Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il>]

"Kevin L. Barney" wrote:

> I have been reviewing scholarship on the Documentary Hypothesis.  Given the
> number of Hebrew scholars here with strong views on such matters, I would
> like to take an informal survey of the members of this list regarding their
> views of the Documentary Hypothesis:
>
> 1.  In general, do you accept the hypothesis?

{JSafren} Yes, but not in its classical formulation. D is a book, or almost 
all of a
book, not a source. P is a school which began well before the Josianic Reform 
and may
have continued until well after it.

>
>
> 2.  If you answered "yes" to question 1, in what ways do your views differ
> from the classical Graf-Wellhausen formulation of the hypothesis?  (E.g.,
> do you accept or reject a separate E source?  Would you date P prior to D,
> as some do?  Do you agree with the recent trend of dating J late rather
> than early?)

I don't know if J and E can be separated, or, indeed , if they are "sources", 
or bodies
of traditions, or something else. For example, I have asrgued, so far only in 
lectures
at rhe ISBL, that the Balaam Narrative is a unified narrative with later 
accretions
orinterpolations, similarly to, but with differences from, Rofe; and I accept 
Redford's
analysis of the Joseph Narrative as a unified narrative which underwent 
successive
editing and additions in line with the injtent of the redactor of Genesis.
As I stated above, I date parts of P before D, such as the Priestly Blessing, 
a copy of
which, dating from the late 7th century BCE, was discovered at Ketef Hinnom; 
or the
altar laws of Lev. 17, which forbid profane slaughter and can only have been 
formulated
before the centralization of cult.
Other parts of P, such as the distinction made between Priest and Levite, may 
indeed be
post-Josianic (though I have recently seen an article debating that point - 
can't
remember details).
The final redaction of the Torah appears to me to be, at least in part, 
Priestly, so
that may be post-exilic.
So one can't speak of a Priestly Source, but of a Priestly School of 
traditions. Lev.
23. for example, is not unified.

>
> 3.  If you reject the hypothesis from within the historical/literary
> critical school, with what would you replace it?  A "fragmentary" view that
> sees numerous fragments being redacted together rather than three or four
> main documents?  A "supplemental" view that sees one main source that was
> supplemented with other material?  Other?

[JSafrten] I definitely do not see 4 documents. With what I would replace it 
- my
thinking on this matter has developed slowly. Ask me 10-20 years from now, if 
I'm still
alive!
Yours,
--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel