There is a potential problem with separating out J and E that needs to be discussed. According to the DH, J and E were edited together into one text (appropriately called JE), and it is often hard to separate the strands. There are some stories or passages where characteristics indicating J are found right next to other characteristics indicating E. For example, the burning bush story in Exodus 3, and the revelation at Sinai in Exodus 19 both have combined sections from J and E. This problem is resolved by splitting the passage sentence by sentence, or sometimes even clause by clause.
In general, there are two possibilities here. It might be the case that the DH is correct and J and E were edited together this way. Alternatively, it might be the case that the DH is wrong and this is in fact a single text. If the former, it is quite difficult to show that this is the case. After all, one of the stronger arguments for the DH is that some passages are complete by themselves, show an internal consistency in style, wording, and content, but show an inconsistency with other passages. However, if a passage has elements of both J and E thoroughly mixed throughout, then it is much more difficult to show that they were originally separate texts. One would have to show that particular sentences or clauses show multiple characteristics of one source but not the other, and this gets difficult to show this persuasively at the sentence level.
One way of handling this problem is to treat J and E as a single combined source called JE, and contrast that with the other sources P and D. After all, most scholars believe that it is fairly easy, at least in most passages, to separate between P, D, and the combined JE.
That approach is fine as far as it goes. But the problem is that sometimes J shares characteristics with one of the other sources and E with another source. For example, J and P both refer to the mountain where God appears as "Sinai" and D and E both refer to it as "Horeb", and noted here and here. But if J and E are combined together, then that means that the combined document JE sometimes uses "Sinai" and sometimes uses "Horeb". That is obviously a less persuasive argument than if J and E were cleanly separable.
This is less persuasive, but not unpersuasive. After all, P uses only Sinai, and D uses only Horeb. That's a pretty compelling distinction by itself. And if we have multiple reasons to think that particular sentences or verses in JE are actually J or E, then that separation, although not as clean as the separation between P and D, is still somewhat persuasive.
Like always, this argument cannot be resolved in the abstract. The details are important. But it is something to watch carefully as we work through the text.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Problems with E and J
Monday, April 27, 2009
Horeb or The Moutain of God - E and D
The word "Horeb" or the phrase "the mountain of God" ("har Elohim") appears 6 times in E, 9 times in D, and never in P or J. The complete list is set forth below.
(E) Exod. 3:1: Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. (Note: E and J are both present in the burning bush story. Separating them is complex. However, Friedman makes a reasonable case in his footnote. I will discuss how reasonable or unreasonable this is when we discuss that particular story. At that time, we will assume the various characteristics of each source and see how well that explains the divisions. But for now we are doing the opposite; we are assuming the divisions into sources and seeing how well that explains the characteristics of each source.)
(E) Exod. 4:27: The LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the desert to meet Moses." So he met Moses at the mountain of God and kissed him.
(E) Exod. 17:6: "...I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink."
(E) Exod. 18:5: Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, together with Moses' sons and wife, came to him in the desert, where he was camped near the mountain of God.
(E) Exod. 24:13: Then Moses set out with Joshua his aide, and Moses went up on the mountain of God.
(E) Exod. 33:6: So the Israelites stripped off their ornaments at Mount Horeb.
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:2: It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:6: The LORD our God said to us at Horeb, "You have stayed long enough at this mountain. . . ."
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:19: "Then, as the LORD our God commanded us, we set out from Horeb . . . ."
(Dtr1) Deut. 4:10: Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, "Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children."
(Dtr1) Deut. 4:15: You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire.
(Dtr1) Deut. 5:2: The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
(Dtr1) Deut. 9:8: At Horeb you aroused the LORD's wrath so that he was angry enough to destroy you.
(Dtn) Deut. 18:16: For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
(Dtr1) Deut. 29:1: These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.
* * *
Sinai and Horeb are both names of the mountain where God appeared to Moses and the Hebrews. Yes Sinai is used exclusively by P and J, while Horeb is used exclusively by E and D. Standing alone, that strongly supports the DH. In a separate post, I will examine the traditional Jewish understanding of why this mountain has two names.
* * *
As an aside, the only other place in the Tanach where "mountain of God" is used is in 1st Kings, and it is equated with Horeb: "So he [Elijah] got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God." (1 Kings 19:8.) First Kings is part of the Deuteronomist history, and it is noteworthy that it uses Horeb, not Sinai, like the rest of D.
In Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, the only place where Sinai appears in in the Song of Deborah, in Judges 5: "The mountains quaked before the LORD, the One of Sinai, before the LORD, the God of Israel." (Judges 5:5.) Scholars believe this song was from an independent very early source, and was inserted into Judges by D.
* * *
Update: see here for a particular problem with J and E.
.
Sinai - P and J
One commonly cited difference between the sources is the J and P use the term "Sinai" while E and D use "Horeb". Each will be examined in a separate post, as well as traditional explanations for the difference.
"Sinai" appears 18 times in P, 6 times in J, 4 times in R, and 2 times in Other sources. It appears no times in E or D.
The following are all the references to Sinai in the Torah:
(R) Exod. 16:1: The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt.
(P, R) Exod. 19:1-2: In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt — on the very day — they came to the Desert of Sinai. 2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.
(J) Exod. 19:11: And the LORD said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes 11 and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
(J) Exod. 19:18: Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire.
(J) Exod. 19:20: The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain.
(J) Exod. 19:23: Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai . . . ."
Note: Exodus 19 (the revelation at Sinai) has both E and J interspersed. We will see how persuasive the divisions are when we examine this chapter as a whole. But for now, we are assuming that the source divisions are correct and determining how well that explains the different characteristics of each source.
