Jim West jwest at
Sat Sep 2 23:34:55 EDT 2000

At 10:14 PM 9/2/00 -0500, you wrote:

>Jim, I admire your conviction and certainty, but there are few scholars out
>here who hold this position. Where there is a consensus it does not goes as
>far as the Hasmonean period and many are reevaluating arguments which place
>J in the United Monarchy or at least prior to the exile.
>And just curious, does this view you support place D in that period as well?

D... hmmm.. you know, during grad school i was an adherent of the
documentary hypothesis.  in the last few years i have grown convinced that
it was merely a result of the philosophy of the day-- it is thesis (the
Yahwist and the Elohist); antithesis (P) and synthesis (D).  This
philosophical construct really has nothing to commend it.  the texts can be
explained otherwise, i think, as theological propaganda stemming from the
need to place a history behind a people newly settled in their "ancestral

let me be a little more precise.  i think the HB stems from the hasmonean
era and is a set of documents intended to make the newly settled immigrants
feel "at home".

thus, your question about D.... cant be answered by me because i dont think
there is a D (or  a J or a P or an E).

i am perfectly content being in the minority.  the problems i have with the
documentary hypothesis are immense.  the history reflected in the
documentary hypothesis is not history at all but theological propaganda.
i.e., the texts of the HB are intended to give solace to the new population
that they do indeed belong there---- and the theory of Wellhausen and his
followers was intended to give them solace that just as israels religion
evolved and became more humane so to it reached its climax in Jesus and

best, jim
and sorry i cant answer your question.  but its like asking me what i think
of martians.


"Do not ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence" -Napoleon

Jim West, ThD

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list