The beauty of scripture - OT

[stemelbow]

If you're not familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis (DH), here's a primer:

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

The notes from this point you to some pretty heavy works.  A couple years ago I pretended to understand some of this and started digging into some works, which only led me to more and more until I finally got tired and put it aside feeling that this could turn into obsession and could go on forever.  But int he mean time I felt I got a decent understanding of some f the issues related to biblical criticism. 

The DH basically posits that the OT as we have it was spliced together using 4 (at least that seems to be the most common breakdown) sources.  Each of the four sources seem to have come from different eras, and varied perspectives.  Each fo the 4 carries with them, certain emphases that often cause much of the contradiction found in the bible.  It's an interesting hypothesis and when you get into the details it's pretty eye-opening.  I'm basically convinced by it. 

There are tons of implications that come with it. 

"Scripture" was never meant to be much more than a certain people's efforts to explain their relationship and understanding of the divine. 

The stories we read about in the OT are often myths carried from many traditions to illustrate religious perspectives. 

There's no monolithic voice explaining a consistent non-contradictory God in the Bible.

The authors of the bible are not who we assume them to be--Moses did not write the Pentateuch for instance. 

unnamed or unknown scribes, editors and redactors had a ton of influence on what is the Bible, what is lauded as scripture by billions of people.

I bring this up wondering people's perspectives regarding the hypothesis.  It seems to really fit with Mormonisms perspective of the OT, but maybe in some ways it doesn't work well. 

Which of the four main perspectives (J, E, D, P) best fit with Modern Mormonism and why? 

 

[stemelbow]

Oh I should have recommended for any interested:

https://gregkofford.com/products/authoring-the-old-testament-1

A really great perspective, in my view, of the early books in the OT from an LDS perspective (he ties in, masterfully, an LDS application).

[Kevin Christensen]

I'd also point out Kevin Barney's "Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis"

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

It predates the wider awareness of Barker's work, which, I think has also managed to make the DH more interesting for us.  I use it quite a bit in my Barker essays drawing on Friedman and a few others.  And there was Sorenson's essay making a case that the Book of Mormon shows characteristics of the E source, and Robert Smith's essay on the Book of Abraham as a J source.  And Steve St. Clair had an interesting essay on the Northern Kingdom Traditions, which had the effect of extending and strengthing Sorenson's case.

On the other hand, I'm aware that Robert Alter and Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch raise some interesting questions.  And I once went through the Noah story, formatting the text to show the different J and E sources, and at the same time, showing the chiastic patterns that bridge them both.  It raises what strikes me as irreconcilable questions.

However, the patterns of multiple editors in the Book of Mormon, multiple authors with different priorities, multiple sources, and at times, direct responses to the Deuteronomist Reformers, all suggest that we shouldn't fear the DH.  It's best though, not to have too much faith in the micro-surgery on texts.  Barker's essay on The Fourth Servant Song raises questions that I have never seen addressed by those who presume that it had to have been written during the exile.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I'd also point out Kevin Barney's "Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis"

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

It predates the wider awareness of Barker's work, which, I think has also managed to make the DH more interesting for us.  I use it quite a bit in my Barker essays drawing on Friedman and a few others.  And there was Sorenson's essay making a case that the Book of Mormon shows characteristics of the E source, and Robert Smith's essay on the Book of Abraham as a J source.  And Steve St. Clair had an interesting essay on the Northern Kingdom Traditions, which had the effect of extending and strengthing Sorenson's case.

On the other hand, I'm aware that Robert Alter and Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch raise some interesting questions.  And I once went through the Noah story, formatting the text to show the different J and E sources, and at the same time, showing the chiastic patterns that bridge them both.  It raises what strikes me as irreconcilable questions.

However, the patterns of multiple editors in the Book of Mormon, multiple authors with different priorities, multiple sources, and at times, direct responses to the Deuteronomist Reformers, all suggest that we shouldn't fear the DH.  It's best though, not to have too much faith in the micro-surgery on texts.  Barker's essay on The Fourth Servant Song raises questions that I have never seen addressed by those who presume that it had to have been written during the exile.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Your contribution in this thread is more than welcome.  Thanks.

A good 15 years ago I came across The Great Angel by Barker and it was likely because of you--I think you've suggested you've had decades long association with her works.  Thanks for that.  It was awesome.  And it as much as anything got me interested in biblical criticism.  in 2005  she contributed to the Joseph Smith Bicentinnial that also helped me connect my love for Kierkegaard to Mormonism (a small side note I guess). 