(P) Exod 24:16: . . . and the glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai.
(P) Exod. 31:18: When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets . . . .
(J) Exod. 34:2: Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai.
(J) Exod. 34:4: So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning . . . .
(P) Exod. 34:29: When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets
(P) Exod. 34:32: Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the LORD had given him on Mount Sinai.
(P) Lev. 7:38: These, then, are the regulations for the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the ordination offering and the fellowship offering, 38 which the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai on the day he commanded the Israelites to bring their offerings to the LORD, in the Desert of Sinai.
(P) Lev. 25:1 (-2): The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD.
(P) Lev. 26:46: These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the LORD established on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.
(P) Lev. 27:34: These are the commands the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai for the Israelites.
(P) Num. 1:1: The LORD spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt.
(P) Num. 1:19: And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai
(R) Num. 3:1: This is the account of the family of Aaron and Moses at the time the LORD talked with Moses on Mount Sinai.
(P) Num. 3:4: Nadab and Abihu, however, fell dead before the LORD when they made an offering with unauthorized fire before him in the Desert of Sinai.
(P) Num. 3:14 (-15): The LORD said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, "Count the Levites by their families and clans.
(P) Num. 9:1 (-2): The LORD spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, "Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover
(P) Num. 9:5: and they did so in the Desert of Sinai
(P) Num. 10:12: Then the Israelites set out from the Desert of Sinai and traveled from place to place until the cloud came to rest in the Desert of Paran.
(P) Num. 26:64: Not one of them was among those counted by Moses and Aaron the priest when they counted the Israelites in the Desert of Sinai.
(R) Num. 28:6: This is the regular burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai as a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire.
(Other) Num. 33:15: They left Rephidim and camped in the Desert of Sinai.
(Other) Num. 33:16: They left the Desert of Sinai and camped at Kibroth Hattaavah.
(P) Deut. 33:2: his is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death. He said: "The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; . . . ."
* * *
Sinai and Horeb are both names of the mountain where God appeared to Moses and the Hebrews. Yes Sinai is used exclusively by P and J, while Horeb is used exclusively by E and D. Standing alone, that strongly supports the DH. In a separate post, I will examine the traditional Jewish understanding of why this mountain has two names.
* * *
Update: see here for a particular problem with J and E.
.
The Documentary Hypothesis - Characteristics of Each Source
I have now prepared five chart showing which verses of the Torah belong to which sources, at least according to Richard E. Friedman and Samuel Driver. I am going to start a (long) series of posts about the particular characteristics of each source. For example, a common argument is that "Sinai" was used by P and J, and "Horeb" was used by E and D. I will start with this example, list each time that Sinai and Horeb are used, and then see how they line up with the different sources. I will have one post on Sinai, one on Horeb, and at least one post on the traditional Jewish explanations for the use of each name.
Remember the Bayes-theorem methodology: I will assume the documentary hypothesis is correct and then see how well it explains the actual occurrences of these words. If it does easily and naturally, it will weigh in favor of the DH being correct. If it appears forced, with ad hoc justifications and explanations, then it will not weigh in favor of the DH being correct. Similarly, for the traditional explanations, I will assume that TMS is correct and then see how well it explains the actual occurrences of these words. If it does easily and naturally, it will weigh in favor of TMS being correct. If it appears forced, with ad hoc justifications and explanations, then it will not weigh in favor of TMS being correct.
The purpose of this introductory post is to think about what specifically I will be looking for when examining the sources. I can think of several particular "issues", and I will update this list as I go. Please feel free to add additional criteria in the comments.
For these purposes, I will assume that the division of the Torah into sources is correct and fixed. The specific issue is given this division of the Torah into sources, how well does it explain the occurrence of the words in the places that they occur.Criteria Pertaining to Words
1. Obviously, the central issue is how many times does the word appear in its supposed source and how many times in other sources. If the word appears many times in one source, and few or no times in other sources, it is strong supporting evidence for the DH.
2. If the word has a synonym, does a different source use the synonym instead? If one source uses one word, and another source uses the synonym, it is strong supporting evidence for the DH.
3. Is the appearance of the word in a source explained by its meaning? A brief note is in order here. If the presence of a word in a source is explained by its meaning, it is weaker evidence (or perhaps no evidence) of the distinctiveness of the source. For example, P is the "priestly" author. If the P verses were selected because their content involved things that the priests were concerned with --- priests, sacrifices, ritual purity, and so on --- then it would not be surprising to find that the words pertaining to these matters are contained in P. The argument --- at least in this simplistic formulation --- is circular.
In contrast, the disproportionate use of particular words in a source that are not explained by their simple meaning (such as Sinai and Horeb) is stronger evidence of different sources.
In actuality, P is concerned with more than priestly matters, the P verses were chosen on numerous grounds, and other sources (especially D) are also concerned with priestly matters. So a word whose location is explained by its meaning is not irrelevant, but instead is weaker evidence for the DH. The analogous situation in statistics is correlation among the independent variables. Where such correlation exists, more data from correlated variables provides some explanatory power, but not as much as similar data from uncorrelated variables. (There are many limitations and qualifications that I am skipping over.)
4. Is the appearance of the word in a source explained by related words? This is similar to the last point. If two words are frequently used together, the presence of one word is largely explained by the presence of the other word. In such cases, it might be more helpful to thing of the two words together as forming one phrase.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Deuteronomy
Here is a table showing all the verses in Deuteronomy and which source they are from. Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.
Here's information about the table.
F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.
