Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<david.kimbrough AT charter.net>]

Bányai,

The first point that must realized is that the JEDP documents are not 
identified solely by the name of God.  I have lost count of how many 
different ways God is addressed in the OT.  Each of the four hypothesized 
books has a distinct writing style, word use pattern, and theology. Comparing 
just J and P is illustrative. The J portions make extensive use of word play, 
puns, and irony and present a very anthropogenic God and called Yahweh in 
Eden and at Horeb.  Women play a very important part in the J portions.  In 
J, humans offer sacrifices to God from Eden to Horeb (no Sinai). J is not 
particularly interested in priestly rituals or prohibitions.  In the P 
portions, God is very distant, awesome, and detached, the language is highly 
repetitive and obsessive about the numbers of things, (length of the ark, age 
of Abraham, days of rain, etc).  No sacrifices are made to God until Moses 
makes the first at Sinai (no Horeb).  P is mostly long lists of priestly 
rituals and prohibitio!
 ns.  In P God is called either Elohim or El Shaddai but explicitly changes 
His name at Sinai to Yahweh.  There is little punning or irony in P.  The 
differences in style are not very apparent in English translations. 

A second point is that in fact It is not possible take ordinary stories a 
part and get two complete but quite versions of the same story.  Try to pull 
apart War & Peace based on how the character Vasili Dmitrich Denisov is 
addressed.  In some parts he is called *General Densilov* and in others he is 
called *Vasili Dmitrich*.  You will not get two parallel complete versions 
but distinct versions of War & Peace.  You will get two strange disjointed 
stories, but both will read like Tolstoy and will have a similar point of 
view.  This is true despite the fact that there is plenty of redundant 
material in this book.

Again, I do not wish to debate this in any detail.  My point is that this is 
complex theory that cannot be appreciated, proven, or disproven by just 
reading one book, a book on a different subject.  I happen like Friedman?s 
book but it pretty assumes the DH and goes from there to topic of book, which 
is who wrote which sections.  The scholars behind the DH may be wrong, but 
they are not fools.

> 
> From: Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)
> Date: 2004/06/04 Fri PM 07:08:00 GMT
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis
> 
> <David, you are misunderstanding.
> 
> I am writing from an agnostic point of view. I just state there is no 
> direct evidence that a redundance of material in for example the "Noah 
> story" has to be explained by this separation pattern between Yahwistic and 
> Elohistic writers. 
> 
> Last one sounds good but is undemonstrable. It is even arbitrary and 
> running against the evidence which shows, there is no difference between 
> both names. Never.
> 
> One could construct, should one wish this, also different two stories of 
> the flood by recombining differently the redundant material.
> 
> Here is a logical fault of the DH theory.
> 
> It is entirely on the other hand the question: has one to split indeed the 
> Noah story for example, or are the redundancies, the general typical 
> phaenomena of ANE literature? I offered an example in Ugaritic literature.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Bányai Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel