creed@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Creed Jones) (11/21/90)
daved@westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) wrote:
-> Subject: Documentary Hypothesis: the State of the
-> Question?
->
-> I'm arguing the plausibility of the Documentary
-> Hypothesis (apropos of Genesis-- the Yavist, the
-> Elohist, etc.) with a Biblical conservative (but not
-> a
-> fundamentalist (?) or a literalist). What is the best
-> evidence for the hypothesis? 'Scholarly consensus'
-> doesn't seem to get us anywhere. If anyone has some
-> recent (1970 - ) citations, these would be indeed
-> useful.
Response to above from Creed Jones (creed@mamia.UUCP):
An article in my 1962 Peake's Commentary noted a "feeling
that the Documentary mode of approach had outlived its useful-
ness." An introduction to the Pentateuch in the 1976 Oxford
Study Edition of the New English Bible, however, accepts it as
orthodoxy:
"The earliest summary of the traditions may
have been little more than a sentence (as in
I Sam. 12:8) or paragraph (Josh. 24.2-10),
formulated soon after the settlement in Ca-
naan (thirteenth century B.C.) for recital in
the cult.
"It was perhaps during the reign of Solomon
(tenth century B.C.) that many of the local
cultic recitations, histories, songs, and law
codes were first gathered and edited into a
sustained account (the earliest skeleton un-
derlying Gen.-1 Kings ch. 2). Its purpose
was to suggest that the Israelite Kingdom was
the fulfillment of the ancient promises to
the patriarchs. Modern scholars call this
work "J," because it uses for the deity the
name Jehovah (Heb. Yahweh), and was produced
by Judean theologians; they believe that it
was soon supplemented by other ancient tradi-
tions preserved in Ephraim, and called "E"
because the divine term Elohim is used.
"When Judah was threatened religiously from
within and militarily from without (eight-
seventh centuries), the old traditions were
expanded and interpreted in contemporary
terms ("D"). D is contained primarily in the
book of Deuteronomy.
"The destruction of Jerusalem (587 B.C.) and
the necessity to live under Babylonian and
Persian domination (sixth-fifth centuries)
produced a final stage of collection and
reflection upon the ancient traditions, gen-
erally called the Priestly Code ("P"). The P
code itself seems composite and a result of
growth, containing a somewhat older Priestly
section (Lev. chs. 17-26) known as the "Holi-
ness Code." While J-E went beyond Genesis-
Deuteronomy, and extended through Joshua-1
Kings ch. 2, the Priests effected a division
between Genesis-Deuteronomy and the ensuing
material. As a result of this separation,
the Pentateuch emerged as an entity."
I don't know what the current thinking is on the documentary
hypothesis, and I would be interested to hear (1) what's new and
(2) what your views are.
I suppose that the theory could be seen as at odds with the
idea of divine authorship and inerrancy of the scripture, but,
for reasons we've discussed before, I don't consider that dispos-
itive. I think even the internal evidence of Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch is weak. And I don't see the documentary
hypothesis to be in any way a challenge to our faith.
Even my Zondervan NIV Study Bible relies on history and
tradition to argue for Mosaic authorship. Its introduction to
Genesis can only say "the Bible itself *suggests* [emphasis mine]
Mosaic authorship of Genesis, citing Acts 15:1. Yet it dismisses
the documentary thesis because, "the view is not supported by
conclusive evidence, and intensive archeological and literary
research has undercut many of the arguments used to challenge
Mosaic authorship."
That to me is not being objective. And I guess I understand
not being objective about things we know by faith, but shouldn't
we be open to distinguishing those things we are told by the Holy
Spirit from those things we are told by orthodox tradition?
I find the documentary hypothesis to be an exciting story
about how a people came to learn about and relate to the LORD. I
don't know whether it is a true story, but frankly, I find it
more exciting than the thought of Moses acting as a scribe. If
God wrote the Pentateuch through Moses, then what's the big deal
about Moses coming down from the Mountain with the ten command-
ments on a stone? And where is the story of Moses telling the
people about the books God had written though him?
But despite a century or so of so-called "higher criticism,"
most believers (and maybe even a lot of non-believers!) find
these discussions troubling. It is comforting to have all of the
answers in black and white.
Even the mainline churches, whose leaders certainly embrace
the aims of "higher criticism," avoid discussing it -- much like
the Roman Catholic Church once avoided letting its members read
the Bible. The result is a superficiality that quickly wears
thin.
So what do you think?
[Comment from Max Southall, max@mamia.UUCP:
Just one thought, and how it undercuts the idea that the expansion into
scripture was designed to buttress an imperial human kingship with divine
backing:
My reading, without benefit of either conservative or "higher" criticism,
finds that the Bible says that Israel's establishment of human kings was
rebellion and a sin against God, and is the subject of contention between
them, Samuel and God. Certainly, the entire weight of the Old Testament is
damning against the human rulership of Israel and Judah. When an argument
seems to start out with such a faulty premise, on the facts, one does
become dubious of how much credence can be put in a thesis built on it.
One even wonders if they are reading the same book, or if somehow their
cognitive powers are severely clouded by ulterior motives.
I'll have to look at your posting in more detail, but this is what struck
me at first perusal...]
[As far as I know, there is no change in the basic situation, which is
that scholars in public institutions and "liberal" church-sponsored
institutions accept something like the documentary hypothesis, and
those in "conservative" church-sponsored institutions reject it. When
you see statements talking about some hypothesis having outlived its
usefulness, you have to make sure whether this is someone inside the
"liberal" camp simply calling for a more nuanced model, or someone in
the "conservative" camp claiming that finally higher criticism has
collapsed. The first is common enough. The second is wishful
thinking. The whole situation is very frustrating, since we have two
camps that differ so radically even on basic methods that there seems
little hope for much useful dialog. Each one keeps thinking that
people can't possible continue to hold the obviously absurd views of
the other, and that in another generation the other view will
collapse. So far I see no evidence of either being right. There has
certainly been development in both camps over time. But no
fundamental changes. I don't have time at the moment for a treatise
on the exact changes. But the introductory material in any good
critical commentary (e.g. the Anchor Bible series -- Gen. and Luke
would probably be good ones to look at) should give you a pretty good
feel for what has been happening. --clh]