Source Criticism In The Bible: A Response To Bill Hamblin

[David Bokovoy]

And why in the story of Noah should be suppose that P rewrites J instead of J rewriting P, or both drawing from an independent source? Why should we (or shouldn't we) call it J instead of non-P? (Some say there is no J.) What if multiple sources used Yahweh as the divine name? Why is Elohim mentioned in 9:26-27, which is supposedly P?

Like I said, the DH answers lots of questions about the text, but, in fact, raises lots of others. It all depends on what assumptions you bring to the text and what questions you ask of it.

Bill, I'm going to have to deal with you later. I'm off to look for Great Whites.

[John Ping Pong]

Dear David,

When you get back from the Pequod, I would like to ask whether you see any indications that the Book of Mormon shows signs of being an amalgamated text like the Bible.

If so, I would think that would be an indicator of its being ancient.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I'm going to have to deal with you later. I'm off to look for Great Whites.

"to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee."

[mrmandias]

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

Well, no. There are texts of the Bible. I have one in my bag, in fact. We don't have 'original' texts of the Testaments, but we have texts of them. We don't even have non-original copies of the J texts or whatnot. What you make of that point is up to you, but the point itself isn't controvertible.

[Calm]

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.

I don't want to read too much into what you are saying here, so I am asking for clarification.

From what I read, scholars assume the various texts are written for a purpose. I would assume that they draw conclusions on what that purpose is by what they find in the text (though then as Bill pointed out there may be a problem with finding something that isn't really connected to that source simply because it resembles stuff that is connected to the believed source which is why it is important to find multiple reasons to tie an individual text to a source...if I understand your comments correctly). You pointed out the shift from seven to two animals as another characteristic of the source in addition to a preference to genealogies. Is there a overall reason for both the shift to two animals and the genealogies? Some premise for which the author/editor used both the 'facts' of Noah taking two animals with him and the genealogies to support?

My mind jumped to the idea of male-female or concept of descent/family being emphasized, but if there is no connection between the two ideas and the author/editor just felt both were important but nonconnected ideas and the only reason scholars believe it is the same person writing about both is because of the proximity of the topics, then I should restrain my imagination from trying to fill a gap that isn't there.

And if it isn't there, then I have to ask how one can tell that nonconnected (in the sense there isn't a global concept the author is using individual themes to promote) ideas are from the same author because if the claimed sources are interwoven with each other in the biblical text, then how would we know that a genealogy 'next' to a comment about two animals instead of seven, for a hypothetical example since I am too lazy to go look and see if this actually happens at the moment, are not two separate authors/editors/sources and instead are written by one and the same person?

So I guess I am asking two things---what connects genealogies and Noah's two animals in that particular source's mind...which connection is what I am assuming scholars see causing the text to "work together....in a highly consistent manner"----and if there is no connection between the various themes a source is believed to be fond of, how does one determine in an individual case in the biblical text what comes from which; how does one avoid becoming circular or grouping themes that shouldn't be grouped since more than one writer might be fond of the same theme or find it appropriate to write about at a certain place in the text but not at another...iow, in this case if there is no overarching theme where all other themes of an author are subordinate to, then what is meant by "work[ing] together...in a highly consistent manner"?

Not sure if my questions are clear here, if not, just say so and I will try again.

Edited July 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

1- The theory is that Priestly sources are concerned with genealogy because priests have to be descendants of Aaron to function as priests. (On the other hand, in the ANE, everyone was concerned with genealogies for all sorts of reasons. Just because the priests had an interest does not mean others wouldn't be interested as well.)

2- The theory is that P didn't believe that priestly sacrifices could be legitimately done before Moses, Aaron and the tabernacle. Hence, J says that Noah took seven pairs of clean animals, but only two of unclean (Gen. 7:2), so Noah could sacrifice animals after the flood (8:20) (and perhaps to eat during the flood). P, on the other hand, says that Noah only took two each of both pure and impure (Gen. 7:8 ), and does not mention any sacrifice by Noah.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Calm]

Thanks, Bill. That connecting theme---it all relates to establishing the legitimacy of the priesthood as practiced at the time and those who practiced it---makes sense.

On the other hand, in the ANE, everyone was concerned with genealogies for all sorts of reasons.

Wasn't there a requirement for all Israelites postexile to demonstrate through their genealogy that they were true Israelites? Or did this just apply to the Levites or functioning priests?

[David Bokovoy]

And why in the story of Noah should be suppose that P rewrites J instead of J rewriting P, or both drawing from an independent source?

