Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/25/2003 7:55:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mattfeld12 AT charter.net writes:

> A number of scholars have expressed doubts about the JEDP paradigm. A number
> suggest the Primary History (Genesis-Kings) was written NO earlier than the
> Exile, and there may be NO P.
> Professor Whybray mentions Wagner, Winnet, Rendtorff, Schmid, and Mayes.
> 
> Cf. the following url
> 
> http://www.bibleorigins.net/PrimaryHistory562BCE.html
> 
> Also Cf. the comments of Professor Akenson who argues the Primary History
> was by one author-redactor in the Exile (scoll down to the update at the 
> end
> of the article)
> http://www.bibleorigins.net/oneauthorprimaryhistory.html
> 

I think there can be little doubt from a critical point of view regarding the 
existence of the documentary traditions designated by JEDP.  That a unity has 
been noted in the entire composition does not negate this.  From a 
form-critical point of view the overall unity of the composition may be 
attributed to the schema imposed upon the pre-existing material by the 
redactor.  Profound respect is given to Ezra in the Jewish tradition in that 
it was said  “Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah had Moses 
not preceded him” (R. José, b. Sanh. 21b).  It could well be that such 
redaction could be assigned to this period and to the work of Ezra.

gfsomsel
>From mshields AT mail.usyd.edu.au  Tue Feb 25 23:36:03 2003
Return-Path: <mshields AT mail.usyd.edu.au>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from atrahasis.shields.net.au (CPE-203-45-96-81.nsw.bigpond.net.au
        [203.45.96.81])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4B220014
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:36:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([192.168.1.2])
        by atrahasis.shields.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1Q4c2Y01934
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:38:02 +1100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:32:10 +1100
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Priestly Stratum
From: "Martin A. Shields" <mshields AT mail.usyd.edu.au>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <BA828E7A.8D45%mshields AT mail.usyd.edu.au>
In-Reply-To: <122.1f62cde4.2b8d87c3 AT aol.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 04:36:03 -0000

On 26/2/03 2:00 PM, Polycarp66 AT aol.com at Polycarp66 AT aol.com wrote:

> I think there can be little doubt from a critical point of view regarding 
> the
> existence of the documentary traditions designated by JEDP.  That a unity 
> has
> been noted in the entire composition does not negate this.  From a
> form-critical point of view the overall unity of the composition may be
> attributed to the schema imposed upon the pre-existing material by the
> redactor.  Profound respect is given to Ezra in the Jewish tradition in that
> it was said  “Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah had Moses
> not preceded him” (R. José, b. Sanh. 21b).  It could well be that such
> redaction could be assigned to this period and to the work of Ezra.

Perhaps I am opening a can of worms in saying this, but until recent
discussions made reference to the DH and revealed that many on this list
still subscribe to the theory, I had the distinct impression that it was
pretty much dead. Clearly I am reading the wrong books.

Whybray's Making of the Pentateuch, for example, seems to be a comprehensive
critique of the underlying methodology used to identify the supposed
sources. (I would add that Clines' "New Directions in Pooh Studies" is also
a critique, although in the form of a parody--available online somewhere.)
Is there any response to Whybray's work which shows his analysis was wrong?

I also seem to remember David Gunn writing something along the lines that
the conclusive results of historical criticism would fill but a pamphlet
(sorry, it'd be some time since I came across that quote, please forgive me
if I'm incorrect).

This is not to deny that there could have been sources, only that they
cannot be reliably identified, and even more so, that the theology and
ideology of the individual sources cannot be reliably discerned. It
therefore seems that conclusions reached on the basis of the DH are on very
shaky ground.

Furthermore, if a unity has been identified in the final composition, does
this not undermine the basis for DH which originated in the supposed lack of
unity in the final form of the redacted documents? To rephrase from the
above:

>From a literary-critical point of view the overall disunity of the
composition may be attributed to the schema imposed upon the final material
by the modern form critics.

Regards,

Martin Shields.