The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Krupin
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:38 am

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by Krupin »

Why did the Documentary Hypothesis succeed? After the Babylonian captivity, the Jerusalem priests created the illusion that they (allegedly) have spoiled ancient papyri, written by different authors. From the surviving fragments of these works, they somehow collected a sacred book (allegedly). The priests deceived not only their contemporaries, but also the biblical scholar Wellhausen.
nili
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by nili »

semiopen wrote:My sense is that the DH is in some technical trouble.
Sorry, but I don't know what that means. Technical as opposed to what?
semiopen wrote: The main DH supporters are typically Jewish scholars that seem to be getting old. Personally, I'm not aware of a whole lot of younger adherents.
That's interesting. Is there any growing consensus on a alternative.
semiopen wrote: There is at least one Richard Elliot Friedman Passover thread from a year or two ago. That recounts the absurd theory that the Levites were the only tribe involved in the Exodus. Granted Dr. Friedman is getting old and the theory itself seems mostly designed to promote an interesting discussion at the Seder table. Still waiting for the book to come out.
I assume you're referring to the Reform Judaism interview. I found it more interesting than compelling, but certainly not absurd. I know that some folk (e.g., Faust, Fredo) seem to suggest that 'Hebrew' and 'Israelite' may not have been equivalent terms. In any event, I'd read the book.
semiopen wrote:My impression is that the DH is more or less caught between Jewish religious observance and academia, and at the moment it seems tilted to the right of mainstream academic understanding.
Again my apologies: I do not understand the right-left connotation.
semiopen wrote:At least they don't think that Moses wrote the Torah.
Something we can all agree upon.

Thank you for your comments.

(... and Shabbat Shalom. :) )
nili
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by nili »

Krupin wrote:Why did the Documentary Hypothesis succeed? After the Babylonian captivity, the Jerusalem priests created the illusion that they (allegedly) have spoiled ancient papyri, written by different authors. From the surviving fragments of these works, they somehow collected a sacred book (allegedly). The priests deceived not only their contemporaries, but also the biblical scholar Wellhausen.
You are being unnecessarily rude.

This thread is about the current status of the DH among peer-reviewed scholars. It is not about your opinion (or mine for that matter). You have every right to create another thread where you and your opinions are the center of attention. Please consider doing so as a more respectful alternative to derailing this one. Thank you.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by Peter Kirby »

Krupin wrote:Say, the pope decided to combine the four gospels into one gospel.
In theory, Christians could be using a single combined gospel. The current configuration is not the only possibility. Some ancient Christians used a single gospel that had combined elements of the others.

The chosen example seems to undermine the contention of a priori ridiculousness.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by semiopen »

I mentioned the issues are technical. For example, the aging Jewish semi-religious academics with no clear younger adherents.

Most of their work is decent, so it's not like the DH is refuted but important parts are questionable. For example, the existence of an E source and dating J to around King David's time - the corollary that David and Solomon actually existed is hardly a great academic achievement. Of course, for all we know that stuff might even be accurate, but if it is, it's an accident - they just want to date crap as early as possible for political/religious reasons (obviously just my wild opinion).

Dr. Friedman's human interest pesach story that I mentioned is a somewhat outrageous example of this kind of sloppy work.

I think a scholar like [wiki]Konrad_Schmid_(Theologe)[/wiki] is a good example of current academic thinking. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c ... C30FB1NFG5

John_Van_Seters is a famous non-DH guy but he's getting a little long in the tooth himself.
nili
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by nili »

semiopen wrote:Of course, for all we know that stuff might even be accurate, but if it is, it's an accident - they just want to date crap as early as possible for political/religious reasons (obviously just my wild opinion).

Dr. Friedman's human interest pesach story that I mentioned is a somewhat outrageous example of this kind of sloppy work.
So, Dr. Friedman's interview is "a somewhat outrageous example" of "sloppy work" that "might even be accurate, but if it is, it's an accident" and should be disparaged because "they just want to date crap as early as possible for political/religious reasons." Excuse me but what seems "somewhat outrageous" here is the ad hominem.
semiopen wrote: I think a scholar like [wiki]Konrad_Schmid_(Theologe)[/wiki] is a good example of current academic thinking. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c ... C30FB1NFG5
Thank you for the reference.
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by semiopen »

nili wrote:
semiopen wrote:Of course, for all we know that stuff might even be accurate, but if it is, it's an accident - they just want to date crap as early as possible for political/religious reasons (obviously just my wild opinion).

Dr. Friedman's human interest pesach story that I mentioned is a somewhat outrageous example of this kind of sloppy work.
So, Dr. Friedman's interview is "a somewhat outrageous example" of "sloppy work" that "might even be accurate, but if it is, it's an accident" and should be disparaged because "they just want to date crap as early as possible for political/religious reasons." Excuse me but what seems "somewhat outrageous" here is the ad hominem.
I have to stand by my judgment that it is a stupid theory only relevant as a possible conservative Judaism kosher conversation over the Seder table. We can't tar the DH with the specific sins of his argument but the weaknesses in it are instructive.