Sources:
Dtr1 - The original version of Deuteronomy that King Josiah had around 622 BCE. (Driver calls this D)
Dtr2 - The additional portions added to Deuteronomy after the Babylonian exile. (Driver calls this D2)
Dtn - a law code that occupies Deuteronomy 12-26. (Driver does not identify this as a separate source.)
J - J
E - E
P - P
R - Redactor
Here's the table.
Chapter
Friedman
Driver
Difference?
Notes
Deuteronomy
1:1-2
Dtr1
Dtr1
1:3
Dtr1
P
*
1:4-46
Dtr1
Dtr1
2
Dtr1
Dtr1
3:1-13
Dtr1
Dtr1
3:14-17
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
3:18-29
Dtr1
Dtr1
4:1-24
Dtr1
Dtr1
4:25-28
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
4:29--31
Dtr2
Dtr2
4:32-40
Dtr1
Dtr1
4:41-49
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
5,6,7
Dtr1
Dtr1
8:1-18
Dtr1
Dtr1
8:19-20
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
9,10,11
Dtr1
Dtr1
12-25
Dtn
Dtr1
*
26:1-15
Dtn
Dtr1
*
26:16-19
Dtr1
Dtr1
27:1-4
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
27:5-7a
Dtr1
JE
*
27:7b-8
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
27:9-10
Dtr1
Dtr1
27:11-26
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
28:1-35
Dtr1
Dtr1
28:36-37
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
28:38-62
Dtr1
Dtr1
28:63-68
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
28:69
Dtr1
Dtr1
29:1-9
Dtr1
Dtr1
29:10-20
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
29:21-27
Dtr2
Dtr2
29:28
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
30:1-10
Dtr2
Dtr2
30:11-14
Dtr1
Dtr1
30:15-20
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
31:1-13
Dtr1
Dtr1
31:14-15
Dtn
JE
*
31:16-22
Dtr2
Dtr2
D: incorporated from independent sources
31:23
Dtn
JE
*
31:24-27
Dtr1
Dtr1
31:28-30
Dtr2
Dtr2
32:1-44
Dtr2
Dtr2
F and D: Song of Moses was an independent work added by Dtr2
32:45-47
Dtr1
Dtr1
32:48-52
R
P
*
33:1-29
Dtr1
Dtr1
Blessing of Moses was an independent work added by Dtr1
34:1a
Dtr1
JE
*
D: to "the top of Pisgah"
34:1b
Dtr1
P
*
D: "which is facing Jericho"
34:1c-4
Dtr1
JE
*
34:5a
J
JE
*
34:5b
J
P
*
34:6
J
JE
*
34:7
J
P
*
38:8-9
P
P
38:10
Dtr1
JE
*
38:11
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Numbers
Here is a table showing all the verses in Numbers and which source they are from. Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.
Here's information about the table.
F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.
Sources:
J - J
E - E
RJE - Redactor of J and E
P - P
R - Redactor
O - Other
Here's the table. Documentary Hypothesis
Chapter
Friedman
Driver
Difference?
Notes
Numbers
1:1 - 2:34
P
P
3:1
R
P
*
3:2 - 9:14
P
P
9:15-23
R
P
*
10:1-12
P
P
10:13
R
P
*
10:14 - 27
P
P
10:28
R
P
*
10:29 - 33
J
JE
*
10:34
J
P
*
10:35-36
J
JE
*
11:1-11
E
JE
*
12:1-15
E
E
13:1-16
P
P
13:17a
R
P
*
13:17b-20
J
JE
*
13:21
J
P
*
13:22-24
J
JE
*
13:25-26a
P
P
to "Paran"
13:26b
P
JE
*
13:27-31
J
JE
*
13:32a
P
P
13:32b
P
JE
*
13:33
J
JE
*
14:1-2
P
P
14:3
P
JE
*
14:4
J
JE
*
14:5-7
P
P
14:8-9
P
JE
*
14:10
P
P
14:11-25
J
JE
*
14:26-30
P
P
14:31-33
P
JE
*
14:34-38
P
P
14:39-45
J
JE
*
15:1-31
R
P
*
15:32-41
P
P
16:1a
P
P
to "son of Levi"
16:1b-2a
J
JE
*
to "in front of Moses"
16:2b-11
P
P
16:12-14
J
JE
*
16:15
P
JE
*
16:16-24a
P
P
16:24b
R
P
*
"Dathan and Abiram"
16:25-26
J
JE
*
16:27a
P
P
16:27b
R
P
*
"Dathan and Abiram"
16:27c-32a
J
JE
*
to "and their households"
16:32b
P
P
16:33-34
J
JE
*
16:35
P
P
17:1-27
P
P
Note: Jewish 17:1-15 are numbered in Christian bibles as 16:36-50. Jewish 17:16-28 are numbered in Christian Bibles as 17:1-13
18, 19
P
P
20:1a
R
P
*
to "in Kadesh"
20:1b
P
JE
*
20:2
P
P
20:3a
P
JE
*
20:3b-4
P
P
20:5
P
JE
*
20:6-13
P
P
20:14-21
J
JE
*
20:22
R
P
*
20:23-29
P
P
21:1-3
J
JE
*
21:4a
R
P
*
F: to "Edom"; D: to "Mt Hor"
21:4b-9
E
JE
*
21:10-11
R
P
*
21:12-35
J
JE
*
22:1
R
P
*
22:2
J
E
*
22:3-21
E
E
F: except for 4 "to the elders of Midian" (R), 5 "and he sent messengers" (J), 7 "and Midian's elders" (R), 15 "And Balak went on again" (J)
22:22-35a
E
J
*
F: except for 26 "to turn right or left" (J)
22:35b-41
E
E
23, 24
E
JE
*
25:1-5
J
JE
*
25:6-19
P
P
26:1-7
P
P
26:8-11
R
P
*
26:12-65
P
P
27
P
P
28,29
R
P
*
30:1
R
P
*
30:2-17
P
P
31
P
P
32:1
J
JE
*
32:2
P
P
D: part may be JE
32:3
J
JE
*
32:4
P
P
D: part may be JE
32:5
J
JE
*
F&D: except for "let this land be given to your servants for a possession" (P)
32:6
P
JE
*
32:7-12
J
JE
*
F & D: except for 12 "and Joshua son of Nun" (R); D: except for 11 "from 20 years old and upward" (P)
32:13-24
P
JE/P
*
D: mainlly JE with some P additions
32:25-27
J
JE
*
32:28-32
P
JE/P
*
D: mainlly JE with some P additions
32:33-42
J
JE
*
33:1a
O
P
*
F: list of travels that R used to organize the wilderness episodes chronologically
33:1-2
R
P
*
33:3-49
O
P
*
33:50-56
P
P
34, 35, 36
P
P
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Leviticus
No need for a table here. The whole book is P, more or less.