It’s a complicated puzzle with various intricate pieces, including theological relationships to the Deuteronomistic History, which is clearly a late editorial revision pushing towards cultic centralization. But in term of P’s historical relationship to J, the issue is in part, a matter of motivation.

J presents a view of the rise of Israel in which sacrifice was performed prior to the establishment of the Israelite cult. This perspective proved problematic for the Priestly author who responded, in part, by rewriting J’s narrative to tell a history of Israel in which sacrifice did not occur until Moses’ revelation regarding the tabernacle at Mount Sinai.

In this revisionary effort, it is clear that P not only knew non-P sources in the Pentateuch, but that the author intentionally utilized these earlier documents as a type of template in order to construct his own account of Israelite origins (for specific textual examples, you'll have to see my dissertation). In other words, a critical reading of the Pentateuch from the perspective of separate source documents suggests that P follows J’s narrative tradition regarding creation and the formation of the Israelite nation, but does so while intentionally altering J’s cultic details. This explains why P omitted J’s Cain and Abel story and revised J’s flood narrative in which Noah originally performed sacrifice.

There’s no motivation for J to take this approach to P, but P had a strong religious view that sacrifice did not occur prior to the time of Moses. When we take this observation and combine it with the types of textual issues addressed in my dissertation we can see the way in which P take earlier statements in J and rewrote them to fit its theological view.

Additionally, we can't forget that J’s view of God is highly anthropomorphic. In J’s Eden story (Gen. 2.4b-3.24), Yahweh performs the work of a potter by forming the first human from clay. The deity literally walks in the garden of Eden, and makes clothes for the first humans. In subsequent J passages, Yahweh appears shutting the door of an ark after all of its occupants have boarded (Gen. 7:16). Yahweh then smells the odor of the sacrifice that Noah presents after the Flood subsides (8.21). In J, Yahweh goes down to view the tower of Babel (11.5); he consumes a meal with Abraham (18.1-, and bargains directly with him (18.22-33). Moreover, J’s deity meets Moses and tries to take his life (Exod. 4.24). Later biblical authors rely less and less upon this highly anthropomorphic view of deity, until the idea was eventually jettisoned by Jewish and later Christian authors. So the very view of God in the J source would suggest that it is one of the earlier sources.

The Priestly author’s choice of verbs in Genesis 1:1 appears to signify an intentional effort to depict a less anthropomorphic view of deity than the one featured in the Yahwist’s account. In terms of his god’s creative act, P specifically opts for the divine verb “to create” rather than J’s much less unique action word “to make.”

As has long been noted by commentators, the Priestly verb appears explicitly linked only with deity (see, for example, Num. 16:30; Ps. 51:12; Is. 42:15; 43:1; 45:18). In contrast, the Yahwist’s verb “to make” appears associated with both humans and gods in biblical conceptions. As Mark Smith has explained, P’s rejection of J’s more common placed “creation” verb seems intentional, for “create” “makes a commentary about the cosmic profile of the deity… this creation is a particular activity of the deity unlike what humans do when they make things;” The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, 132.

[David Bokovoy]

Let me give one specific textual example that shows P draws upon J.

By rejecting J’s cultic performances that occur prior to the tabernacle revelation, P retained J’s motif regarding animal slaughter as a permissible act, yet transformed this performance into a profane rather than a ritual slaughter. P’s justification for its deity’s decision to flood the earth in Genesis 6:12 follows the J narrative in Genesis 6:5a. Both texts depict the deity seeing evil:

Yahweh saw that the evil of humans was great

in the earth (Gen. 6:5a J)

God saw the earth, that it was corrupt, because

all flesh corrupted its way upon the earth

(Gen. 6:12; P)

The connections between these two passages include the verb “to see," the deity’s name as subject, a phrase with the conjunction ky identifying the evil, and reference to its occurrence on or in the earth. P’s more belabored formulation and different vocabulary can be attributed to different ideology and interests, here an interest in painting a picture of sin and its polluting effect. Humanity’s ability to “corrupt” the earth by sin anticipates later Priestly concerns regarding human capacity to pollute holy ground, including the tabernacle.

When you start adding all of these little textual issues up, it starts to present a very compelling picture that P is rewriting the J narrative and that a later editor has combined these two documents together as a single literary unit.

Edited July 6, 2012 by David Bokovoy

[Bill Hamblin]

It’s a complicated puzzle with various intricate pieces, including theological relationships to the Deuteronomistic History, which is clearly a late editorial revision pushing towards cultic centralization. But in term of P’s historical relationship to J, the issue is in part, a matter of motivation.