First it assigns a very early date to the Song of Deborah (Judges 5). There is probably no question about this being old, personally I think the 12th century BCE is questionable. Anyway, his point about the Song of Deborah is that the Levites are not mentioned and he uses this as evidence of the Levites not yet having left Egypt. So at some point in the next few years the Levites show up, seamlessly get cushy jobs amongst all the other tribes, and not a hint about this in the entire bible. Silly, stupid, absurd, ridiculous - take your pick - of course, discussing this at the Seder table, we might be more restrained with the negative adjectives.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by austendw »

nili wrote:What is the current status of the Documentary Hypothesis?
You may be interested in the "Neo-Documentary Hypothesis", advocated by, amongst others, Joel Baden and Jeffrey Stackert.

Here are some links:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/bad368008.shtml
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokov ... ypothesis/
http://www.ancientjewreview.com/article ... -criticism

These scholars reject, inter alia, Wellhausen's chronology and the history of Israelite religion that it underpinned (or that underpinned it) but maintain the existence of the four entirely independent literary "sources" - J, E, D & P - only combined once, in one final conflation (ie they reject the gradual redaction of J + E , JE + D, JED+P scenario) The new version seems to have absorbed and addressed some of the issues that critics have leveled at the DH over recent years and Stackert has suggested that essentially the weak points of the original DH encouraged scholars to jettison it entirely, when in fact all the DH really needed was correction and refinement. I've not read any of their arguments in detail, but I've found that some of the Supplementary theories which hoped to supplant the DH don't entirely solve the problems, and give rise to their own vexing problems, so I'll be interested to find out what the Neo-DH has to offer. My suspicion is that, in the end, the Documentary Hypothesis and the Supplementary theories will have to engage with each other;s both have important insights into the literary make-up of the text.

One aspect of the Neo-DH that I'm interested in is what one might call the rehabilitation of "E", often deemed the "poor relation" of the sources, and the first to be jettisoned. Apparently Stackert argues for a conherent E source in A Prophet Like Moses. (For contrast, Tsemah Yoreh, in his "hyper"-Supplementary theory has also argued for a version of "E" (albeit very rigorously defined) as the initial narrative, which was later supplemented by J, D, P, H, (in that order). Extensive details of that approach can be found here: http://www.biblecriticism.com/supplementary_index.html. This theory is antithetical to the DH because, with the exception of the original E narrative, none of these strata have an indepentent existence. All of them build on and incorporate the preceding textual layers.)
Call me Ishmael...
nili
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by nili »

semiopen wrote: I have to stand by my judgment that it is a stupid theory only relevant as a possible conservative Judaism kosher conversation over the Seder table.
Friedman's view can be found in the RJ's interview: The Exodus Is Not Fiction. I'll leave it to others to determine whether it's stupid. At issue here is your contention that it's intellectually dishonest, i.e., contrived just "to date crap as early as possible for political/religious reasons."

Parenthetically, the RJ is associated with the Reform Movement as opposed to the Conservative Movement, and it's been my experience that "conservative Judaism kosher conversation over the Seder table" tends to center upon the acceptability of kitniyot over Pesach.
semiopen wrote: Silly, stupid, absurd, ridiculous - take your pick - of course, discussing this at the Seder table, we might be more restrained with the negative adjectives.
I'd choose the less contemptuous "unconvincing" whether at or away from the seder table.
Last edited by nili on Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
nili
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The Documentary Hypothesis in the 21st Century

Post by nili »

austendw wrote:
nili wrote:What is the current status of the Documentary Hypothesis?
You may be interested in the "Neo-Documentary Hypothesis", advocated by, amongst others, Joel Baden and Jeffrey Stackert. ...

These scholars reject, inter alia, Wellhausen's chronology and the history of Israelite religion that it underpinned (or that underpinned it) but maintain the existence of the four entirely independent literary "sources" - J, E, D & P - only combined once, in one final conflation (ie they reject the gradual redaction of J + E , JE + D, JED+P scenario) ...

One aspect of the Neo-DH that I'm interested in is what one might call the rehabilitation of "E", often deemed the "poor relation" of the sources, and the first to be jettisoned. ...
Thank you. I've just ordered "Farewell to the Yahwist": The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBL Symposium Series, 34) so it may take some time before I am able to give your response the attention that it deserves.

One final redaction? Perhaps that explains its poor quality. I realize that this might sound naive, but I honestly do not understand how something like parashot Balak could make it passed any serious redaction/harmonization effort. Talk of two different narratives being spliced together simply begs the questions: (a) why were both retained, and (b) why then merge them to create something so blatantly confused? I'm sometimes left thinking of the redactor as some moron armed with scissors and a tube of Elmer's glue.

(Sorry about the rant.)

You noted: "These scholars reject, inter alia, Wellhausen's chronology and the history of Israelite religion that it underpinned (or that underpinned it)" Do these neo-DH scholars share a consensus concerning history?

Thank you again.
Post Reply