Friedman and Driver (and many others) noted that Leviticus 17-26 is a "Holiness Code" (called H) which is quite similar to P in many respects but has some distinctive characteristics in both substance and language.
Friedman notes that Lev. 23:39-43 (an expansion of the laws of Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret) is a later addition by R; Driver agrees that this was a later insertion but from H.
Friedman notes that Lev. 26:39-44 are a later addition by R. Driver does not discuss this.
That's it; pretty simple.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Exodus
Here is a table showing all the verses in Exodus and which source they are from. (The Genesis table is here; the rest is coming.) Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.
Like Genesis, the versions differ primarily in the classification of E and J. Friedman argues that the "bias" in favor of J over E might be justified in Genesis, but is not necessarily justified in Exodus. Accordingly, he classifies many more Exodus verses as E than Driver does, and in doing so seems to reduce the number of multiple-verse stories.
Here's information about the table.
F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.
Sources:
J - J
E - E
RJE - Redactor of J and E
P - P
R - Redactor
O - Other
Here's the table.
Chapter
Friedman
Driver
Difference?
Notes
Exodus
1:1-5
R
P
*
1:6
J
J
1:7
P
P
1:8-12
E
J
*
1:13-14
P
P
1:15-20a
E
E
1:20b
E
P
*
1:21
E
E
1:22
J
E
*
2:1-14
J
E
*
2:15-23a
J
J
2:23b
P
P
3:1
E
E
3:2-4a
J
J
3:4b
E
E
3:5
J
J
3:6
E
E
3:7-8
J
J
3:9-15
E
E
3:16-18
E
J
*
F: identification uncertain
3:19-22
J
E
*
F: identification uncertain
4:1-16
E
J
*
4:17-18
E
E
4:19-20a
J
J
4:20b-21a
E
E
Up to "in front of Pharoah"
4:21b
R
E
*
4:22-23
E
J
*
4:24-26
J
J
4:27-28
E
E
4:29-31
E
J
*
5:1-2
J
E
*
5:3
E
J
*
5:4
E
E
5:5-23
J
E
*
6:1
E
J
*
6:2-10
P
P
6:12-13
R
P
*
6:14-25
O
P
*
F: Book of Records
6:26-29
R
P
*
6:30
P
P
7:1-13
P
P
7:14-15a
E
J
*
7:15b
E
E
7:16
E
J
*
7:17
E
J&E
*
D: see notes
7:18
E
J
*
7:19-20a
P
P
F&D: to "had commanded"
7:20b
E
E
D: to "servants"
7:20c-21a
E
J
*
D: to "from the river"
7:21b
E
P
*
7:22
P
P
7:23-25
E
J
*
7:26-29
E
J
*
Note: D uses KJV numbering
8:1-3a
P
P
8:3b
E
P
*
8:4-11a
E
J
*
F&D: to "heart heavy"
8:11b
R
P
*
8:12-15
P
P
8:16-28
E
J
*
9:1-7
E
J
*
9:8-12
P
P
9:13-21
E
J
*
9:22-23a
E
E
D: to "earth" (or ground)
9:23b
E
J
*
9:24a
E
E
9:24b
E
J
*
9:25a
E
E
9:25b-34
E
J
*
9:35
R
R
(See footnote in D)
10:1-11
E
J
*
10:12-13a
E
E
D: to "Egypt"
10:13b
E
J
*
10:14a
E
E
D: to "Land of Egypt"
10:14b-15a
E
J
*
D: to "darkened"
10:15b
E
E
D: to "left"
10:15c-19
E
J
*
10:20
R
E
*
10:21-23
E
E
10:24-26
E
J
*
10:27
R
E
*
10:28-29
E
J
*
11:1-3
E
E
11:4-8
E
J
*
11:9-10
R
*
12:1-20
P
P
12:21-27
E
J
*
12:28
P
P
12:29
E
J
*
12:30
E
*
12:31-36
E
E
12:37a
R
P
*
12:37b-39
E
E
12:40-41
P
P
12:42a
P
E
*
12:42b-50
P
P
12:51
R
P
*
13:1-2
E
P
*
13:3-16
E
J
*
13:17-19
E
E
13:20
R
P
*
13:21-22
E
J
*
14:1-4
P
P
14:5a
J
J
F: to "had fled"
14:5b
E
J
*
14:6
J
J
14:7
E
J
*
14:8
P
P
14:9a
J
P
*
F: "and Egypt pursued them"
14:9b
P
P
14:10a
P
J
*
F: "And Pharaoh came close"
14:10b
J
J
F: to "very afraid"
14:10c
P
E
*
14:11-12
E
J
*
14:13-14
J
J
14:15-18
P
P
14:19a
E
E
14:19b
J
J
14:20a
E
J
*
14:20b
J
J
14:21a
P
P
F & D: to "over the sea"
14:21b
J
J
F & D: to "dry ground"
14:21c-23
P
P
14:24
J
J
14:25
E
J
*
14:26-27a
P
P
F & D: to "over the sea"
14:27b
J
J
14:28-29
P
P
14:30-31
J
J
15:1-18
J
E
*
F & D: Song was earleir source
15:19
R
J
*
15:20-21
E
E
15:22a
R
J
*
15:22b-25a
J
J
15:25b-26
E
J
*
15:27
R
J
*
16:1
R
P
*
16:2-3
P
P
16:4-5
J
J
16:6-24
P
P
16:25-30
P
J
*
16:31-35a
P
P
16:35b
J
P
*
16:36
P
P
17:1a
R
P
*
17:1b
R
J
*
17:2
E
J
*
17:3-6
E
E
17:7
E
J
*
17:8-16
E
E
18:1-27
E
E
F: except for "after her being sent off" in 18:2, which is RJE
19:1
P
P
19:2a
R
P
*
19:2b-3a
E
E
19:3b-9
E
J
*
19:10-11a
J
E
*
19:11b-13
J
J
19:14-16a
J
E
*
F: to "when it was morning"
19:16b-17
E
E
19:18
J
J
19:19
E
E
19:20-25
J
J
F: except for "you and Aaron with you" in 19:24, which is R
20:1
R
E
*
20:2-10
O
E
*
20:11
R
E
*
20:12-17
O
E
*
20:18-26
E
E
21:1-37
E
E
22:1-30
E
E
23:1-33
E
E
24:1-2
E
J
*
24:3-8
E
E
24:9-11
E
J
*
24:12-14
E
E
24:15a
E
P
*
24:15b-18a
P
P
F&D: to "cloud"
24:18b
R
E
*
and went up into the mountain"
24:18c
J
E
*
25:1-40
P
P
26:1-37
P
P
27:1-21
P
P
28:1-43
P
P
29:1-46
P
P
30:1-38
P
P
31:1-18a
P
P
D: to "testimony"
31:18b
P
E
*
32:1-8
E
E
32:9-14
E
J
*
32:15-24
E
E
32:25-34
E
J
*
33:1-4
E
J
*
33:5-11
E
E
33:12-23
E
J
*
34:1a
J
J
F&D: to "tablets of stone"
34:1b
RJE
RJE
34:2-28
J
J
F&D: except for v. 4 "like the first ones" (RJE)
34:29-35
P
P
35:1-35
P
P
36:1-38
P
P
37:1-29
P
P
38:1-31
P
P
39:1-43
P
P
40:1-38
P
P
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Genesis
I have compiled the following table showing all the verses in Genesis and which source they are from. I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913) (Google Books version of Driver here.) I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver. These two versions are remarkably similar, especially given that they are separated by a very busy century.
These two versions differ in at least two notable respects.
1. Driver explained that it was fairly easy to tell the difference between P on the one hand and J, E, and JE on the other. However, distinguishing between J and E is much harder in places. Many of the differences between Friedman and Driver involve J and E classifications.
2. Friedman assigns several transitional versed to R (the redactor), but Driver assigns them to P, who was in fact doing some redacting. I think this difference stems largely from the difference in the dating of P. Driver and most early bible scholars assigned P to after the Babylonian exile, while Friedman and many (but not all) contemporary bible scholars assign P to before the exile. Thus, Friedman believes there was a much greater separation between P and R, whereas Driver believes they might have been the same person or at least contemporaries.
At this point, I am not making any sort of argument. I am simply laying out the theory to be tested. My plan is to make a similar chart for Exodus through Deuteronomy. After that, I will compile a list of the characteristics that the DH advocates claim can be found in each of the sources. Once I have completed that, I will have identified the theory to be tested. And then I'll test it.
Here's information about the table.
F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference, nothing if they are the same.
