Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Hi Peter,

One's interest in the documentary hypothesis (DH) may be related to the
reasons for which one studies the Hebrew Bible (HB) as well as how one
prioritizes the reasons.  --Ah, the age of specialization!  ;-)     

For instance, one may study the HB's message about the past; that is, one
may study it as an artifact of culture or some facet(s) thereof: history,
philosophy, religion/theology, ethics, language, etc.  Since these fields
inter-relate I would say that most students of the HB have a number of
interests here and may be able to prioritize them.  The DH rises and falls
in importance to the individual depending on the priority of his interests
in the HB as an artifact.  The de-construction of the HB by the DH is done,
is it not, as an exercise in re-constructing historical Israel?

On the other hand, a student may have a priority for study of the HB as
something alive now, rather than as an artifact.  It does indeed have a
present voice.  I'll call this a literary study of the HB.  I must qualify
that I think the literary study of the HB does not necessitate religious
faith, but that I think it does require, as any literary study, at least a
temporary suspension of disbelief.  I'll get back to this in a second. 
Anyway, literary study of the HB is most interested in *reading* the HB, in
*hearing* the text.  It's not that studying the HB's message about the
past, as mentioned in the paragraph above, is unrelated to studying its
message to the present.  The two studies, I am sure, are often
complementary rather than exclusive.

Re "suspension of disbelief":  Put plainly, this is at least a temporary,
somewhat testable assumption on the part of a literary critic that a single
mind (even if several authors/editors) has generated a text artfully and
meaningfully.  I.e., everything in the text should contribute to the
over-all meaning and plan of the text.  Suspension of disbelief assumes a
text exists to be *heard*.  It seems that by the Nineteenth Century CE,
students of the HB should have had enough time suspending disbelief and
explaining the message and the art of the HB!  It seems that the DH should
by then have its fair crack at deconstructing the text.  Maybe so, and in
so doing it erodes the concept of "the one mind behind the text" which a
suspension of disbelief assumes.  

Well, I think the DH may have caught the literary study of the HB fat and
relaxed in the Nineteenth Century.  But as of the last three decades, I
would say that the field of literary criticism has been experiencing
something of a re-birth.  Some of what the DH labeled as seams in a poorly
stitched together redaction, the literary critics are asserting are
examples of the poetics of the HB.  What's more, the interest, in the last
three decades, in discourse analysis has provided some insights into the
linguistic code the artist of the HB has at his disposal.  As a greater
array of techniques in BH poetics becomes visible and as a more coherent
linguistic system is described, the importance and even, perhaps, the
argument for the existence of the DH erodes.  It's a great time to be a
student of the HB as we observe and participate in this tug of war!  By the
end, the study of the HB may well be comparable to the layered remains of
cultural "king-of-the-hill" at such a place as Tell-Megiddo.

At least, the DH and literary criticism/discourse analysis perform
necessary checks on each other.  I do not think the DH rules the day.  At
least it is not alone in the field.

Shalom,
Bryan


----------
> From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: JEDP not supported?
> Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 8:00 PM
> 
> I recently ducked a question about why I reject Wellhausen type source 
> criticism. Maybe because I am not alone...
> 
> >From a private report about a recent OT conference in Oslo:
> 
> "The new atmosphere was noticed by some participants; JEDP theory was 
> not mentioned almost at all in this conference.  Most scholars in OT 
> conference do not support this theory these days."
> 
> Would anyone like to comment? What was this conference, anyway?
> 
> Peter Kirk
> 



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)