Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis - Just a Bit More

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis - Just a Bit More
  • Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:10:12 -0500

David:

The problem with DH is: unless one already possesses the sources, any attempt
to reconstruct hypothesized sources from a ”daughter“ document cannot help
but be artificial with a high probability of being wrong. The division along
postulated differences in theology or style is no less artificial than
according to how God is addressed.

For example, years ago when I read a splitting apart of the story of the
flood into J and E sources, I was struck by how strange and disjointed the
stories were (to use your words). But as a whole, it fits together perfectly,
albeit with a certain amount of redundancy not uncommon in other narratives.

In closing, until a copy of one of these sources in Hebrew is found, it seems
best to limit our discussion to the documents that we have.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: <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 prohibiti
o!
> 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)
> >
> > <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
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page