Anyway, thanks for linking Barney's Dialogue article.  It's been quite a while since I've given it notice, myself.  I'm going to re-read it.  As I recall it contrasts LDs perspectives on biblical criticism as a whole. 

Quote

However, the patterns of multiple editors in the Book of Mormon, multiple authors with different priorities, multiple sources, and at times, direct responses to the Deuteronomist Reformers, all suggest that we shouldn't fear the DH.  It's best though, not to have too much faith in the micro-surgery on texts.  Barker's essay on The Fourth Servant Song raises questions that I have never seen addressed by those who presume that it had to have been written during the exile.

Thank you.  Couldn't agree more.

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

On the other hand, I'm aware that Robert Alter and Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch raise some interesting questions.  And I once went through the Noah story, formatting the text to show the different J and E sources, and at the same time, showing the chiastic patterns that bridge them both.  It raises what strikes me as irreconcilable questions.

 

Hi Kevin,

Something I didn't mean to overlook in my first reply to you.  Bokovoy mentions these chiastic patterns, but seems pretty dismissive of them suggesting, as I recall, something along the lines of they look impressive at first consideration but they also seem to strain when making phrases match up.  When I get a chance I'll see if I can find more about what he suggested in his book and/or elsewhere. 

[RevTestament]

It shouldn't be surprising that Moses did not write the Torah. Obviously, he didn't write about himself disappearing up into the mountains like Deuteronomy says. Judah was given the responsibility by the Lord to record the law. So although the Torah does indicate that Moses wrote down things, I believe Caleb would have been the logical choice of the Lord to record the story as it now appears in the Torah. Moses was a priest of the tribe of Levi. Caleb was of Judah. I believe it probable that the Torah also underwent a little redacting when it got translated into the Phoenician-Hebrew script to make it understandable to the readers at that time. This probably happened when Solomon built the temple. At that time David had organized the priesthood, and the kingdom greatly expanded creating a need for a written text of their history. So, the Torah seems to have a few redacted names such as Pi-Raamses.

I don't believe the OT was written from 4 primary sources. There are common symbols and allegorical styles in the OT books, but I believe that is because God is the author of these various books rather than them being written by only a few authors. This is apparent in a comparison of Daniel and Revelation. There can be no doubt these two books were not written by the same man, but yet they have common imagery. I believe that is God telling us He is the author, and the common symbolism is evidence of that. Isaiah is very different from the other prophets. Ezekiel and Jeremiah have a different character. Daniel too is much different as are the minor prophets. So, no I don't believe there are only 4 composers of the OT.

But I do agree that the OT is beautiful. It is complex, but quite beautiful, and I have grown to appreciate its complexity. I have come to view reading the OT as a challenge... it is like a giant puzzle which can be fitted together to make a big picture. That is beautiful.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It shouldn't be surprising that Moses did not write the Torah. Obviously, he didn't write about himself disappearing up into the mountains like Deuteronomy says. Judah was given the responsibility by the Lord to record the law. So although the Torah does indicate that Moses wrote down things, I believe Caleb would have been the logical choice of the Lord to record the story as it now appears in the Torah. Moses was a priest of the tribe of Levi. Caleb was of Judah. I believe it probable that the Torah also underwent a little redacting when it got translated into the Phoenician-Hebrew script to make it understandable to the readers at that time. This probably happened when Solomon built the temple. At that time David had organized the priesthood, and the kingdom greatly expanded creating a need for a written text of their history. So, the Torah seems to have a few redacted names such as Pi-Raamses.

I don't believe the OT was written from 4 primary sources. There are common symbols and allegorical styles in the OT books, but I believe that is because God is the author of these various books rather than them being written by only a few authors. This is apparent in a comparison of Daniel and Revelation. There can be no doubt these two books were not written by the same man, but yet they have common imagery. I believe that is God telling us He is the author, and the common symbolism is evidence of that. Isaiah is very different from the other prophets. Ezekiel and Jeremiah have a different character. Daniel too is much different as are the minor prophets. So, no I don't believe there are only 4 composers of the OT.

But I do agree that the OT is beautiful. It is complex, but quite beautiful, and I have grown to appreciate its complexity. I have come to view reading the OT as a challenge... it is like a giant puzzle which can be fitted together to make a big picture. That is beautiful.