Sources:
J - J
E - E
RJE - Redactor of J and E
P - P
R - Redactor
O - Other
Here's the table.Chapter F D Diff Notes Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 P P 2:4a R P * 2:4b - 2:25 J J F: R inserted "Elohim" after YHWH 3:1 - 24 J J F: R inserted "Elohim" after YHWH 4:1 - 24 J J 4:25-26a R J * 4:26b J J 5:1 -28 O P * F: Book of Records 5:29 R J * 5:30-32 O P * F: Book of Records 6:1-8 J J 6:9a R P * 6:9b-22 P P 7:1-5 J J 7:6 J P * 7:7 J J 7:8-10 P J * 7:11 P P 7:12 P J * 7:13-16a P P 7:16b J J 7:17a J P * D: except for "40 days" 7:17b J J 7:18-20 J P * 7:21 P P 7:22-23 J J 7:24 P P 8:1-2a P P F: to "skies were shut" 8:2b-3a J J 8:3b-5 P P 8:6 J J 8:7 P J * 8:8-12 J J 8:13a P P 8:13b J J 8:14-19 P P 8:20-22 J J 9:1-17 P P 9:18-27 J J 9:28-29 O P * F: Book of Records 10:1a R P * 10:1b-7 P P 10:8-19 J J 10:20 P P 10:21 J J 10:22-23 P P 10:24-30 J J 10:31-32 P P 11:1-9 J J 11:10a R P * 11:10b-26 O P * F: Book of Records 11:27a R P * 11:27b P P 11:28-30 P J * 11:31a P P F: to "land of Canaan" 11:31b R P * 11:32a O P * F: Book of Records 11:32b R P * 12:1-4a J J 12:4b-5 P P F: "from Haran" added by R 12:6-20 J J 13:1-5 J J 13:6 P P 13:7-11a J J 13:11b-12a P P 13:12b-18 J J 14:1-24 O O 15:1-12 J E * F: "Ur of the Chaldees" in 7 added by R; D: parts from J 15:13-17a R E * F: to "and the sun was setting" 15:17b-21 J E * 16:1a J P * 16:1b-2 J J 16:3 P P 16:4-14 J J 16:15-16 P P 17:1-27 P P 18:1-33 J J 19:1-28 J J 19:29 P P 19:30-38 J J 20:1a RJE E * 20:1b-18 E E 21:1a J J 21:1b P P 21:2a J J 21:2b-5 P P 21:6 E E 21:7 J E * 21:8-32 E E 21:33 E J * 21:34 E E 22:1-10 E E 22:11-14 RJE E * 22:15 RJE J * 22:16-18 E J * 22:19 E E F: "word of YHWH" in 16 added by RJE 22:20-24 J J 23:1-20 P P 24:1-66 J J 25:1-4 E J * 25:5-6 RJE J * 25:7-11a P P 25:11b J J 25:12 R P * 25:13-17 P P 25:18 P J * 25:19 R P * 25:20 P P 25:21-26a J J 25:26b J P * 25:27-33 J J 26:1-33 J J 26:34-35 P P 27:1-45 J J 27:46 P P 28:1-9 P P 28:10 J J 28:11a J E * 28:11b-12 E E 28:13-16 J J 28:17-18 E E 28:19 J J 28:20-22 E E 29:1 J E * 29:2-14 J J 29:15-23 J E * 29:24 J P * 29:25-28 J E * 29:29 J P * 29:30 J E * 29:31-35 J J 30:1a J E * 30:1b-3a E E 30:3b E J * 30:4a J J 30:4b-5 E J * 30:6 E E 30:7 E J * 30:8 E E 30:9-16 E J * 30:17-20a E E 30:20b E J * 30:20c-22b(a) E E 30:22b(b) E J * 30:23 E E 30:24a E J * 30:24b-41 J J 31:1 E J * 31:2 E E 31:3 J J 31:4-16 E E 31:17 J E * 31:18a P E * 31:18b P P D: from "and all" 31:19-45 E E 31:46 E J * 31:47 E E 31:48-50 E J * 31:51-54 E E 31:1-2 E E 32:3 E J * 32:4-13a J J 32:13b J E * 32:14-21 E E F: "And he spent the night there" in 14 added by RJE 32:22 E J * 32:23 E E 32:24-32 E J * 32:33 E ? * 33:1-18a E J * 33:18a R P * F & D: "which was in the land of Caanan, when he was coming from Paddan Aram" 33:18b-20 E E 34:1-2a J P * 34:2b-3 J J 34:4 J P * 34:5 J J 34:6 J P * 34:7 J J 34:8-10 J P * 34:11-12 J J 34:13-18 J P * 34:19 J J 34:20-24 J P * 34:25 J Part J, part P * 34:26 J J 34:27-29 J P * 34:30-31 J J 35:1-8 E E 35:9-13 P P F; "again when he was coming from Paddan Aram" in 9 added by R 35:14 P J * 35:15 P P 35:16-20 E E F: And they travelled from Beth El" in 16 added by R 35:21-22a J J 35:22b-29 P P 36:1 R P * 36:2-30 P P F: Esau's geneology uncertain. D: 2-5, 9-28 probably from independent source 36:31-43 J P * 37:1 P P 37:2a J P * 37:2b J E * F: "These are the records of Jabob" added by R 37:3a E E 37:3b J E * 37:4 E E 37:5-11 J E * 37:12-18 E J * 37:19-20 J E * 37:21 E J * 37:22 E E 37:23 J E * 37:24 E E 37:25a E J * 37:25b-27 J J 37:28a E E F & D: to "pit" 37:28b J J D: to "silver" 37:28c J E * 37:29-30 E E 37:31-35 J J 37:36 E E 38:1-30 J J 39:1-23 J J 40:1a E E 40:1b E J * 40:2-3a E E 40:3b E J * 40:4-15a E E 40:15b E J * 40:16-23 E E 41:1-14a E E 41:14a E J * D: "and they brought him quickly from the dungeon" 41:15-45 E E 41:46a P P 41:46b R P * 42:1-4 J E * 42:5 E E 42:6 J E * 42:7 E E 42:8-20 J E * 42:21-25 E E 42:26 J E * 42:27-28 J J 42:29-34 J E * 42:35-37 E E 42:38 J J 43:1-13 J J 43:14 E E 43:15-23a J J 43:23b E E 43:24-34 J J 44:1-34 J J 45:1-2 J E * 45:3 E E 45:4a-b J E * 45:4c J J D: "and they brought him quickly from the dungeon" 45:5 J E * 45:5 J J D: "that ye sold me thither" 45:6-10 J E * 45:10 J J D: "to Goshen" 45:11-28 J E * 46:1 E J * D: "Israel" 46:1-5a E E 46:5b J E * 46:6-27 P P 46:28-34 J J 47:1-4 J J 47:5-6a P P 47:6b P J * D: LXX has 6b (re making livestock officers) after 4. 47:5-12 P P 47:13-26 E J * F: difficult to determine whether J or E 47:27a J J D: to "Goshen" 47:27b-28 P P D: from "and they" 47:29-31 J J 48:1-2 E E 48:3-7 P P 48:8-22 E E 49:1a J P * 49:1b-27 J J F: based on an older composition 49:28a R J * 49:28b R P * 49:29-33 P P 50:1-11 J J 50:12-13 P P 50:14 J J 50:15-21 E E 50:22 J E * 50:23-26 E E
Monday, July 14, 2008
Three Challenges to the TMH / DH Project
The TMH/DH Project proposes to weigh the evidence supporting two competing theories:
TMH: "[T]he Torah was written by God, physically written by Moses (with the possible exception of the last few lines of Deuteronomy), is instructions for living, and contains important insights (some explicit, so[me] esoteric and hidden) about all sorts of important things."
