Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<david.kimbrough AT charter.net>]

Hello,

As I stated several times, it is not my intent to either attack or defend the 
DH.  I was concerned that the content of the DH was being caricatured.  If 
one wishes to dismiss the DH, go for it.  However what I saw in the thread 
was a gross simplification of the DH based on one book whose subject was not 
the DH per se.  It is easy to disprove a straw man version of the DH.  The DH 
is a theory (no has every found a J or E document) but one that is both very 
sophisticated and complex and based on the actual text of the Pentateuch.  Of 
course, being sophisticated, complex, or textually based does not make it 
true but it does mean that it cannot be blithely dismissed with a wave of the 
hand (or a tap on the keyboard).  If someone wants to attack the DH, attack 
the actual DH, not a caricature of it.

> 
> From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
> Date: 2004/06/05 Sat PM 04:21:08 GMT
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis - Just a Bit More
> 
> Dear Karl,
> 
> >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.
> 
> HH: One argument presented to us in seminary was 
> a listing of DH schemes for dividing the biblical 
> text that have arisen over the years. I believe 
> the number was over thirty in the grouping we 
> considered, and none of them agreed. The 
> Documentary Hypothesis is just something else 
> that diverts one's attention from what the Bible 
> is saying when it is read correctly in the form 
> in which it was intended to be read.
> 
>                               Yours,
>                               Harold Holmyard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel