Documentary Hypothesis

[neilgodfrey]

A certain master-casuist here likes to make fun of the synchronic model by suggesting that if a sentence is written with one word before the other then it is by definition a diachronic process and that it could only be synchronic if all the words are written at once. harr harr .... that's barfly humour.

Diachronic and synchronic as applied to linguistics and literature and cultural works have meanings found to be defined in the literature.

Here is how R. Gmirkin uses the terms:

Diachronic Documentary Model views the Pentateuch as the product of a succession of redactions over several centuries, with successive authorial contributions by JEDP and H, in some order. A Synchronic Documentary Model, such as proposed in the current article, views JEDP and H sources as contemporary authorial voices.

There are problems with the DH as it is understood in the mainstream tradition and one does not need to read R. Gmirkin to identify them. Gmirkin himself acknowledges the work of R. Norman Whybray: The Making of the Pentateuch. I don't know if that volume is available online but Whybray wrote another work ten years later, Introduction to the Pentateuch, with chapter two titled "Who Wrote It? Problems of Composition".

Whybray is not the only scholar to have proposed a single-authorship to the Pentateuch and one does not need to subscribe to W's thesis any more than G's thesis to at least acknowledge problems with the DH. To treat the Wellhausen DH (with or without subsequent refinements by Noth et al) as some sort of revealed truth or fact is, let's say, somewhat lacking in a nuanced grasp of what it is all about.

[Russell Gmirkin]

R. Gmirkin wrote, above:
"(Much/most of this thread can be disregarded since my views on the Documentary Hypothesis are not accurately represented....)"

Whether he agrees with all neilgodfrey wrote or writes is not certain.

Neil's broad informative discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis was accurate and well supported by seven links. He never discussed my views on the Documentary Hypothesis in the first few pages of this thread, but his discussion elsewhere have been extremely well informed and accurate. I don't believe you have read (much less grasp) my position and arguments on the JEDPH Pentateuchal sources as inferred under traditional biblical source criticism, but to be fair your statements in this thread aren't too egregiously wrong.

[Russell Gmirkin]

I'd like to ask Gmirkin (as a way of taking the temperature down in this debate) does he acknowledge that IF the lack of mention of the place name 'Jerusalem' in the document confirms only an interest in Gerizim/Shechem because the document was written for a north Israelite audience THAT we need at least two 'stages' to the arrival of a 'Pentateuch' in Jerusalem:

1. an original Gerizim covenant followed later by a specifically 'Jewish' one in Jerusalem
2. the addition of Deuteronomy to a Tetrateuch (and where the Shema seems at least to be a correction towards or perhaps 'strengthening' of a monotheistic interpretation of the two divine names in the Tetrateuch).

In other words, (a) an initial composition of a Gerizim-based Tetrateuch (b) the addition of Deuteronomy sometime later by different author(s) still at the Gerizim-based covenant and then (c) a specifically Jewish 'Pentateuch' for a covenant at Jerusalem. Is that acknowledged to be the necessary timeline if the lack of reference to 'Jerusalem' in the Pentateuch means the Pentateuch was originally a northern Israelite document?

...

The reality is clearly:

(a) Tetrateuch with no reference to Jerusalem (so built for a cultus based at Gerizim)
(b) Tetrateuch + Deuteronomy with no reference to Jerusalem (so built for a cultus based at Gerizim)
(c) Tetrateuch + Deuteronomy with no reference to Jerusalem used at a distinct 'break off' cultus at Jerusalem

Joshua was still written with Gerizim as the cultic center of Israel.

There just isn't enough time for three developments (Deuteronomy written to reinforce or reinterpret the Tetrateuch's two divine names 'Yahweh' and 'Elohim' as one God?), developments which clearly took place over at least a century, for all of this to fit with the earliest Pentateuch fragment at Qumran used as part of (c)

I'd be happy to engage you in a polite discussion on these substantial issues, but not on this thread. I'll start a separate thread on "Current State of Samaritan Studies" in the next day or two.

However, there are a couple reasonable conditions for you to agree upon in advance, to elevate the level of discourse. (1) Kindly stop making ad hominem comparisons with others whom for whatever reasons you disagree with (i.e. mountainman). (2) Kindly stop characterizing my research, which you clearly have not yet read, as conspiracy theory--or else _read_ my research and then _argue_ that it qualifies as a conspiracy theory, if that is still your opinion. There is a logical fallacy I once read about, namely substituting insult for argument. You're better than that. You have enough intelligence to put forward an argument when you choose to, that seems clear. You have no need to resort to insult. So up your game, okay? Then I will be happy to discuss the Samaritans as Pentateuchal authors. Fair enough?

[Secret Alias]

Fine. I agree. I kind of admire you.

[Secret Alias]

Let's start with lack of mention of "Jerusalem" explained. A safe topic where I apparently am in the minority. But which, when viewed with open eyes makes the assumed position of most scholars (= the Pentateuch being written for a nascent sacrificial cult at Jerusalem) untenable.

My position is as you may have discerned the lack of mention of "Jerusalem" is because Gerizim was the traditional cultic center. "90%" (I have no clue the exact number) of the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob narrative that is set in the Land so to speak takes place in the northern "Land."

As a Jew I will utter the unspeakable. The reason scholarship likely continues to perpetuate this "nascent Judaism" nonsense has nothing to do with the actual literary evidence. "The Jews" (= the cumulative religious experience of Jews seeing themselves as separate from the main Gerizim-based cultus) never had as close a relationship with the Torah because they likely knew it wasn't "theirs" (i.e. a literary product written for and designed as support for a sacrificial cult and after 70 CE a completely revised religious community based in Jerusalem). An opinion of mine to facilitate an open, amicable discussion between us.

[StephenGoranson]

Russell Gmirkin wrote, in part above, referring to me, SG:
"I don't believe you have read (much less grasp) my position and arguments on the JEDPH Pentateuchal sources as inferred under traditional biblical source criticism, but to be fair your statements in this thread aren't too egregiously wrong."
~~~~~~~
I, SG, have read the 2006 Berossus book, and considerable other writings by RG.
You, RG, are free to state that you are incredulous that I can read, or can grasp, or can have reasons to disagree with your proposal. But that is a weak and not-plausible defense, plus ad hominem.
My Brandeis and Duke education, my teaching at six universities, and my peer-reviewed publications, and posts here might suggest to some folks that I can read.

Without repeating everything I wrote:
The RG proposal, as far as I have read it, has not been plausibly demonstrated.
The Torah composition over considerable time--in other words not all "contemporary" (to use your term)--is more plausible, given history of Hebrew writing and given evidence of the Torah texts among Dead Sea Scrolls. Not just in my opinion. An example I linked to early on is Konrad Schmid's October presentation in Zurich.
The RG proposal underappreciated the abilities of ancient Hebrew authors.

[Secret Alias]

Konrad Schmid is one cool guy. Like him a lot.

[rgprice]

Russell Gmirkin wrote, in part above, referring to me, SG:
"I don't believe you have read (much less grasp) my position and arguments on the JEDPH Pentateuchal sources as inferred under traditional biblical source criticism, but to be fair your statements in this thread aren't too egregiously wrong."
~~~~~~~
I, SG, have read the 2006 Berossus book, and considerable other writings by RG.
You, RG, are free to state that you are incredulous that I can read, or can grasp, or can have reasons to disagree with your proposal. But that is a weak and not-plausible defense, plus ad hominem.
My Brandeis and Duke education, my teaching at six universities, and my peer-reviewed publications, and posts here might suggest to some folks that I can read.

Without repeating everything I wrote:
The RG proposal, as far as I have read it, has not been plausibly demonstrated.
The Torah composition over considerable time--in other words not all "contemporary" (to use your term)--is more plausible, given history of Hebrew writing and given evidence of the Torah texts among Dead Sea Scrolls. Not just in my opinion. An example I linked to early on is Konrad Schmid's October presentation in Zurich.
The RG proposal underappreciated the abilities of ancient Hebrew authors.

This is the same problem I see in my thread n Berossus and Genesis. Instead of addressing the case put forward by Gmirkin, you ignore that and then repeat statements that are problematic to the position of the Torah being a late development.

Its like someone presenting evidence that the world is spherical, noting various points of evidence, and then you countering simply that the world couldn't be a sphere because then people on the other side of the world would fall off. So instead of addressing the evidence in favor of a spherical earth you ignore it and just tout claims in favor of a flat earth.

What I was trying to get to in my thread on Berosuss (which is why I tried to isolate that single issue by itself and not address everything all at once) is a distinct assessment of the evidence in favor AND against.

We should be able to acknowledge points in favor and against and see where the weight of evidence lies.

I agree with you, and many people, that it is difficult to conceive how the Torah would have gained so much adoption by the 2nd century BCE if it were only created in the 3rd century BCE. There are certainly things that challenge a late dating of the creation of the Torah, but we also have to acknowledge that there isn't any solid evidence that disputes a late date for the creation of the Torah. It "seems unlikely".

I like Gmirkin's approach to the matter because he's attempting to identify solid datable markers. So much of the DH relies on speculation.

This is the same problem that the Q hypothesis has. Indeed there are a lot of similarities between Q and the DH. Both are speculative hypotheses that have some to be treated like facts by many if the field.

[Secret Alias]

But surely the main argument against Robert Price being the author of the Pentateuch is the latest possible date for the Torah. So too Captain Kangaroo, Morton Smith, Jesus Christ etc.

There are athletes who seem to do something miraculous. Messi scoring a hand of God goal. The thing that prevents us from saying he invented it is a precedent an attestable earlier invention.

The main reason I had less sex than I could have is that I didn't feel the opportunities for the most part were worth the effort. Same with arguing beyond the Persian origin of the Pentateuch. It's the iron dome of arguments against Berossos. Why spend the effort snagging an old unattractive hag?

[Russell Gmirkin]

Russell Gmirkin wrote, in part above, referring to me, SG:
"I don't believe you have read (much less grasp) my position and arguments on the JEDPH Pentateuchal sources as inferred under traditional biblical source criticism, but to be fair your statements in this thread aren't too egregiously wrong."
~~~~~~~
I, SG, have read the 2006 Berossus book, and considerable other writings by RG.
You, RG, are free to state that you are incredulous that I can read, or can grasp, or can have reasons to disagree with your proposal. But that is a weak and not-plausible defense, plus ad hominem.
My Brandeis and Duke education, my teaching at six universities, and my peer-reviewed publications, and posts here might suggest to some folks that I can read.

Without repeating everything I wrote:
The RG proposal, as far as I have read it, has not been plausibly demonstrated.
The Torah composition over considerable time--in other words not all "contemporary" (to use your term)--is more plausible, given history of Hebrew writing and given evidence of the Torah texts among Dead Sea Scrolls. Not just in my opinion. An example I linked to early on is Konrad Schmid's October presentation in Zurich.
The RG proposal underappreciated the abilities of ancient Hebrew authors.

Great! I'm happy to hear how well-read you are and what an expert you are on my research. However, your claims to have read "considerable other writings" I have authored is incredibly low on specifics. Would you please itemize which of the following texts you have read since that one time you read a book of mine in 2006?

Gmirkin, Russell E., Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 433. Copenhagen International Series 15. New York: T & T Clark, 2006.
—“Greek Evidence for the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 56-88 in Thomas L. Thompson and Philippe Wajdenbaum (eds.), The Bible and Hellenism: Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Durham, UK: Acumen Publishing, 2014.
—“Greek Genres and the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 91-102 in Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity. Changing Perspectives in Old Testament Studies 7. London: Routledge, 2016.
—Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible. New York–London: Routledge, 2017.
—“‘Solomon’ (Shalmaneser III) and the Emergence of Judah as an Independent Kingdom.” Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò and Emanuel Pfoh (eds.), Biblical Narratives, Archaeology and Historicity: Essays in Honour of Thomas L. Thompson (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies series; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2020), 76-90.
—“Jeremiah, Plato and Socrates: Greek Antecedents to the Book of Jeremiah” in Jim West and Niels Peter Lemche (eds.), Jeremiah in History and Tradition (Copenhagen International Seminar; London: Routledge, 2020), 21-48.
—“Can the Documentary Hypothesis be Rehabilitated? A New Model of the Collaborative Composition of the Pentateuch”. Journal of Higher Criticism 15/3 (fall 2020): 4-48.
—Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts: Cosmic Monotheism and Terrestrial Polytheism in the Primordial History. New York: Routledge, 2022.
—“The Manasseh and Josiah Redactions of 2 Kings 21-25,” Journal of Higher Criticism 17/1 (winter 2022): 4-48.
—“The Historical Context of the LXX and its Hebrew Vorlage” in Johann Cook and Gideon R. Kotzé (eds.), The Septuagint South of Alexandria: Essays on the Greek Translations and Other Ancient Versions by the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (LXXSA) (Leiden: Brill, 2022).

Since you are also apparently an expert on Konrad Schmid, you must surely aware that in his occasional discussion of the Hellenistic Era creation of the Hebrew Bible, as recently as last year, he doesn't cite any literature on the subject since LEMCHE 1993!

Schmid, Konrad, How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch, in: R. J. Bautch / M. Lackowski (Hgg.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period, FAT II/101, Tübingen 2019, 101–118
—How to Identify a Ptolemaic Period Text in the Hebrew Bible, in: Sylvie Honigman et al. (Hgg.), Times of Transition. Judea in the Early Hellenistic Period, Mosaics 1, University Park 2021, 281–292.

I am a fan of Konrad Schmid, but he is utterly oblivious to any twenty-first century developments on the Hellenistic Era creation of the Hebrew Bible, and my books in particular. The idea that you can cite Schmid, who had never read any of my books, in order to refute my research, is absurd in the extreme.

Please note, I have not read his 2022 Zurich presentation "The Composition of the Pentateuch as a Historical and a Hermeneutical Problem," which as near as I can determine is nowhere in print, but from the abstract appears to be the usual obsolete twentieth-century Schmid material and of no relevance to the current discussion.