[b-hebrew] Wellhausen JEPD Theory re Patriarchal Narratives
JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Mon Dec 24 11:39:33 EST 2007
1. Mr. Wellhausen himself knew nothing about the secular history of the
mid-14th century BCE. Mr. Wellhausen thought that the Hittites were fictitious.
Mr. Wellhausen knew little or nothing about the Hurrians, the Amarna Letters,
the Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive in the mid-14th century BCE, or the
iniquity of the Amorites in the mid-14th century BCE, when the Amorites
iniquitously sold out northern Lebanon and the west coast of Syria to the dreaded
Hittites. Mr. Wellhausen did not know that in the mid-14th century BCE, there
actually was a princeling ruler named Abimilki (similar to “Abimelech”), who
lived at Sur (with Sur arguably being referenced at Genesis 20: 1), who had
interminable struggles for access to valuable water wells, similar to such
struggles referenced in chapters 21 and 26 of Genesis.
Thus if the questions are whether the Patriarchal Age was the mid-14th
century BCE, and if the Patriarchal narratives were composed in the mid-14th century
BCE by the first historical Hebrew, how then could we look to Mr. Wellhausen,
who knew absolutely nothing about the secular history of the mid-14th century
2. You yourself have not set forth a story in the Patriarchal narratives
that, in your view, is redolent of the 1st millennium BCE and does not reflect
the mid-2nd millennium BCE.
3. We are trying to figure out the basis for your insistence that only a “
fundamentalist” could deny the Wellhausen JEPD theory that the Patriarchal
narratives are fiction ginned up by four Hebrew authors in the mid-1st millennium
4. Please set forth a quote by a reputable academic scholar that purports to
identify a story in the Patriarchal narratives that is redolent of the 1st
millennium BCE and that does not reflect the mid-2nd millennium BCE.
5. It just does not seem plausible that four ghostwriters in the mid-1st
millennium BCE could create a long line of memorable stories, and that every
single one of such stories just “happens”, by pure coincidence, to reflect the
important events in a tiny time period in the mid-14th century BCE. Certainly
some of the stories in the Patriarchal narratives must be manifestly out of
place in a mid-14th century BCE time period, if the Wellhausen theory of the case
6. I have mentioned many stories in the Patriarchal narratives that seem
manifestly out of place in a 1st millennium BCE timeframe. In the first half of
chapter 50 of Genesis, for example, Pharaoh sends all of his top officials all
the way to Canaan for the super-magnificent funeral of Jacob/“Israel”. That
over-the-top pro-Egypt viewpoint never surfaces anywhere else in the Bible,
outside of the Patriarchal narratives. Egypt killed Hebrew King Josiah in the
7th century BCE, and Egypt did not do enough to prevent Israel and Judah from
being destroyed by Assyria and Babylonia in the 8th – 6th centuries BCE. So
where is this pro-Egypt viewpoint in the Patriarchal narratives coming from?
It does not seem to square with the historical facts of the 1st millennium
BCE. Yet it makes perfect sense in the mid-14th century BCE, when the first
Hebrews looked to Egypt to prevent the dreaded Hittites from conquering Canaan and
destroying the fledgling Hebrews.
We have also recently noted that Jacob/“Israel” tells YHWH that Jacob will
honor YHWH if YHWH makes sure that Jacob’s trip out to Harran is successful.
That is not the way 1st millennium BCE Hebrews talked to YHWH, or thought about
YHWH. Yet it makes sense in a mid-14th century BCE context, when Judaism was
just beginning, and there still was some bona fide question at that very
early point whether the Hebrews would and should devote themselves eternally to
We have also mentioned that nothing about the character Levi in the
Patriarchal narratives foreshadows any knowledge that in the 1st millennium BCE, there
would be a line of beloved Levite Hebrew priests. Levi misuses the sacred
sacrament of circumcision at Shechem so that the weakened men of Shechem can be
ruthlessly killed in a surprise attack. Of course, that story makes perfect
sense in a mid-14th century BCE context, as it is but a variant of the
historical Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive.
7. Rather than have me list another dozen or so stories in the Patriarchal
narratives that do not fit the 1st millennium BCE, but which do have astounding
accuracy as to the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century
BCE, what everyone on the b-Hebrew list is waiting to hear, rather, is this.
What story or stories from the Patriarchal narratives would you or reputable
academic scholars cite as being redolent of the 1st millennium BCE, while not
reflecting the mid-2nd millennium BCE?
We honestly do not understand why you are following a theory created by a
19th century German who knew absolutely nothing whatsoever about the secular
history of the mid-14th century BCE. What story or stories in the Patriarchal
narratives do you or do secular academic scholars see as being inconsistent with
a mid-14th century BCE Patriarchal Age, and a mid-14th century BCE composition
date? If this is all fiction ginned up by multiple authors in the 1st
millennium BCE (your view), then certainly there would have to be some stories in
the Patriarchal narratives that do not match at all the peculiar, unique,
short-lived situation of the mid-14th century BCE.
Please cite a statement by a reputable academic scholar identifying one or
more specific stories in the Patriarchal narratives as being redolent of the 1st
millennium BCE, while not reflecting the mid-2nd millennium BCE.
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
More information about the b-hebrew