Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>]

On Friday, June 4, 2004, at 02:05  AM, Michael Banyai wrote:

> Excuse me David but for 5, the demonstration entirely lacks. If as you 
> state:
>
>
> > 5) A way to "test" the DH is quite simple. Take the story of Noah.  
> > Take the portions that use the name Elohim, pull them out, and line 
> > them up.  Take the remaining portions, which will only have the name 
> > Yahweh in them, pull them out, and line them up. What you will get is 
> > two entirely complete but different versions of the same story.  How 
> > many other stories in world literature can you do something like that?
>
> this is still no demonstration that a break must run along the using of 
> both the names YHWH and Elohim. This meant if at all that there is 
> redundant material in the story and one could if at all tear the 
> redundant material in two separate masses. However the choice where the 
> one formulation or other pertains is free and has not to happen 
> according to the usage of YHWH and Elohim names.
>
> Only the demonstration that these names have, whenever indeed, made a 
> real difference would allow to make the choice to tear along their 
> usage.
>
> Otherwise would also mixed stories using alternately both names make 
> sense.
>
> So there is nothing "demonstrated" by the DH, but just suggested to 
> have been demonstrated. One calls something like this in german 
> "Taschenspielertrick".
>
> Perhaps an other organisation of the text in two heaps of texts - not 
> along the usage of the divine names- is less "interesting". But leaving 
> out other options of creating groups of the redundancies (if they 
> indeed are redundancies caused by something like this and not because 
> of the archaic style to which redundancies are typical) is 
> oversymplifying the case.

Michael,

I accept the notion that the HB was written by multiple hands. I don't 
think anyone argues against that. There is evidence for it all 
throughout the texts. I have a problem with the way that DH deals with 
multiple authorship. The DH approach centers around predictability and 
formula. Deciphering who wrote the HB is not as simple as 1+1=2. It is 
not a math problem. The DH backers like to bring in the human element 
when they're already deep within their theory, but not at the outset of 
it, not when it would make their foundational suppositions weak. It is 
the human element which makes using formulae to determine authorship a 
flawed approach.

Why does noone take seriously (and fully explore) the internal 
bibliographic references contained within the HB as source materials? DH 
backers certainly won't. They're too busy creating artifices such as 
"The Book of Generations" to bother.

Best Salaams,

Brian Roberts