Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

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