DH: Bruce proposes "to use Richard Elliot Friedman's book 'The Torah With Sources Revealed'," but does not summarize the DH as presented in that book. I will go with the following: The five books of Moses are a series of different books, written by various human authors (well after the time of Moses), that were ultimately combined and redacted into one form by yet another human author(s).
Bruce goes on to observe that "[t]his issue is central for many people's religious beliefs and practices." He then makes the following claim: "If the evidence shows that TMH is much more likely than DH, one should be Orthodox or something very close. And if the evidence shows the opposite, one should probably not be Orthodox."
Without in any way discouraging my friend Bruce, or any of our readers or commentators, I want to present three challenges to what I see as underlying assumptions of the enterprise:
1. The TMH/DH Issue is Not Central for the Religious (or Non-Religious) Beliefs and Practices of Most Jews
I certainly agree with Bruce that this issue is central (or at least very important) for many Jews, but I do not think it is at the crux of the religious beliefs or practices (or the rejection of these) of most Jews. My view is that the fundamental beliefs and practices of Jews and their co-religionists have a great deal more to do with childhood upbringing, social milieu, psychology, faith, and other "non-rational" factors. (One could argue that some of these are "rational," but I'll leave that alone in the hopes that my meaning here is clear.)
The interaction of non-rationalism and rationalism on a personal level is far too complex for me to grasp, yet alone set out here, but I believe that predispositions, surroundings, non-verifiable beliefs, and emotions are the driver for most religious people, and positions on factual assertions (especially non-verifiable factual assertions, for those who don't believe that the very term is oxymoronic) come, if you'll forgive the pun, "after the fact."
These factual theories about the origin of the Torah (especially the non-verifiable ones!) are usually adopted as a result of the religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and not the other way around. Put in Bayes' Theorem terms, as Bruce has noted, the initial probability assigned to the competing theories is often the determinative factor. (Moreover, it is in my opinion usually the end of the analysis -- or, more accurately, there is no analysis, because most people who have ever considered the subject at all have an opinion (whether for TMH or DH) that was formed without any serious exploration of the "facts").
As the foregoing discussion highlights, there is a fundamental asymmetry between the two theories. TMH is in my view necessarily based in part on faith -- we cannot believe that God authored the Torah unless we believe in God. DH, on the other hand, is not necessarily based on any view about the existence of God or any other non-verifiable matter.
That being said, many people reject TMH because they are atheists, agnostics, etc. For them, DH is simply the "scientific" or "rational" alternative -- it may have flaws, fundamental or otherwise, but this will always reflect nothing more than flawed historical study which will presumably be corrected over time (unless some critical evidence is lost to history). But flaws in DH would not likely lead such a person in the direction of TMH.
Many other comments have made a similar point, arguing that most people are not likely to "change their mind" based on this project. Of course, the TMH/DH debate is central for some, and I trust they will find the endeavor interesting and meaningful.
2. For Religious Jews, the TMH and DH Theories Are in Important Respects Not "Competing"
The premise that the Torah is divine is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish that the Torah is "instructions for living" or "contains important insights . . . about all sorts of important things." Perhaps even more obviously, the premise that the Torah was written and compiled from a variety of human sources is not sufficient to establish that it is not "instructions for living" or does not "contain important insights."
Thus, I do not see these views in such stark opposition with respect to the "appropriate" level of Jewish practice or Jewish belief.
By presenting the TMH/HD debate as so dichotomous, the enterprise assumes or at the very least is concordant with the conventional Orthodox view that the Torah must be divine, absolute, and immutable in order to be binding on people or meaningful at all. I reject the logic of this position. It does not so simply follow that the Torah is "binding" because it is divine -- there are several unstated (and unprovable) assumptions required to complete this argument. Nor does it follow that the Torah is rendered meaningless if it is a living, evolving document. As Diane, Bruce and I have all argued elsewhere to varying extents, it is not so terribly important (or perhaps even possible) to "prove" that the ethical precepts of the Torah are correct or "true." From my point of view, the Orthodox position introduces a problem that does not need solving, and then proposes a solution that does not solve the problem in any event. (I have promised a future post taking up this line of thought in greater detail.)
3. Orthodoxy Posits the Divinity of Both Torah and Oral Law
One final, simple point. As presented, this TMH/DH Project ignores the broader (and, in my view, far more implausible) claim that the Oral Law is also divine and was also given to Moses at Sinai. This approach makes sense given the contours of the DH. But if Bruce is correct that the decision about whether to be Orthodox might well rest on this debate -- and I've already made clear that I don't believe that it does -- one would have to evaluate this broader view of TMH.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The TMH / DH Project - DH Sources
I'm gathering here a list of sources supporting the DH perspective, and well as some that I have considered but will not rely on much. Please mention additional sources in comments and I will update as appropriate.
The basic text I will use to identify the sources is
- Richard Elliot Friedman, "The Torah With Sources Revealed"
Other books on the DH include
- S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (I have the hard copy, but Google Books version here.