Thank you.  You identified a major flaw in my opening post and/or title.  I did specify that I had intended to talk about the Documentary Hypothesis but I did not specify that the DH is a hypothesis regarding the first five books of the OT--the Torah.  But I do think it true that different people wrote different parts of the bible.  I can't figure out how an authorship by Caleb would make up for all the contradictions in the Torah.  I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on that.

 

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thank you.  You identified a major flaw in my opening post and/or title.  I did specify that I had intended to talk about the Documentary Hypothesis but I did not specify that the DH is a hypothesis regarding the first five books of the OT--the Torah.  But I do think it true that different people wrote different parts of the bible.  I can't figure out how an authorship by Caleb would make up for all the contradictions in the Torah.  I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on that.

 

I don't hold myself out as any kind of expert on Torah scholarship, but what you consider to be a contradiction, I may not. So, perhaps if you gave some examples you would particularly like to discuss, it would help the conversation along. I can only guess at what contradictions you are referring to. Perhaps one seeming contradiction which has puzzled me, is the obvious priesthood of Jethro. Jethro is living in Midian, and therefore is either an escapee of Israel from Egypt or is a descendent of Midian. How is it that He held the priesthood and Moses received instruction from him and the priesthood from him? The Book of Numbers does seem to have redacted qualities, but it adds important information as well. It is kind of like the Chronicles of the Torah. It seems likely to me that the Lord added the book through a later scribe or priest to fill in the gaps so to speak. I believe it doubtful the numbers of Israel have been recorded correctly. This issue is seen in the oldest parts of the OT. For instance I think Kings says Solomon had 40,000 chariots and horse, but Chronicles says he had 4000 - a much more likely number. This could result from the Torah and oldest books being transcribed from whatever was their original script - perhaps a cursive Egyptian form - into a newer Phoenecian-Hebrew script, and some scribes having trouble understanding the older script. So applying that issue to the 2,000,000 of the Hebrews of the Exodus and Numbers, one might conclude that there were actually about 200,000 - a very tenable number. Most archaeologists believe there were hardly 2 million people in all of Egypt at the time. 2 million people would have required 2 million gallons of water a day during the exodus - out in the desert that is a vast quantity. While they may have gotten some of it from milking their animals during a spring trip, it is unlikely that there were wells that could provide that much water. Well, those are a few issues that I think about. What are yours?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I don't believe the OT was written from 4 primary sources.

I don't think anyone claims that. Rather they claim 4 primary traditions for the Torah and perhaps historical books but the authorship for the prophetic books in more complex. Even for the main traditions they tend to see them over time. So the Deuteronomists start up around the time of Josiah which is when I think they usually date the book of Deuteronomy. But they persist to the exile and return. Ditto other groups. And within each group you have different competing subgroups. At each era they may have different concerns too.

While I like the idea in theory, in practice I think they push too much detail. Given so much of it is circumstantial evidence it's almost certainly wrong in a lot of the details.

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think anyone claims that. Rather they claim 4 primary traditions for the Torah and perhaps historical books but the authorship for the prophetic books in more complex. Even for the main traditions they tend to see them over time. So the Deuteronomists start up around the time of Josiah which is when I think they usually date the book of Deuteronomy. But they persist to the exile and return. Ditto other groups. And within each group you have different competing subgroups. At each era they may have different concerns too.

While I like the idea in theory, in practice I think they push too much detail. Given so much of it is circumstantial evidence it's almost certainly wrong in a lot of the details.

Well, an insistence that a "yahwist" wrote part and an "elohist" wrote part strikes me as incorrect. I believe the Lord had different titles, and that YHWH was His name He gave them. I believe there is a reason for the differences other than being written by different authors. There are hundreds of different pet theories about the Bible, which I think are largely by scholars trying to make a name for themselves. I certainly don't pay attention to them all.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't hold myself out as any kind of expert on Torah scholarship, but what you consider to be a contradiction, I may not. So, perhaps if you gave some examples you would particularly like to discuss, it would help the conversation along. I can only guess at what contradictions you are referring to.

Very fair.  I would start with the most obvious between Gen 1 and Gen 2 but my guess is you'd dismiss it by suggesting as at least used to be the prominent LDS thought on the matter, that they represent different creations--one physical and one spiritual, or something. 

