined JE narrative probably never existed, I personally maintain that Baden’s view that P was aware of and interacted with J is without merit.

In reality, a careful reading of the opening chapters of Genesis suggests a literary and conceptual relationship (even if it is at times antithetical) between various Pentateuchal passages and their divergent sources. This evidence suggests that even though P is very much what Baden and others have perceived, i.e. an independent narrative tradition, P was clearly influenced by J’s account of prehistory.

In other words, despite Baden’s reservations, important evidence exists suggesting that the P source intentionally rewrote the J narrative. The great value of his work in my estimation is that he shows that a combined JE narrative probably never existed. For a more general survey of recent scholarship, you may want to take a look at David Carr's The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford, 2011).

Best,

--DB

[CASteinman]

Not incorrect.......the church will not adopt and teach the Documentary hypothesis with its obvious logic and full conclusions. If any biblical scholarly conclusions give a different answer from the church, the church will always stick with the tradition interpretations, analysis, and logic. We don't update.

Why on earth should the Church teach something that is not the Gospel entrusted to it and that does not help spread the Gospel one bit?

You might be happier in a Church of your own where you could dictate the Revelations as if you were a prophet.