Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Looking into the Wellhausen JEPD Theory

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: belaga AT math.u-strasbg.fr
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Looking into the Wellhausen JEPD Theory
  • Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:39:01 +0100

Dear Ytzhak and Yigal,

I do not agree with the currently dominant academic interpretation of the historical roots of the Biblical narratives. Such disagreement is permitted in hard sciences where the modern upheavals have demonstrated the value, if not necessity of sometimes apparently "crazy" ideas.

How then could I discuss with you my doubts ? Your strict adherence to the currently dominant academic positions and norms has finally convinced me to expose here my supra-academic worries in the case, the real source of my anxiety. Sorry if it might sound for your ears as a heavy metal music. But let me start.

If it is permitted to question the accepted for centuries authenticity of the Patriarchal Narratives and, more generally, of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the good faith of its "creators", it is surely permitted to question the academic authenticity and the academic good faith of the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory.

The problem is that, starting with at least Arthur Schopenhauer, the German school of thought, the academic school of thought including, has been slowly approaching the vision and the will which, at the hands of the Nazis, became the academic theory and will of the extermination of the Jews, starting with their mental and intellectual extermination from the religious, cultural, and intellectual scenes.

In his book "The World As Will and Representation" (Volume I, Dover Publications, New York 1969. Translated from the German by E. F. J. Payne), Schopenhauer writes, as always very eloquently (page 232): "Historical subjects have a decidedly detrimental effect only when they restrict the painter to a field chosen arbitrarily, and not for artistic but for other purposes. This is particularly the case when this field is poor in picturesque and significant objects, when, for example, it is the history of a small, isolated, capricious, hierarchical (i.e., ruled by false notions), obscure people, like the Jews, despised by the great contemporary nations of the East and of the West. Since the great migration of peoples lies between us and all the ancient nations, just as between the present surface of the earth and the surface whose organisms appear only as fossil remains there lies the former change of the bed of the ocean, it is to be regarded generally as a great misfortune that the people whose former culture was to serve mainly as the basis of our own were not, say, the Indians or the Greeks, or even the Romans, but just these Jews."

This, in my opinion, explains in particular the primary super-cultural and meta-scientific motives and purposes of the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory. These relatively modern (from two hundred to fifty years old) ideological undercurrents of their and their followers and peers theories are much better documented and easier verified than those of the supposed late "creators" of the Biblical narratives. As to the Archeological data left to itself, it is certainly very far from speaking so obligatory and single-mindedly in the favour of the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory or any other similar theory.

This said, I do not simplify, and surely not negate the importance of the problem of the Bible historical, literaty, and linguistic origins. I am actually working on an article related to these origins (but not to the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory, sorry).

It would be certainly a mistake to construe these my remarks, difficult even for me - a "hard scientist" as I am - to spell out, as an accusation of those who today believe in, and work on the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD Theory to be Jews-haters or Jews-bashers. Too historically guillible ?

On Dec 23, 2007 8:26 AM, wrote:
> Your previous statement on the subject: "It is nice to see that many
> people on this
> b-Hebrew list do not accept the majority view of today's secular
> academic scholars
> that the Patriarchal narratives are a myth created by multiple
> southern Hebrew authors
> in the mid-1st millennium BCE," was more reasonable. Take out
> "southern", "mid-",
> "secular", and replace "are a myth" by "were", and you have an
> accurate statement.
> ................
> Yitzhak Sapir

Dear Yitzhak,

Thus, the accurate statement should be, according to you:

"The Patriarchal narratives were created by multiple Hebrew authors in
the 1st millennium BCE."

The correct statement which I feel Jim Stinehart would have been justified
posting is:
"It is nice to see that many people on this b-Hebrew list do not accept the
majority view of today's academic scholars that the Patriarchal narratives were
created by multiple Hebrew authors in the 1st millennium BCE."

What really troubles me in this "accurate" -- and correct? --
according to you claim, is the term "created". Why not just to say
"were written down»?

Because that is not the view of the today's academic scholars.

My proposal does not reflect my opinion on the subject, but it is
still looks sufficiently reasonable for me and potentially amendable
for corrections, in the case of new discoveries, to be passed by
without too much objections.

The issue is not "new discoveries." The issue is current discoveries.
It's not that evidence is lacking. It's that there is evidence to the
contrary.

It is just because the authoritative majority of learned Jewish
"academics" of this early epoch, to which even the Documentary
Hypothesis is obliged to assign the "creation" of the narratives in
question, were deeply religious people, for whom "the spirit" and "the
letter" were not yet divorced, or worse still, for whom "the spirit"
was nonexistent and only "the letter" was real, as to many of us, that
we can be absolutely sure that these academics(whom I admire for their
scientific and spiritual perseverance in the time when all books were
written and when wars were destroying libraries forever) have written
down something known to even children for many centuries with the most
great accuracy. Oral precedes written and the written, in its
beginnings, faithfully reproduces the oral (see, for example, the
articles of Frank Polak, of the Tel Aviv University).

Let me respond to this by saying that it took me quite a while to figure
out what you're trying to say here. It seems to suggest that the texts
were written down and copied accurately, and that the written tradition
faithfully reproduces the oral received tradition. You quote Frank Polak
on the subject, and it seems one main article of his that deals with oral
vs written is available here:
http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1998%2026/Polak26.pdf
But if you read Polak's essay you'll see that even he accepts the Documentary
Hypothesis, and that his theory is about discerning which elements were written
earlier in the 1st millennium and which later. (You'll note that this
issue is one
of the comments I made to Jim Stinehart). Furthermore, when he discusses
"oral," he explicitly claims that "this thesis is not intended to mean that this
corpus itself was oral." (p 102, p. 44 in the pdf). I'll also point
out that the
discussion which concludes that late 9th century BCE Mesha stele must
indicate that certain sources must have been composed prior to the Mesha
stele is probably to be challenged on various grounds including: 1) Moabite
literary development must be distinguished from Samarian and Judean literary
development, 2) his central thesis that simpler constructions date earlier needs
to be tested against attested evidence, and if attested evidence indicates that
already the earliest attestation is complex, then the basic conclusion must be
that perhaps simpler and complex constructions can coexist. Finally, Frank
Polak's position on the issue must be considered the most conservative end
of the academic spectrum.

This said, personally, I do believe ? for historical, psychological,
and, yes, spiritual reasons outlined above (which does not mean
?fundamentalist? and even "religious", as this word is spelled out by
unbelievers, -- your original unfortunate, discriminatory terms which
have the potential to destroy the very climate of the academic
objectivity that you are so much promoting) -- that the Patriarchal
Narratives were written down much earlier than the 1st Millennium BC.

You may want to go back to the message to which I responded where the
original poster used terms much harsher than "fundamentalist."
"Fundamentalist,"
however, has a specific meaning and it was also the self-adopted name of
a particular group of people, historically. As such, it refers to a person who
adheres strongly to a set of basic beliefs such as the infallibility
of the Bible
and Mosaic authorship. Primarly, the fundamentalist movement rejected the
Documentary Hypothesis along these lines. I don't see any problem then in
using "fundamentalist" in this context, and I think it is very
appropriate. Your
personal conclusions are yours, but I stand by my original statement that given
what we know today, the archaeological evidence does not support an earlier
date. Again, I recommend the book by Finkelstein and Mazar.

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




Edward G. Belaga
******************************************************
Institut de Recherche en Mathématique Avancée
Universite Louis Pasteur
7, rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, FRANCE
tel.: 333 90 24 02 35, FAX: 333 90 24 03 28
e-mail : edward.belaga AT math.u-strasbg.fr
******************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page