So I'll move to the story of the flood:

http://billpringle.com/talks/flood.html

This link shows how the DH would break the story into two sources, one green (J), one purple (P). 

You can read in the purple the text tells us "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. "

The green tells us:  "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."

So we have a contradiction.  In the first instance we are told that he brought two of every kind of animal.  In the second we are told that he brought, or was told to bring, 7 of the clean and then just 2 of those that are unclean.

The added interesting part of the theory is each story can be read on it's own, and make sense.  But spliced together it's difficult and contradicts.  Anyway, you can call this your first taste of the DH.

 

 

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Perhaps one seeming contradiction which has puzzled me, is the obvious priesthood of Jethro. Jethro is living in Midian, and therefore is either an escapee of Israel from Egypt or is a descendent of Midian. How is it that He held the priesthood and Moses received instruction from him and the priesthood from him?

Moses' father-in-law is called Jethro in the J source, as I recall, and he is called Rueul in the P or E source, as I recall. 

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/reuel-or-jethro/

I'm not sure I quite see contradiction in Jethro having the priesthood and that Moses receiving instruction from him, though. 

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The Book of Numbers does seem to have redacted qualities, but it adds important information as well. It is kind of like the Chronicles of the Torah. It seems likely to me that the Lord added the book through a later scribe or priest to fill in the gaps so to speak. I believe it doubtful the numbers of Israel have been recorded correctly. This issue is seen in the oldest parts of the OT. For instance I think Kings says Solomon had 40,000 chariots and horse, but Chronicles says he had 4000 - a much more likely number. This could result from the Torah and oldest books being transcribed from whatever was their original script - perhaps a cursive Egyptian form - into a newer Phoenecian-Hebrew script, and some scribes having trouble understanding the older script. So applying that issue to the 2,000,000 of the Hebrews of the Exodus and Numbers, one might conclude that there were actually about 200,000 - a very tenable number. Most archaeologists believe there were hardly 2 million people in all of Egypt at the time. 2 million people would have required 2 million gallons of water a day during the exodus - out in the desert that is a vast quantity. While they may have gotten some of it from milking their animals during a spring trip, it is unlikely that there were wells that could provide that much water. Well, those are a few issues that I think about. What are yours?

Interesting.  I think your thoughts could well be explained and explored through the DH.  I'd recommend you continue looking into it. 

[stemelbow]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think anyone claims that. Rather they claim 4 primary traditions for the Torah and perhaps historical books but the authorship for the prophetic books in more complex. Even for the main traditions they tend to see them over time. So the Deuteronomists start up around the time of Josiah which is when I think they usually date the book of Deuteronomy. But they persist to the exile and return. Ditto other groups. And within each group you have different competing subgroups. At each era they may have different concerns too.

While I like the idea in theory, in practice I think they push too much detail. Given so much of it is circumstantial evidence it's almost certainly wrong in a lot of the details.

I'm curious where specific errors might be.  Can you think of what might be wrong in some details? 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, an insistence that a "yahwist" wrote part and an "elohist" wrote part strikes me as incorrect. I believe the Lord had different titles, and that YHWH was His name He gave them. I believe there is a reason for the differences other than being written by different authors. There are hundreds of different pet theories about the Bible, which I think are largely by scholars trying to make a name for themselves. I certainly don't pay attention to them all.

This isn't really a pet theory.  I Think by and large most serious scholars of the origin of the Pentateuch agree regarding the DH.

The titles or names used to talk of God are significant, often, as it applies to the DH because they are, ti seems to me, the easiest indicator of which source is being used, but it certainly is nto the only identifier, the naming itself identifies particular differences in emphasis and tradition.  The consistency that is found when one breaks up the splicing is amazing. 

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

On the other hand, I'm aware that Robert Alter and Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch raise some interesting questions.  And I once went through the Noah story, formatting the text to show the different J and E sources, and at the same time, showing the chiastic patterns that bridge them both.  It raises what strikes me as irreconcilable questions.

 

I wanted to get back to you regarding Noah's story and the chiasmus that have been used to argue against the DH.

Here is what I remembered reading from Bokovoy in his book previously linked:

Quote

Suffice it to say that at first glance, Andersens' chiastic diagrams look impressive, but on closer examination, many difficulties in his proposed structures quickly emerge.  These difficulties include issues regarding the demarcation of literary units and an arbitrary selection on his part of certain types of words as significant, while simply dismissing others (this is actually a frequent problem with attempts to identify extended chiastic structures in the scriptures).  As  result, Andersen's structures seem imposed rather than a reflection of true authorial intent.

