Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yohanan bin-Dawidh <yohanan.bin.dawidh AT gmail.com>]

Shalom Lloyd;



You wrote, "You may find the beginning of P in Genesis 1:1-2:3b.  Next comes
J with the story of Eden.  J is found in the Kenite genealogy and P is then
found in Genesis 5.  J and P are edited together in the flood story and so
on."



You are dividing the texts up the way that some scholars have decided that
they should be divided, from the modern day text, this still does not answer
the question, "Where are the source documents?" You have no text that is
merely "J" by itself, or "E" by itself, or "D" by itself, and etc. Instead
you have a text that scholars have decided to divide along arbitrary lines
established by them, which you accept, but cannot be proven to be 100% proof
to the existence of such a hypotheses. I am not stating that the hypothesis
is wrong, I am merely stating that such cannot be proven to be fact.



You asked, "Have you looked at the theory first hand?"



I have looked at the theory first hand, and even have several of Friedman's
books, but I do not agree with it, because I see other logical explanations
that work too. When I first looked at the theory, using one of Friedman's
text, I took digital copy of the Torah, and split everything into the
various source documents that Friedman, and scholars of like mind, claim
make up the Torah, and then read the document as such, but I did not see
what Friedman, and those that advocate the Documentary Hypothesis see when
they analyze the text.



You wrote, "Certitude is not possible with an inductive method.  The thesis
is probable with no competing thesis."



I agree that certitude is not possible with an inductive method, being that
such is merely the use of observation to develop general principles about a
specific subject. This is why I stated, "I am not stating that the
hypothesis is wrong, I am merely stating that such cannot be proven to be
fact." As to there being no competing thesis, such is not the case, because
the thesis exists that the Torah was not made up of various documents known
as "J", "E", "P" and "D", with plausible proof to such.



You wrote, "You are speaking for yourself.  I have quite satisfied that we
have sources as many others are."



I understand that you are satisfied that you have sources, as many others
are, but I do not agree with what you constitute as sources, since to me you
are taking a text, and arbitrarily dividing it where you think it should be
divided, without any ancient textual proof that suggests that such should be
divided in said locations. If you were able to find a scroll somewhere that
was merely "E", or merely "J", or merely "P", or merely "D", then your proof
would be more valid, but no such scrolls, or texts exist. It would be more
plausible to me to make claims that the Torah was not always in the format
that it now is using various works attributed to Mosheh from the Qum'ran
texts, than it would be to support the Documentary Hypothesis.



You wrote, "You think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?  Why?  The reading is
uncritical."



No. I think that Mosheh wrote the legal code that is contained within the
Pentateuch. These are the various rules and regulations that make up the
Constitution of the nation of people known as 'Am Yisra'el. As to the story
that is written around this legal code, I think this is a compilation of
historical texts known to Mosheh bin-'Amram, Yohoshu'a bin-Nun, and El'azar
bin-Aharon,  plus events recorded by these three during the span of their
lifetime, that was compiled together either by Yohoshu'a bin-Nun, or El'azar
bin-Aharon, to make up the Pentateuch. This is not the Torah though, in my
opinion, that is within the B'rit 'Aron, which I believe is merely the legal
code contained within the Pentateuch.



You asked, "Why do you think Joshua compiled the Torah?"



It is not necessarily that Yohoshu'a bin-Nun compiled the Torah per se, but
rather who ever was the author of Sefer Yohoshu'a compiled the Torah, along
with Sefer 'Iyyov. There is even an old tradition that Mosheh bin-'Amram
wrote Sefer 'Iyyov, and while I am not fond of traditions per se, I do see
some merit in this tradition, but from a linguistic point of view, which is
how I judge these texts.



You wrote, "Do you have any reasons for your conclusions?"



My conclusions our based upon linguistics, writing styles, and common
language, which I find abundant throughout Sefer ha-Torah, Sefer Yohoshu'a,
and Sefer 'Iyyov.



Yo*h*anan bin-Dawidh




-- 
יוֹחָנָן בִּן-דָוִד