Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis
  • Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:14:41 +0100

Dear George,

As usual I find your comments balanced, and I would like make some comments of my own. The comments turned out to be rather long, but I hope they may be of interest to some list-members

An important point to remember is what is called "Systemzwang" (the obligation to conform to the system). The problem is not the situation itself - Systemzwang works more or less in all areas of society, not only in Academia - but the problem is that people are not aware of it. When students start their University studies, they are given a set of conclusions, and in order to get their exams, they must accept these conclusions- they must conform to the system. Usually the curriculums require so much reading and work that the students have little time to do independent thinking. So many students to some extent simply are parrots, and they do not realize it.

In the introductory studies of Hebrew, for example, students learn the traditional view of Hebrew verbs with WAYYIQTOL as a past tense, and they have few opportunities to make critical tests of the view. So the student continues to believe in what he or she has been taught all the years at the University. And if the person later becomes a university teacher, this is what his or her students are taught. As for me, I started my studies in Semitic languages as a grown man, after I had done some studies in the natural sciences, where I learned the principle that we always should start with the study of the smallest units. Therefore I did not buy everything I was taught, but I did some independent studies myself. In linguistics, a fundamental distinction is the one between semantics and pragmatics, i.e., which meaning is caused by intrinsic properties of the parts of language, and which meaning is caused by the context. In the study of verbal systems, this means that we need scrupulously to distinguish between *time* and *tense" (grammaticalized location in time"). In other words, when a verb form very often has past reference (this is its time), is this caused by an intrinsic property of the verb for itself, or is it caused by the context. I was really shocked when I realized that no study of the Hebrew verbal system (or of the verbal system of any of the old Semitic languages) with a systematic distinction between time and tense existed. This caused me to make a study of all the 80.000 finite and infinite verbs of Classical Hebrew where a scrupulous distinction between time and tense was sought. And the result was a dissertation suggesting a completely new understanding of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew.

On the background of the points above I proceed to the Documentary hypothesis, the hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History, the three-author views of Isaiah, and the view of a second century writing of the book of Daniel. I group these together because they have something in common pertaining to the issue regarding the Silver scroll, and because they are excellent examples of the principle of Systemzwang.

In 1689 Campegius Vitringa (Observationes Sacrae) suggested that when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he used several old sources. This was a logical suggestion because of the nature of the material. Jean Astruc (1684-1766) suggested that what Moses wrote down were delivered from father to son for several hundred years before it was written down, and he distinguished between what scholars today call J and E. J.G. Eichorn (1780-1783) continued the work of Astruc, and later K. H. Graf and J. Wellhausen proposed more radical theories, which led to the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis (the Documentary Hypothesi). However, a very important change was introduced some place between Vitringa and Wellhausen.

The views regarding the author(s) of the book of Isaiah throw light on the mentioned important change. J.C. Döderlein (1745-1792) introduced the view that Isaiah 1-39 had one author, and chapters 40-65 had another author. Why? Because a prophet by the name of Isaiah in the 8th century could not foresee details regarding the fall of Babylon 200 years later (BTW, there are details about the fall of Babylon in chapters 1-39 as well). (B. Duhm (1847-1928) suggested that chapters 56-66 was written by a third author). Here we are at the core of the issue. Both the natural sciences and the humanistic sciences deal with natural phenomena, and metaphysics is excluded. The questions about the existence of God or gods are metaphysical questions, and therefore they are barred from scientific research. So the scholar who wants to do *scientific* research in the Bible must do so on the basis of a non-god approach. It is of course a rather ironic situation that scientific research on a book where all the authors indicate that they got a part of, or all their messages from God, must a priori exclude God. But this is science! It is possible to do some source criticism without excluding God - Vitringa, for example, believed in God. But the modern approach has no room for God. So, both Bryant and Karl have a point when they say that faith has played and plays a fundamental role in connection with the Documentary Hypothesis, and the same is true with the Deuteronomistic History and the writing of Isaiah and Daniel. Let me elucidate this.

Interestingly, the question regarding the existence of God/gods, even if it per se is a metaphysical question, can be approached scientifically. The Tanach exists and we exist, and both must have an origin. The origin of the Tanakh is studied scientifically on a basis of an a priori exclusion of God, but what will the result be if we also approach the question of human origins scientifically? Many years ago I did just that, and my work with the questions equals 4 full semesters of study.

In the natural sciences the hypothetic deductive method is used: A hypothesis is formed, and it is tested on the basis of its predictions. If the predictions turn out to be wrong, the hypothesis is falsified. But if they turn out to be right, we have not proven anything, because there can be so many different causes of particular phenomena. However, we have made the hypothesis more likely. Now, if we have a situation where we can be certain that there are only two possible answers and one is falsified, the other answer must be the right one. In connection with origins we have such an ideal situation. The origin of life on earth is either caused by chance (a random accumulation of matter) or by one or more living entities outside of the earth.

To study the question one has to do the following.

1. Calculate the amount of atoms of the elements occurring in living matter that occur on the earth (carbon, phosphorus, hydrogen etc).
2. Make calculations regarding the amount of energy that could come from the possible energy sources on the young earth (particularly the sun), because energy is necessary for a synthesis of matter.
3.On the basis of quantum mechanics find out which quantum of energy each atom (and biomolecule) can absorb (most energy quantums are rejected)
4. Find the equilibrium constants of each element in water (how much of the matter can be dissolved in water before it starts to precipitate),
5. Apply all the relevant physical and chemical laws to all the possible young earth scenarios.
6. Apply the laws of probability and calculate how much complexity/information that is possible to accumulate on the basis of chance (how many bits of information a molecule can get by chance).