His footnote explains:

Quote

For a complete critique of Andersen's chiastic theory for flood story, see J.A. Emerton, "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narative in Genesis: Part II," 1-21.

He goes on:

Quote

Andersen's analysis was quickly followed by Gordon Wenham, who likewise argued for the unity of the flood narrative by creating his own chiastic structure.  The mere fact that entirely different chiastic structures can be seen in this single story probably tells us something about their legitimacy.  Like Andersen's effort, Wenham's lengthy chiastic analysis is highly problematic, since many of the events in his lines do not naturally correspond with one another (a point that Wenham himself acknowledges); even more importantly, the length of the units used to create his chiasm vary considerably between about half a verse to several verses.  This suggests that if there was truly a single author of the flood story, that author was not nearly as interested in creating the type of symmetry or literary balance that Wenham's structure demands. 

--David Bokovoy, "Authoring the Old Testament", 35-36.

I found a link to Wenham's work:

Quote

http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Wenham-Coherence_Flood_Narrative.pdf

Bokovoy cautions us to read the source material from the defenders of the unified author theories ourselves.

 

he leaves with this reference as the main source for his stated position.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Oh I should have recommended for any interested:

https://gregkofford.com/products/authoring-the-old-testament-1

A really great perspective, in my view, of the early books in the OT from an LDS perspective (he ties in, masterfully, an LDS application).

That is a very good primer for those Mormons unfamiliar with the Documentary Hypothesis, and it will be followed by two more volumes.  That does not mean that the author (David Bokovoy) does not make some mistakes:

For example, he points out the obvious fact that large parts of the Book of Mormon are written as autobiography -- which is very rare in the Bible.  He forgot that the BofM is written in Egyptian, and that the autobiographical genre dominates ancient Egyptian literature, and he was unaware that ancient Egyptian literary topoi are quite common in the BofM.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/14/2017 at 1:29 PM, stemelbow said:

I wanted to get back to you regarding Noah's story and the chiasmus that have been used to argue against the DH.

..............................................  

--David Bokovoy, "Authoring the Old Testament", 35-36.

I found a link to Wenham's work:

Bokovoy cautions us to read the source material from the defenders of the unified author theories ourselves.

..........................................   

While it is wise to be cautious in the application of chiastic analysis in any case, that does not mean that an editor or redactor could not utilize the various documents in the creation of a chiasm.  The DH does not oppose chiasm, but rather it opposes the notion that all documents were authored in the same form we now have them -- which is a rather silly assumption.  How could such an assumption be true in light of the variety of accounts of the same events which we find in LDS Scripture -- the Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, and the Bible clearly vary in their accounts of Creation.  How can that be?

Then too, as I have shown in detail, the various ancient accounts of the Great Deluge not only widely vary among each other, and with the biblical version, but they are each structured with chiastic controls.  See my “Chiasm in Sumero-Akkadian,” in John W. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981/reprint Provo: FARMS/Research Press, 1999):17-35, Online at maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=111&chapid=1286 .

Edited April 15, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

................................................................

unnamed or unknown scribes, editors and redactors had a ton of influence on what is the Bible, what is lauded as scripture by billions of people.

I bring this up wondering people's perspectives regarding the hypothesis.  It seems to really fit with Mormonisms perspective of the OT, but maybe in some ways it doesn't work well. 

Which of the four main perspectives (J, E, D, P) best fit with Modern Mormonism and why? 

Application of the Documentary Hypothesis to Mormon Scripture brings a variety of results.  It has been shown, for example, that the Book of Mormon is largely an E document -- Sorenson, “The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship,” Dialogue, 10/4 (Aut 1977), 31-39, reprinted in J. L. Sorenson, Nephite Culture and Society: Collected Papers, ed. M. R. Sorenson (SLC: New Sage Books, 1997), 25-39.  At the same time, I have shown that the Book of Abraham is a J document:  “Documentary Analysis of the Book of Abraham,” 2007, online March 2013, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/132279885/A-Documentary-Analysis-of-the-Book-of-Abraham .  This fits the historical context of each.

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I Think by and large most serious scholars of the origin of the Pentateuch agree regarding the DH.

