Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Looking away from 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: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Looking away from the Wellhausen JEPD Theory
  • Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:42:31 +0100

Dear Yigal,

Thank you very much for this attentive, even if not exactly relevant to my worries answer.

By the way, I do understand and willingly accept -- eise hu hacham ? halomed mi cal adam -- the superior competence, yours and Ytzhak's, in the b-Hebrew matters we discuss, so I am really glad to be at this moment a newcomer to an intelligent forum, not to the American foot's training camp.

(1) First, I wasn't primarily interested in discussing and debunking the Documentary Hypothesis. It is already around for a while, and as I am aware, many respected researchers just ignore its existence, others not, etc.

(2) Defending "crazy" solutions, I didn't mean anything particular on this forum, and, say, the "Amarna letters" interpretation, or substitution of the Patriarchal Narratives would be as good or as bad, and surely as irrelevant to the origins of these narratives as the Documentary Hypothesis (another question is the value of the Amarna data relevant to the Patriarchal epoch).

(3) My worries relevant to the functioning of this forum are the one-dimensionality of the dominant, guiding vision provided by you and, especially, Yitzhak.

(4) To illustrate the point: you dismiss or at least intentionally ignore all appeals for the SCIENTIFIC respect of the intellectual integrity of the Jewish academicians of the pas who have faithfully transmitted to us the Biblical texts. Moreover, it was enough that a certain mediocre German scientist, systematically referred by Yitzhak as "Professor Wellhausen", with no firsthand knowledge in the matter (I mean both the Jewish Orthodox tradition and the rich Christian theology, mostly Catholic), certainly condescending intellectually to, and in the all evidence, disgusted culturally by all Biblical narratives as human, if not divine documents (he just was not able to mention the priestly texts without a dismissive shrug), -- it was enough for this academician belonging to the intellectual school preparing the elimination of the Jewish component from the foundations of their superior, Arian culture, to suggest that the Pentateuch is just a Jewish complot program, worked out by smart ideologues in the time of an urgent political necessity, -- that some are ready to fully accept it, debunking proudly the rich and fruitful, many thousand years long Judaeo-Christian tradition.

(5) You say:

The main part of your message claimed that the Graf-Wellhausen theory should
be discounted because its proponents were anti-Semites, predecessors of the
Nazis.

It is not true, as you see: my main point is that I feel it inappropriate that this theory is treated by you and Yitzhak as the most "scientific".

(6)On a more personal note, you continue:

While it is true that every scholar is a product of his or her
society and generation, and some of them may have actually been despicable
human beings, the scientific method that I was taught says that one should
evaluate a theory by what it says, not by who said it.

I do not see that Schopenhauer whom I cite or Wellhausen have been "products of their society and generation". They were the educators of the perpetrators of horrendous crimes.

(7) As a mathematician, I was also exposed to the problem of how accept the work of the truly Nazi or too enthusiastic Soviet colleagues. Still, Mathematics is too far away from the core human existence. Medicine is not: people who today are trying to use the "medical evidence" accumulated in the Nazi camps by such "doctors" as Mengele are missing something crucial about what means science.

(8) Science is about integrity, the intellectual integrity in the first place, but also about moral integrity.

(9) Linguistic analyses of Biblical texts were initiated by Orthodox Rabbis, with the first modern dictionary of B Hebrew belonging to Kimche. I do not see why such analysis should be associated with Wellhausen in the first place.



Dear Edward,

Please don't missunderstand; no-one here has claimed that it is "not
permitted" to question the Documenary Hypothesis. Quite the contrary -
Yitzhak has mentioned the many changes and ammendments that have been
proposed over time, as our understanding of the archaeological,
geographical, historical, literary and linguistic background of the biblical
world has evolved. In any kind of science, a theory/hypothesis (and that
really IS all we are discussing here) is only valid as long as it is the
most reasonable way to understand the evidence as it is known at the time.
As new evidence comes in, the theory must be either updated or abandoned. In
the field of biblical studeis, the past 150 years have produced more
evidence than did the previous 1500 years, and yet the basic methodology
behind the DH has proven to be sound. So that while present-day renderings
of the DH are as similar to the "original" Graf-Wellhausen theory as
present-day biology is to Darwin's original theory of evolution, it can
certainly be said that (in both cases) the "original" still stands. Of
course, an astonishingly new discovery this afternoon may force all of us to
eat our hats, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

You are also correct, that in all sciences (not just "hard science") someone
does occasioally come along and revolutionalize the field. Even if a
person's "radical new" ideas eventually turn out to be wrong, "rocking the
boat" and frosing everyone to re-think their positions is a good thing.
However, the difference between humanistic studies, especially biblical
studies, and the "hard sciences" is that no-one would dare claim that the
accepted theories that guide physics are wrong, without first aquiring a
proper education and the approprate degrees in those theories. In the case
of biblical studies, many people feel free to criticize without first really
studying what they propose to knock down. Of course, this is met with
antagonism from the "professionals". Now it is still possible that someone
from "left field" might actually be right - but for every persecuted
Galileo, there are a hundred more would-be wanna-be's who just do not get
it.

The main part of your message claimed that the Graf-Wellhausen theory should
be discounted because its propnants were anti-semites, predecesors of the
Nazis. While it is true that every scholar is a product of his or her
society and generation, and some of them may have actually been despicable
human beings, the scientific meathod that I was taught says that one should
evaluate a theory by what it says, not by who said it.


Yigal Levin

----- Original Message -----
From: <belaga AT math.u-strasbg.fr>



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 ?


Edward G. Belaga
******************************************************

_______________________________________________
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