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: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:57:32 +0100


Dear George,

It is no problem that we have disagreements; to the contrary, it may illuminate important questions.

Hi Rolf!

I must admit to skipping a little bit of your post. However, let me respond to what I did read.

I am in agreement with you about Systemzwang. The Hebrew verbal system is one of the most obvious cases, as you yourself note.

With regards to the Torah, Isaiah, and Daniel - I beg to differ.

While many today might simply rest on the conclusions of a previous generation without reconsidering the assumptions, etc., not all scholars do this. I came to critical study of the Bible from a particular faith perspective, and had all my assumptions challenged in the process. The ensuing learning and research which this engendered was invaluable, and I think I can safely say that I didn't fall into the Systemzwang trap you mention. Indeed, one of the ways I teach my own students now is not to feed them my own conclusions (or anyone else's), but rather to raise issues and possibilities. I grade their work on their ability to interact critically with arguments rather than their ability to duplicate past views.
Regards,

RF:
We all have our horizon of understanding that will influence us, and a scholar should do his or her utmost to minimize this influence. It is interesting to to hear that you have modified your original position.

In the case of Torah, Isaiah, and Daniel, I think the arguments for Mosaic authorship (Torah), 8th century BC (Isaiah), and 6th century BC (Daniel) are highly problematic. There are historical issues, literary issues, as well as theological issues which, in my mind, militate against these dates. This does not mean it is impossible to argue for these dates. But, as I've said many a time, there is a big difference between possibility and probability.

For example, the arguments that the historical difficulties and ambiguities in Dan 1-6 can be overcome such that a 6th century BC date can be maintained is like a house of cards - possible to erect, but quite flimsy. To me, the argument sounds a bit like saying, "Well, if there is a left-handed albino midget from Tanzania who plays ukulele on Tuesdays in Buenos Aires, then yes, Daniel is a 6th century BC work."

Nonetheless, the way to overcome Systemzwang is not to propose traditional dates of authorship, but to acknowledge probability and to have the epistemic humility to acknowledge that there is always at least a modicum of doubt to our conclusions, meaning they are always provisional. That includes your conclusions and mine.

RF:
I heartily agree with your words about "a modicum of doubt to our conclusions"; this is one of the principal points I have tried put across. And this doubt should not only relate to our own conclusions, but to the whole history, the whole chronology, and to the whole culture of the ancient Near East, as they are presented in modern lexicons and textbooks. But that is not the case! There are so many dogmatic presentations to find. And please note that in my previous post I have not defended a 15th century writing of the Pentateuch, an 8th century writing of Isaiah, and a 6th century writing of Daniel, but I have claimed that there are no compelling evidence that can falsify these dates- this is a negative (and scientific) standpoint and not a positive one.

Let us now try a scientific approach to the question about the authorship and time of writing of the Pentateuch. We have two tools at our disposition, namely, induction and deduction. Because of the Problem of Induction we do not come very far by using this tool, but the other may be more promising. I use the hypothetic deductive method (HDM) and form the following hypothesis, "The man Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the 15th century B.C.E. (NB: This is a hypothesis to be tested and not a defence of a particular position.) To treat this hypothesis in a scientific way we need to find what the hypothesis predicts, and then test these predictions, in order to see if the hypothesis can be falsified. But what does it predict? This is a very difficult question, and I invite the list members to make their comments.

One prediction would be: If a Moses of the 15th century wrote the Pentateuch, we will not expect to find anachronisms in it.

(For those who are not accustomed with "anachronisms," the following example can be given: A book published in 1932 where we find the words "the first world war" contains an anachronism, because the war that ended in 1918 was only called "the great war" in 1932; only after the war that ended in 1945 one could speak about the first and second world war.)

Can we say that Deuteronomy 34:5-12 is an anachronism? No, because it is obvious that these verses were added by another person, and this fact tells us nothing about who wrote the preceding text ( se also Joshua 24:29-33). But what about Genesis 14:3 and the words HW) YM HMLX? It may or may not be an anachronism. It could indicate that at a time after the death of Moses someone wrote the first part of the Pentateuch on the basis of older information. Or it could indicate that some time after the death of Moses the place of the Valley of Siddim was forgotten, and a scribe who copied a manuscript added the mentioned words as an explanation. But we cannot know what is correct?

The two examples illustrate a very important point: When we look at the prediction of a hypothesis in order to falsify this prediction, we can only use clear-cut evidence that only can be interpreted in one way. And where can we find such evidence regarding the Pentateuch?

You mention historical issues, literary issues, and theological issues. I challenge the list-members to apply the HDM to these issues and point out predictions and show how these are falsified by data. Or, if you do not want to use the HDM, you can use any other scientific method to falsify the hypothesis I have proposed. If this is not possible, we are not aware of any data that do falsify the hypothesis.

We may treat the books of Isaiah and Daniel in a similar way: "The book of Isaiah was written by the man Isaiah in the 8th century B.C.E." and "The book of Daniel was written by the man Daniel in the 6th century B.C.E." Please form predictions.

As for the book of Isaiah, I am not aware of anything in its text that would falsify the proposed hypothesis. The real issue is its prophecies. If we have exported God to the sphere of metaphysics, we must conclude that human beings cannot foretell the future, but that is really what Isaiah pretend to do (as some would say). These must be history in prophetic disguise, is the argument, and they must have been written after the events. But there may for some who have a non-god approach be a double standard here. It is much easier to believe that the "prophecies" of Isaiah were guesses that were fulfilled by chance or coincidence than to believe that life on earth came into existence by chance, something that is impossible according to the laws of nature as we know them.

As for the book of Daniel, we know that language is ambiguous, and ambiguousness can even be consciously chosen. I see no problem here. I am not aware of any historical difficulties in Daniel that would falsify any prediction of the hypothesis. The only problem is "Darius the Mede". But we know very, very little about the last days of the Neo-Babylonian Enpire and the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire, and there are some candidates for this king. Moreover, it is not wise to accept evidence from silence.

So the challenge stands: Describe what the three hypotheses predict, and show how each one can be falsified by unambiguous evidence.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



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