I don't think that's correct, actually. The traditional Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) has been out of favor for some time among continental scholars. And there are major American scholars who reject it too, such as David M. Carr.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This isn't really a pet theory.  I Think by and large most serious scholars of the origin of the Pentateuch agree regarding the DH. 

They used to but not so much anymore.

I doubt all of the major theories. While I appreciate how much effort goes into this study and think attempts to explain it might be helpful we just do not have information to reach any permanent conclusion. I expect a new wave of hypotheses within the next decade or so. If we actually solved and could prove it all these poor people would be out of a job.

[stemelbow]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 7:13 PM, Nevo said:

I don't think that's correct, actually. The traditional Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) has been out of favor for some time among continental scholars. And there are major American scholars who reject it too, such as David M. Carr.

I overstated.  THat's what I get for going off of memory on this for sure.  But I think dismissing it as a pet theory is the bigger problem.

Here's Bokovoy (sorry for sticking with him, but what the heck?  Why not?):

Quote

In recent years, many continental scholars 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.[7]  These theories have called into question many previously held assumptions by source critics, including the nature and even existence of sources such as J and E.  Continental scholars have differed lately in their views of documentary sources and fragmentary supplements within the Pentateuch, especially in relationship to Genesis 1-11.[8]  They have mostly done away with J, E, and to some extent, even P.[9]

This does not mean, however, 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.”[10]   Moreover, the documentary approach still has a strong following in North American and Israeli scholarship and new arguments have been put forward recently reaffirming its validity (Baden, Schwartz, Stackert, Hendel, and Friedman, among others).[11]

The truth is that the DH is far from dead.   While there have been some important criticisms of the traditional DH presented in recent years, even European critics have not entirely abandoned the idea that the Pentateuch is a compilation of “documents.”  P, for example, is now almost universally recognized as an independent source as is D. Hence, what we call these sources (for example, P, J, E, and D) really doesn’t matter.  There will always be some differences in the way scholars divide them up (documents versus fragments, etc.).

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/01/the-death-of-the-documentary-hypothesis/

I did mean to suggest there are many theories and breakoffs from the "traditional" DH, as you refer to it, though.  It seems like these continental scholars still have many of the same principles and ideas in mind.  So, in the end, I think it remains a strong theory that the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch, was composed from different sources. 

[stemelbow]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 8:40 PM, The Nehor said:

They used to but not so much anymore.

I doubt all of the major theories. While I appreciate how much effort goes into this study and think attempts to explain it might be helpful we just do not have information to reach any permanent conclusion. I expect a new wave of hypotheses within the next decade or so. If we actually solved and could prove it all these poor people would be out of a job.

I'd agree there's no permanent conclusion that's been reached.  I've seen mixed message surrounding some this.

This weekend I picked up Bokovoy's book again and skimmed some.  ran across this:

Quote

For nearly 130 years, the academic consensus has been that separate historical sources appear in the books of the Pentateuch, which were not written by Moses or any other single author, but were instead produced by Israelite and Judean scribes....If this approach was the method by which scholars identified the separate strands in the Pentateuch, then the critics of the theory would be justified in challenging the scholarly consensus.   

Bokovoy "Authoring the Old Testament", 73

I can't help but get the impression that the consensus is, at least, "the basic premise of separate sources within the Pentateuch".  As it is, it appears, even the continental scholars as referenced by Nevo agree with that.  It's odd to me, because that is at it's bones, the Documentary Hypothesis--the Pentateuch is composed of separate sources.  Then again, as claimed earlier the continental scholars aren't aiming to aiming to overthrow the Documentary Hypothesis.  They seem, mostly don't like the terminology of it because in their quest to find something new, it appears, they don't want to feel bound by it. 

So as it is, the debate doesnt' seem to be whether the Pentateuch was composed of different sources, rather it is what sources, how many, and from whence.  stuff like that. 

[clarkgoble]

On 4/14/2017 at 0:57 PM, stemelbow said:

I'm curious where specific errors might be.  Can you think of what might be wrong in some details? 

I was more thinking that in hard science with lots of evidence, the ability to repeat experiments, formalized statistical methods, we still in most fields are lucky to get 10 - 15% replication. i.e. most papers are wrong. When you think about it relative to a field based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the ability to test in a scientific sense being extremely rare, it seems dubious that claims would reach the 15% accuracy level. That just inherently means most of what's asserted in this field is overwhelmingly wrong.

