The Documentary Hypothesis: Why Should Mormons Object To It?

[USU78]

The Book of Mormon is a compilation and reworking and massive edit job on  who knows how many separate documents, by its own unapologetic admission.

 

Well . . . the principal writers apologized a bit, but definitely not for compiling, reworking, editing or/and cetera.

 

Why should we be troubled by the notion that other scriptures in our canon went through the same process?

[cinepro]

For clarity's sake:
 

The documentary hypothesis (DH), sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis, proposes that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors). The number of these narratives is usually set at four, but this is not an essential part of the hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

And some reasons why LDS might not be comfortable with the idea that Moses didn't write the first five books of the Bible (especially Genesis):
 

In latter-day revelation we find many sources of information that clarify and substantiate the record of Genesis. The Joseph Smith Translation especially, a portion of which is presented in the book of Moses, offers the best available account of the early chapters. Of exceptional worth is Moses 1, giving an account of some visions and experiences of Moses previous to and in preparation for writing Genesis.

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/22

 

1. 
   

• 
  
  • 
    
    • • 1.
        Prayerfully study the following scriptures from the Pearl of Great Price:
        
        
      1. a.
         Moses 1:27–42. Moses sees a vision of God’s creations and is commanded to write an account of the creation of the earth.
      2. b.
         Moses 2:1–25; 3:1–14. Moses learns that God is the creator of all things.
      3. c.
         Moses 2:26–31; 3:7, 15–25. Moses learns that men and women are created in God’s image
         
         
         Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual
      4. 
          
         
         

         The Book of Genesis
         
         The book of Genesis is the first of five books written by Moses.
         It covers roughly twenty-five hundred years of history—more
         than all the rest of the Bible, including the New Testament!
         
         Old Testament Seminary Manual (2002)

         
         

         •
         
         Jesus Christ appeared to Moses and showed him a vision of the Creation and a history of the earth from Adam to Moses’ own time (and beyond). Moses wrote a book about what he saw in his vision.
         
         The Pearl of Great Price: Teacher's Manual

         
         And of course, the Book of Moses is a pretty strong canonized argument for Moses's direct relationship to the book of Genesis.

[BCSpace]

Why couldn't Moses be to the Pentateuch as Mormon is to the Book of Mormon?  He could have put together extant writings and augmented them with his own visions and JS brought back some that was missing from our modern accounts.

Edited April 29, 2014 by BCSpace

[USU78]

Why couldn't Moses be to the Pentateuch as Mormon is to the Book of Mormon?  He could have put together extant writings and augmented them with his own visions and JS brought back some that was missing from our modern accounts.

 

I don't object to the notion that the original 5 books of Moses were passed down and passed down and passed through many, many hands of copiers, etc, until they were compiled and put into present form [more or less] in Cyrus' day [or thereabouts].

 

That form was good enough for the Master, even if it wasn't as originally penned by Moses, assuming the hypothesis is correct [which I do].

[Coreyb]

We can believe in the visions of Moses without believing that the genesis creation accounts are his personal record of them. To me, the hardest part of squaring the biblical scholarship with mormon scriptures is isaiah in the book of Mormon

[USU78]

Respectfully, Coreyb, let's not get distracted by squirrels.

[DarkScythe]

Respectfully, Coreyb, let's not get distracted by squirrels.

 

 

squirrels where are they? they steals my nuts. How can I be nutty without nuts? *runs in a circle*

[cinepro]

Why couldn't Moses be to the Pentateuch as Mormon is to the Book of Mormon?  He could have put together extant writings and augmented them with his own visions and JS brought back some that was missing from our modern accounts.

 

He could, but that's not what the documentary hypothesis says (the dates in the documentary hypothesis are far, far after Moses' time).  So you're just exchanging one non-documentary hypothesis theory for another one.

 

I think David Bokovoy will have some good input on this, since he just wrote a book on this very subject.  I have it, but haven't gotten far into it so maybe he supports your theory...

Edited April 30, 2014 by cinepro

[Helen47]

http://biologos.org/news/april-2014/three-ways-of-interpreting-adam

 

Was Adam real? some views

[readstoomuch]

David Bokovoy is all over the documentary hypothesis and higher criticism as perfectly acceptable to LDS. I love his book and the bonus chapters about BiA and BoM.

[cinepro]

David Bokovoy is all over the documentary hypothesis and higher criticism as perfectly acceptable to LDS. I love his book and the bonus chapters about BiA and BoM.

 

Bokovoy might be able to make it work, and no one is going to get ex'd for believing it, but we're a long way off from it being "perfectly acceptable".