J presents a view of the rise of Israel in which sacrifice was performed prior to the establishment of the Israelite cult. This perspective proved problematic for the Priestly author who responded, in part, by rewriting J’s narrative to tell a history of Israel in which sacrifice did not occur until Moses’ revelation regarding the tabernacle at Mount Sinai.

In this revisionary effort, it is clear that P not only knew non-P sources in the Pentateuch, but that the author intentionally utilized these earlier documents as a type of template in order to construct his own account of Israelite origins (for specific textual examples, you'll have to see my dissertation). In other words, a critical reading of the Pentateuch from the perspective of separate source documents suggests that P follows J’s narrative tradition regarding creation and the formation of the Israelite nation, but does so while intentionally altering J’s cultic details. This explains why P omitted J’s Cain and Abel story and revised J’s flood narrative in which Noah originally performed sacrifice.

There’s no motivation for J to take this approach to P, but P had a strong religious view that sacrifice did not occur prior to the time of Moses. When we take this observation and combine it with the types of textual issues addressed in my dissertation we can see the way in which P take earlier statements in J and rewrote them to fit its theological view.

Additionally, we can't forget that J’s view of God is highly anthropomorphic. In J’s Eden story (Gen. 2.4b-3.24), Yahweh performs the work of a potter by forming the first human from clay. The deity literally walks in the garden of Eden, and makes clothes for the first humans. In subsequent J passages, Yahweh appears shutting the door of an ark after all of its occupants have boarded (Gen. 7:16). Yahweh then smells the odor of the sacrifice that Noah presents after the Flood subsides (8.21). In J, Yahweh goes down to view the tower of Babel (11.5); he consumes a meal with Abraham (18.1- , and bargains directly with him (18.22-33). Moreover, J’s deity meets Moses and tries to take his life (Exod. 4.24). Later biblical authors rely less and less upon this highly anthropomorphic view of deity, until the idea was eventually jettisoned by Jewish and later Christian authors. So the very view of God in the J source would suggest that it is one of the earlier sources.

The Priestly author’s choice of verbs in Genesis 1:1 appears to signify an intentional effort to depict a less anthropomorphic view of deity than the one featured in the Yahwist’s account. In terms of his god’s creative act, P specifically opts for the divine verb “to create” rather than J’s much less unique action word “to make.”

As has long been noted by commentators, the Priestly verb appears explicitly linked only with deity (see, for example, Num. 16:30; Ps. 51:12; Is. 42:15; 43:1; 45:18). In contrast, the Yahwist’s verb “to make” appears associated with both humans and gods in biblical conceptions. As Mark Smith has explained, P’s rejection of J’s more common placed “creation” verb seems intentional, for “create” “makes a commentary about the cosmic profile of the deity… this creation is a particular activity of the deity unlike what humans do when they make things;” The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, 132.

I understand these arguments. But they seem highly circular to me. Can't some Israelites have an anthropomorphic view of God at the same time others don't? Why assume difference represents change in time rather than simply a contemporary dispute?

Another assumption is that we should expect consistency from ancient authors? Why? People are inconsistent all the time.

And what about doublets. Its a common feature in ancient literature. It certainly doesn't necessarily represent two authors. It may be a poetic repetition, refrain, chiasmus, etc.

P doesn't like pre-Sinai sacrifice? How do we know? Because P doesn't mention pre-Sinai sacrifice. How do we know? Because all mentions of sacrifice are attributed to non-P. It doesn't get more circular than that. Half the time, scholars are simply making up supposed motivations for supposed authors.

Don't get me wrong. Maybe all of this is true. I'm not saying I don't believe in DH. I'm saying I don't find the arguments convincing because they are extraordinarily speculative and circular.

Methodologically I suggest we need to start with what we know (e.g. DSS biblical manuscripts) and work backwards in time, rather than starting with what we don't know, make speculations and try to work forward in time, like David Carr does. I find his theory in Formation of the Hebrew Bible much more convincing.

Here's a review of Carr's book to give a sense of what he is saying for those who don't have $60 to spend on it.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Hamilton Porter]

By the way, if studying the Hebrew Bible proper (as opposed to, let's say, ANE) is supposed to challenge your faith, I just read Van der Toorn's Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. He is ultra-naturalistic in his assumptions, but was there something that I missed that is supposed to make me go apostate? Not doubting this, just don't know of specific examples. Misquoting Jesus didn't have anything troubling either.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Hamilton Porter