[b-hebrew] Wellhausen, Vintage 1889
JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Mon Jan 7 15:04:17 EST 2008
You wrote: “List readers may be interested in the following article, which I
placed online: Tatian's Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch by
Prof. George F. Moore (Read in December 1889) Journal of Biblical Literature 9
(http://yitzhaksapir.googlepages.com/tatian'sdiatessaron) I found it amazing how an article
from over a century ago, is still so timely. It is as if all the critics
against the Documentary Hypothesis are simply repeating, for a century now, the
same arguments, with no care to the fact that long ago, responses have been
published to those same questions.”
1. In 1889, Prof. Moore said “the Pentateuch is a composite work”. But his
article says nothing as to whether the Patriarchal narratives are a composite
2. Writing in 1889, Prof. Moore was blissfully ignorant of most, if not all,
of the following parallels between the secular history of the mid-14th
century BCE and the Patriarchal narratives:
(a) The Hittites.
(b) The Hurrians/Horites.
(c) The historical iniquity of the Amorites, when the Amorites sold out
northern Lebanon and the west coast of Syria to the dreaded Hittites.
(d) The Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive, when the forces of the first
historical monotheistic leader of a people, in a morally questionable action
not ordered by such monotheistic leader, killed the leader of Shechem and the
men who were with him at the time, thereby dramatically ending Shechem’s threat
to dominate central Canaan by using tent-dwelling habiru/Hebrews as its foot
(e) A leader named Abimelech/Abimilki of Sur, who was constantly jousting
for access to valuable water wells.
(f) A terrible two-year famine in parts of Canaan that led some people to
flee to Sur for food.
(g) An irate father-in-law from Nahrima/Naharim, in Paddan-Aram, on the
upper Euphrates River who broke off relations with his monotheistic son-in-law
from far to the southwest, with the last straw being, believe it or not, certain
statues (either gold statues or teraphim) that the monotheistic son-in-law
failed to deliver to his irate father-in-law on the upper Euphrates River.
In a word, Prof. Moore knew essentially nothing about the secular history of
the mid-14th century BCE. So how on earth could he, in 1889, tell if the
Patriarchal narratives match up, item for item, with the detailed secular history
of the mid-14th century BCE, instead of being fiction patched together from
four different sources (JEPD) over the course of several centuries in the
mid-1st millennium BCE?
3. Let me now use your own exact words to attack the JEPD analysis of the
Patriarchal narratives, simply changing your reference to “critics against” to “
“It is as if all the [“supporters of”] the Documentary Hypothesis are simply
repeating, for a century now, the same arguments, with no care to the fact
that long ago, responses have been published to those same questions.”
Today we have a veritable cornucopia of detailed information about the
secular history of the mid-14th century BCE. Yet it still seems to be glorious
1889, when very little was known about the mid-14th century BCE, to those who
continue to promote a JEPD/mid-1st millennium BCE composition theory for the
How can 100 years of vast development of knowledge about the mid-14th century
BCE be so blissfully and totally ignored by today’s secular scholarly
analysts of the Patriarchal narratives? It still seems to be the blissful, ignorant
days of 1889 in their sheltered world. You’re right: that 1889 article could
have been written, word for word, in 1989, or in 2006, for that matter. When
is any Biblical scholar ever going to grapple with comparing the foreign
policy events in the last 40 chapters of Genesis with the foreign policy events in
the mid-14th century BCE? I’m still waiting.
We’ve got “pharaoh” and “Ashur” and “chânîykîm” and “Naharim” and “
Paddan-Aram” in the Patriarchal narratives, and no “Pithom” or “Assur” in the
Patriarchal narratives, and each of Dinah and Rebekah is called a “boy” in the
Patriarchal narratives. Where are the historical linguists when we need them?
How could JEPD come up with all this vintage mid-14th century BCE lingo, and
also match all the many recent archeological discoveries regarding the
mid-14th century BCE, in the Patriarchal narratives, while being thoroughly 1st
millennium BCE in all the rest of the Bible? Is that a believable theory of the
It’s still 1889 when it comes to today’s scholarly analysis of the
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
More information about the b-hebrew