[Freedom]

Since moses was a prophet of a restoration, his writings would not have been anything new, just a restoration of what had gone on before. But I agree with the reservations cineptro has raised. 

[David T]

Bokovoy might be able to make it work, and no one is going to get ex'd for believing it, but we're a long way off from it being "perfectly acceptable".

 

Ben Spackman recently had a paper published in the BYU Religious Education periodical "Religious Educator" on Bible translations, and within, made the case for why the JST can be understood better mainly as a modern inspired midrash than an exemplar of an ancient Ur-Text, or any recovery of an ancient document. Getting this scenario published in the RE, espeically with its intended demographic (CES religion teachers in the Church)  is kind of a big deal, seeing the positions usually promoted by CES. RelEd, etc.

 

And yes, Bokovoys' book is a FANTASTIC introduction to the DH for LDS, and takes pains to explain not only the ramifications of the DH on modern scriptural texts, but how one can faithfully approach these ramifications without needing to disregard the findings of the best scholarship. Deseret Book is actually selling his book now. Which is kind of a big deal.

Edited April 30, 2014 by David T

[David T]

We can believe in the visions of Moses without believing that the genesis creation accounts are his personal record of them. To me, the hardest part of squaring the biblical scholarship with mormon scriptures is isaiah in the book of Mormon

 

Bokovoy will be addressing that in Volume 2 of his series. He has, by the way, just started a series of blog posts exploring the literary use of Second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, bracketing for a moment the discussion of the dating of the text, ramifications, etc. Part 1, and Part 2.

[David T]

Why couldn't Moses be to the Pentateuch as Mormon is to the Book of Mormon?  He could have put together extant writings and augmented them with his own visions and JS brought back some that was missing from our modern accounts.

 

Highly recommend you read Bokovoy's book, or look into the DH. The earliest of the key narrative  'sources' that is intertwined with other complete narratives dates likely, at the earliest,  after the time of King Solomon and establishment of the divided nations of Israel and Judah.

[Kevin Christensen]

A very good place to start on the DH for LDS is Kevin Barney's Dialogue essay.

http://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N01_79.pdf

I've used aspects of the DH in my own writing for FARMS. I think it is useful but have skepticism about attempts at microsugery and absolute certainty about particular verses or stories. Many years ago, I used Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? (a useful introduction to the DH) as a guide to the difference sources in the Noah story. Then I formatted the whole thing for chiasmus, giving me two irreconcilable explanations for the price of one. Robert Alter and R. N. Whybray occasionally point out interesting aspects of the text that aren't explained well by splicing. Margaret points out that the DSS show that divine names were being changed as late as the time of Christ, which raises questions about names being a sure guide to divisions.

But it is useful, and something informed readers should know something about.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David T]

the DSS show that divine names were being changed as late as the time of Christ, which raises questions about names being a sure guide to divisions.

 

Divine Names are rarely used as 'a sure guide of division', by Documentarians, but are rather elements that are shown to become consistent once the sources are divided by other literary features (such as doublets, etc). That's a mistake that is often made about the DH, that the division of texts is based on the divine name, rather than those being found to be trademarks of the sources after they are already divided. (And even those understood as non-J sources uses YHWH after it is revealed to Moses in the narrative).

[erdoch]

Bokovoy will be addressing that in Volume 2 of his series. He has, by the way, just started a series of blog posts exploring the literary use of Second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, bracketing for a moment the discussion of the dating of the text, ramifications, etc. Part 1, and Part 2.

 

Can't wait till he lets go off the brackets and states his views on the ramifications of Second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. I'm guessing he'll tie it into Blake Ostler's expansion theory. We'll see. 

[mfbukowski]

I don't worry about any of it.

 

Joseph read what he read, knew what he knew and created what he created through inspiration.

 

It's no big deal.  We really need to grow up and stop wasting all this effort on smoke and mirrors.

 

We take all the inputs available to us, and create a world view.  Joseph's was directed by God, and ours can be as well.

[Bob Crockett]

Deseret Book is actually selling his book now. Which is kind of a big deal.

I bought Metcalfe's book at Deseret Books. Hardly an endorsement.

The DH is generally quite contrary to LDS manuals and the statements in GC.

I happen to subscribe to the DH but it is not compatible with orthodox views. I think it was disavowed by the church. The answer is in Barlow's book.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

I don't worry about any of it.

 

Joseph read what he read, knew what he knew and created what he created through inspiration.

 

It's no big deal.  We really need to grow up and stop wasting all this effort on smoke and mirrors.