But as for details just look at the places where ideas have been overturned. Indeed the best place to look is what happens when new evidence finally does appear. What did the Dead Seas Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi corpus do to higher criticism theories? Think for instance of claims about Matthew coming to be seen as a correction by the Ebionites likely tied to the Essences to Mark.

I'd have to imagine that if some archaeologist discovered pre-exile writings of Israel containing their scriptures that there would be a massive rethink of the status quo.

Edited April 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I was more thinking that in hard science with lots of evidence, the ability to repeat experiments, formalized statistical methods, we still in most fields are lucky to get 10 - 15% replication. i.e. most papers are wrong. When you think about it relative to a field based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the ability to test in a scientific sense being extremely rare, it seems dubious that claims would reach the 15% accuracy level. That just inherently means most of what's asserted in this field is overwhelmingly wrong.

But as for details just look at the places where ideas have been overturned. Indeed the best place to look is what happens when new evidence finally does appear. What did the Dead Seas Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi corpus do to higher criticism theories? Think for instance of claims about Matthew coming to be seen as a correction by the Ebionites likely tied to the Essences to Mark.

I'd have to imagine that if some archaeologist discovered pre-exile writings of Israel containing their scriptures that there would be a massive rethink of the status quo.

Well I'd certainly be interested in reading more about any details are wrong.  I get that the field as it is has to make room for the notion that none of this is concrete.  The nature of it simply won't allow that. 

As for Matthew...it is considered, as I understand a writing that had Mark in mind.  that is the gospel of Matthew came after Mark and in some measure was in response to Mark. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/03/who-wrote-the-gospels-part-1/

Alright.  Another Bokovoy reference.  But I can't help it.  He's done good. 

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As for Matthew...it is considered, as I understand a writing that had Mark in mind.  that is the gospel of Matthew came after Mark and in some measure was in response to Mark. 

The claim I was referring to was more Matthew as a text from one of the different traditions of Christianity. The idea that Matthew is dependent upon Mark is uncontroversial of course. This is a claim making an argument regarding the authorship of Matthew and the aims with the text. i.e. a conflict between the Pauline tradition and the Ebionite tradition postulated under James the brother Jesus' leadership.

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So as it is, the debate doesn't seem to be whether the Pentateuch was composed of different sources, rather it is what sources, how many, and from whence.  stuff like that. 

Yes, I think that is basically correct. Here is a recent appraisal from a German scholar (who rejects DH):

Quote

Despite quite different models for the formation of the Torah, there are nevertheless important points on which many scholars would agree: the Pentateuchal narrative is the result of a long process of transmission and editing of formerly independent "documents" or narratives. The "priestly texts" can quite easily be detected (at least in the books of Genesis–Leviticus), and the priestly group may have been the first who tried to combine the primeval, patriarchal, and Exodus narratives. The Torah came into being in the first half of the Persian period (between 539 and 400 BCE), when different elite factions of Judah and Samaria decided to collect their different narrative and legal traditions in order to construct one great narrative that could be accepted by all groups and serve as the foundation document of a new religion based on the regular reading of the Pentateuch.

— Thomas Römer, "The Narrative Books of the Hebrew Bible," in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016): 122-124.

Here is another:

Quote

The basic presupposition of all three hypotheses [documentary, fragmentary, supplementary] is that the Pentateuch is not a literary unity but instead developed over time and is comprised of different literary layers. This presupposition is not arbitrary but instead responds to problems presented by the text itself. In all of the hypotheses, scholars are in agreement that the Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy) or Hexateuch (Genesis–Joshua) is composed of at least three literary strata: Deuteronomy (D), the Priestly writing (P, including H, the Holiness Code), and the non-Priestly text in Genesis–Numbers (non-P). Everything else is open for discussion.

— Reinhard G. Kratz, "The Analysis of the Pentateuch: An Attempt to Overcome Barriers of Thinking," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128, no. 4 (2016): 531.

So there is broad agreement among source critics that P and non-P strands can be discerned in the Pentateuch. One problem for Mormons, as Ryan Thomas showed in a 2015 blog post at Faith Promoting Rumor, is that 1 Nephi is dependent on the P narrative of Exodus, which likely wasn't composed before the exile. It also conflates P and non-P sources, which many scholars believe weren't joined until the Persian period (see, e.g., Römer's comments above). But few Mormons pay any attention to the opinions of biblical scholars—the mantle being far, far greater than the intellect, and so on.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Nevo