These are some of the main approaches, and I did follow these. The conclusion I reached was that it is completely impossible to the completely impossible degree that even one of the smallest proteins could evolve by chance, let alone a cell that are hundreds of million times more complex than a protein. One the basis of my study I was forced to conclude that the hypothesis that life originated by chance was falsified. Therefore, the other possibility must be true - the origin of life was caused by one or more living beings. But scientifically speaking, the living being(s) need not be the God of the Jews.

What bearing has this on the Documentary hypothesis? Well, it indicates that the scientific a priori exclusion of God in biblical studies is either based on a strong faith - that what is scientific impossible one time happened after all, or it is based on Systemzwang - one is ignorant of the impossibility of the origin of life by chance, but one conforms to the scientific system where this is believed by most people. So, those who believe that the Bible is inspired by God build on faith, but the same is true of those who take a strictly scientific approach without God.

I see no problems in doing scientific source criticism of the Tanakh on the basis of an a priori rejection of the existence of God - provided that all parts (the scholar, the students, and the readers) are aware of this premise. Only with an awareness of the premises, can the conclusions be rightly evaluated. But the problem is that the reality is different, and the students very often are not told about the basis for the accepted conclusions - a basis that is nothing but educated guesses.

Martin Noth introduced in 1943 the hypothesis called the "Deuteronomistic History". It is believed that Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings constitute one independent historical work, with Deuteronomy as an introduction. It is further believed that an author living in the exilic period gathered together a variety of oral and and written traditions and put these together as one comprehensive work. What is the evidence? Absolutely no hard data, only educated guesses! But I am quite certain that in European universities the Documentary Hypothesis and the Deuteronomistic History are presented to theological students almost as facts, and they are not told that these hypotheses build on a strong faith, (diametrically opposite of the Jewish and Christian faith) and on educated guesses.

There are several different approaches to a philological study of the Tanakh:

First, we have the approach of the fundamentalists, who believe that each word in the Bible is dictated by God, who a priori reject a scientific study of the book, and who believe without doubt everything that each book says.

Second, we have the the strictly scientific approach, where all that is metaphysical is excluded, and the sayings of each book regarding its author and when it was written at the outset is doubted or rejected.

Third, we have what may be called a cautious philological approach. This approach neither a priori rejects God, nor uses God as an alibi ( or as an "excuse") when they meet problems in the text. But those using this approach cautiously accept what the text says until data definitely showing that some saying is wrong emerge (evidence from silence is not accepted, i.e., "no evidence is found for this or that, and therefore the information regarding it in the Tanakh is unreliable").

Personally I prefer the third approach. And what do we find when we follow this approach? We find that the claims of Deuteronomy that there was a man named Moses who wrote the books, and the claim of 1 Kings 6:1 that this happened 479 years before Solomon started to build his temple, i.e., the writing occurred in the 15th century B.C.E., cannot be falsified by evidence. And further, we find that the claim of the book of Isaiah (1:1) that the book was written by one prophet called Isaiah in the 8th century B.C.E., and the claim of the book of Daniel that a prophet called Daniel received visions and wrote these down in the 6th century B.C.E., cannot be falsified. Everyone is free to reject the mentioned claims, and the point here is not to argue that the claims are true, but rather to show that those rejecting them do so on the same basis as the fundamentalists belive in them, namely, on the basis of faith! This is also true in connection with supernatural reports, such as Joshua 10. It requires much more faith to believe that life developed by chance - something which is completely impossible - than to be open for the possibility that the light of the sun was reflected by some means and was seen on the earth almost for a whole night. (I remember a plan from the Vietnam war to place a satellite with huge mirrors above the country, in order to reflect the rays of the sun and make parts of the country lighted up during the night.)

Then what about the silver scroll? I agree with the words in one of Yigal's earlier posts:

"What DOES this find prove? It proves that a forumla very similar to Num.
6:24-26 was used as a blessing in late Iron Age Jerusalem. It does NOT prove
that the entire text of the Torah was already known. It does NOT prove that
Num. 6:24-26 was recited by priests in the Temple. It does not even prove
the existance of Solomon's Temple. All it DOES prove is that the author of
whatever source Num. 6:24-26 was taken from knew of a blessing-formula and
used it as part of his composition."

This is a balanced scholarly assessment, but - and this is important - it is the same kind of assessment I use when I say that the data we have at present do not contradict the writing of Moses in the 15th century, of Isaiah in the 8th century, and of Daniel in the 6th century.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Bryant Williams wrote:

Furthermore, since all we have is the text itself showing no signs whatsoever of a JEDP make-up, then it requires more evidence to prove that the text was edited/redacted beyond what was already given by the text itself.

---------------

Bryant, I think that is overstating things. The text arguably does show signs of JEDP make-up. These signs formed the basis of the Documentary Hypothesis. Surely you would agree at the least that there is a book of Deuteronomy! You have a D source right there!

I'm quite skeptical of the Documentary Hypothesis, but I can see what fuels the theory. Whether the theory is right or not is another issue, but it was certainly not proposed without any basis at all.


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page