 

We take all the inputs available to us, and create a world view.  Joseph's was directed by God, and ours can be as well.

 

I'm not saying we should worry about it, mind.

 

I'm simply saying that I don't find the hypothesis to be objectionable from a Mormon perspective.

 

Example:  Hulda, et al discover previously unknown Deuteronomy inside the Temple at Jerusalem, which leads to a religious reform movement in Judah.  Some have compared this incident to JSJr obtaining the Golden Plates, and many do so with a sneer of condescension, claiming both are pious frauds.  A Mormonesque inspired redactor/editor of previously extant or revealed documents solves a lot of problems, especially, for me, the Deuterojesaja in the BOM problem:

 

i.e., just because certain material was included within Deuterojesaja and later into the Greater Isaiah as we know it does not mean that the BOM material was not part of a pre-exilic Isaiah corpus.

 

It is bad policy to reject the BOM because of a constructed Deuterojesaja, no matter how compelling the proposition, under such circumstances.

 

And, thus, we can create faith-preserving plausibility where the minimalist Anti-Mo sows doubt and apostacy over the subject.

[J Green]

I love the discussion that is just starting. It is long overdue. What we find and contribute as Latter-day Saints will often be unique and may often times have a different twist. But if "into all the world" is more than about geography (or cartography), and if we really believe in "study and faith" and "prove all things" then we should be deliberately engaged in these discussions and making informed decisions about what might apply and what might not apply and why. What we shouldn't do is continue to essentially ignore it. Accept it, refute, or find the few elements you agree with and give it your own twist. But at least engage it and test it to see if it bears fruit or not. Alma 32, right?

[mfbukowski]

I'm not saying we should worry about it, mind.

 

I'm simply saying that I don't find the hypothesis to be objectionable from a Mormon perspective.

 

Example:  Hulda, et al discover previously unknown Deuteronomy inside the Temple at Jerusalem, which leads to a religious reform movement in Judah.  Some have compared this incident to JSJr obtaining the Golden Plates, and many do so with a sneer of condescension, claiming both are pious frauds.  A Mormonesque inspired redactor/editor of previously extant or revealed documents solves a lot of problems, especially, for me, the Deuterojesaja in the BOM problem:

 

i.e., just because certain material was included within Deuterojesaja and later into the Greater Isaiah as we know it does not mean that the BOM material was not part of a pre-exilic Isaiah corpus.

 

It is bad policy to reject the BOM because of a constructed Deuterojesaja, no matter how compelling the proposition, under such circumstances.

 

And, thus, we can create faith-preserving plausibility where the minimalist Anti-Mo sows doubt and apostacy over the subject.

Yes- I am agreeing with you in my typically convoluted way, that none of these considerations should hold any concern for Mormons.

 

I am just saying that in my opinion there is not even any need for "plausibility" that somehow these semi-legendary texts hold together at all. 

 

I accept Joseph's revelations as God-given inspired scripture because I believe no scripture is "plausible" anyway, and is all accepted on faith, essentially.  So my tendency to worry about scholarly concerns about getting all the legends "correct" is totally nil.

 

There is a reason one does not build skyscrapers out of wood- the material itself is inappropriate for the required purpose

 

To me, these scholarly concerns are similar.  One does not worry about whether or not Washington never told a lie- the point is that he was an honest man.

 

Scrutinizing every scholarly source to see if one could figure out whether or not he "really" never told a lie is totally pointless, and in my opinion, so is any worrying about the DH. 

 

Of course it's true, and it should not matter to us.

 

Next.   

[mfbukowski]

I love the discussion that is just starting. It is long overdue. What we find and contribute as Latter-day Saints will often be unique and may often times have a different twist. But if "into all the world" is more than about geography (or cartography), and if we really believe in "study and faith" and "prove all things" then we should be deliberately engaged in these discussions and making informed decisions about what might apply and what might not apply and why. What we shouldn't do is continue to essentially ignore it. Accept it, refute, or find the few elements you agree with and give it your own twist. But at least engage it and test it to see if it bears fruit or not. Alma 32, right?

Absolutely!

 

In the long run, Alma 32 is all we have.... Plus Moroni 10:4-5 of course!! 

 

I actually got married on 10/4 (won't say what year) because that idea is so important to me.  (Of course it also worked well into the calendar for other reasons....

Edited May 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

I am just saying that in my opinion there is not even any need for "plausibility" that somehow these semi-legendary texts hold together at all.

 

I guess my knee-jerk response is always going to be, "Establish plausibility, then there is freedom to accept or reject on the basis of faith."