Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Joe Baker <joebaker AT cygnus.uwa.edu.au>]

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:
+++++
I RESPOND
I have formed my ideas over many years, reading as much as I can, accepting
and rejecting ideas, Always willing to change opinion if the argument is
good, What follows is my current position. Who knows what tomorrow may
bring?
**********

KEVIN L. BARNEY CONTINUED
1. In general, do you accept the hypothesis? +++++
I RESPOND
Yes. I see the Historical Books deriving from many written and oral sources
with the Documentary Hypothesis pointing to stages at which these sources
were brought together by specific people/groups for a specific purpose.
**********

KEVIN L. BARNEY CONTINUED
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 RESPOND
I will try to avoid the origin of individual sources and only give my
summary of when and by whom they were assembled

I see JE as the oldest "published" stage of a collection of sources. I see
him as an individual who completed his work c. 852 B.C. I differ from the
classic interpretation in not having sepearte J and E authors. The
differences and duplication I see as being JE's attempt to combine his
various sources but still retain their individuality. His story runs from
the creation to the death of Moses.

I see D as a school stretching from at least Hezekiah's time (and even
earlier given that some parts of covenant law contains "proto" D
philosophy) to early post-exilic times. In the time of Manasseh one of them
produced a book of law based on their philosophy and a copy was placed in
the Temple library. In the time of Josiah the school revived, particularly
among the royal court. As a publicity stunt they announced the
"(re-)discovery" of this book. By c 615 B.C. they had surrounded this law
book with historical material stretching from the Exodus under Moses (using
JE as a source) to the reign of Josiah. The work was probably produced by a
group of scholars under an overriding editor (I think he was Shaphan the
spr). I know Cross saw this as the work of one author whom he denoted as
Dtr1 but I prefer to use this notation for the author who was responsible
for the period from Solomon to Josiah. (I think he was Shallum the $mr
hbndym). Later in exilic times c.560 the work was updated to the release of
Jehioachin by using several different sources. Still later it received
several additions in early post-exilic times as the last expression of the
D school (Thus I see Crosse's Dtr2 several redactors not one).

I see P as a priestly exilic/post exilic school stretching into mid Persian
times. They did not have a continuous narrative themselves but they did
have a lot of written sources/traditions both secular and non secular (some
of which were already collected into seperate books). They were a
conservative lot, trying to maintain the traditions of their school and
this is why their work contain references to pre-exilic practices,
particularly with respect to cultic law (and the calendar) and trying to
adapt it to a radically different environment. They produced what today is
Genesis to Deuteronomy by heavily combining their souces with JE and
attaching Deuteronomy to it. What become Joshua and Judges, resulted from
them rearranging D's work on Joshua and surrounding the period of the
judges by some surviving non-priestly material. Finally to what became the
books of Samuel and Kings they added a few touches (or nothing at all in
some of these books).

Regards
Joe Baker