- J.E. Carpenter, The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction with Select Lists of Words (Google Books version here.
- Alexander Rofe, Introduction to Composition of the Pentateuch
- William Schneidewind, How the Bible Became a Book
Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible is somewhat helpful here, but it largely assumes the DH to be true and then tries to determine what we can learn about the different authors or sources.
The TMH / DH Project - TMH Sources
I'm gathering here a list of sources supporting the TMH perspective, and well as some that I have considered but will not rely on much. Please mention additional sources in comments and I will update as appropriate.
The primary sources seem to me to be traditional Jewish commentaries on the Torah itself. In addition to the Talmud and midrash, the following commentaries may be helpful.
Rashi
Ibn Ezra
Ramban
Radak
BTW, does anyone know of a single book or set of books including all these and other major commentaries, in either book or electronic form? (Judaica Press's Mikraoth Gedoloth covers the entire Tanach except for Levitivus - Deuteronomy, or 60% of what I am looking for.)
Modern Works Specifically Addressing the DH or Independent Reasons to Believe TMH.
- R. David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored: Divine Writ And Critical Responses
- R. Yitzchak Etshalom, Between the Lines of the Bible
- R. Lawrence Kelleman, Permission to Receive
- R. Judah David Eisenstein, Commentary on the Torah: A Defense of the Traditional Jewish Viewpoint.
- David Sykes, Patterns in Genesis (Unpublished PhD Thesis) [Can someone get a copy of this?]
- R. Mordechai Breuer, Pirkei Bereishit [Can someone get a copy of this in English?]
- R. Mordechai Breuer, Pirkei Moadot [Can someone get a copy of this in English?]
Commentators have recommended some other books that only touched on the DH is some short way or are not available in English.
Please let me know if you know of any other appropriate sources.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The TMH / DH Project - Discourse on the Method
Here's the way I tentatively plan to proceed. Please comment if you have any suggestions or criticisms.
The first thing to do is to decide on the methodology. I think I covered the ground for that that in my Bayes' theorem posts on the basics, the implications, and three more implications. For any particular fact or issue or anomaly in the text, we do three things:
- (1) assume that TMH is true and see how well TMH explains the issue.
- (2) assume that DH is true and see how well DH explains the issue.
- (3) compare (1) and (2).
A good and helpful argument is one where (1) is greater than (2), or (2) is greater than (1). These are the arguments that move the ball forward.
Second, we need to identify the specific versions of both theories. That is, we need a working definition of both TMH and DH.
For TMH, my initial thought it to use the claim that the Torah was written by God, physically written by Moses (with the possible exception of the last few lines of Deuteronomy), is instructions for living, and contains important insights (some explicit, so esoteric and hidden) about all sorts of important things.
For DH, my initial thought is to use Richard Elliot Friedman's book "The Torah With Sources Revealed." This book is scholarly, is recent, is widely available, classifies each verse into one of the sources, and notes its reasons much of the time in footnotes. Of course, other scholars will disagree with Friedman about the particular classifications of particular verses, but I'm not sure that these differences matter for our purposes of comparing the DH with TMH. If the overall theory holds, the fact that some particular verse might actually be P and not J is irrelevant. And if the theory does not hold overall, these debates are beside the point.
Friedman ends his introduction with the following: "Here, rather, is the evidence, for anyone to see, evaluate, acknowledge, or refute." (P. 31.) The book was written with exactly this purpose in mind.
Third, I need to figure out what specifically to look at. The Torah is a big book, with odd features, TMH is a simple theory with complex and extensive commentary, and the DH is itself a complex theory. We can't just point at the text as a whole or a stray verse here or there.
For the DH, Friedman makes a 7 arguments in the introduction to The Torah With Sources Revealed. Each source is largely internally consistent and different from the other sources in the following areas: (1) linguistic patterns (from different historical periods of Hebrew), (2) terminology, (3) content, (4) continuity of the texts, (5) connection with other parts of the Bible, (6) relationships to each other and to history, (7) and convergence of all these. That is, if we look at any particular J story, it will have lots of characteristics of J. And if we look at any particular characteristic of J, we will find it a lot in the J stories but not very much if at all elsewhere.
For TMH, we will look at the various kiruv-type books and arguments out there. These would include Aish HaTorah's Discovery program (my first introduction to some of these issues), the Kuzari argument, etc. At the same time, we will examine any traditional alternatives to DH. I think Rabbi David Weiss Halivni and Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom are the leading writers here. Any additional recommendation for books and sources would be welcome.
To examine all this critically, I think, takes three separate phases of examining the text.
In Phase 1, we will look at each particular story that DH claims comes from a separate source. If DH is correct, each will show lots of signs of that source, relatively few signs of other sources, and will be continuous with earlier and later parts of that source. If this is part of a joined story, we will see how well the unjoined part of the story stands. And at the same time, we will examine traditional TMH commentary on and explanations for anything anomalous. Little Foxling has started essentially this, although I think he is not going to continue with it. The purpose here is mainly to examine how well each story fits into a particular DH source.
In Phase 2, we will look at each particular characteristic of each source and see how it holds across the Torah as a whole. We will also see if the usage is related to content. And we will see what traditional TMH commentary has to say. (For example, Friedman argues that the phrase "gathered to his people" as a euphemism for death occurs 11 times and all 11 are in P. We will look at these 11 times as well as other words mentioning death and see what all this tells us.) The purpose here is mainly to see how well each characteristic of each source explains the sources as a whole.
In Phase 3, we will look at the TMH arguments. These obviously do not break along the DH lines. Instead, they will each cover a particular issue or fact, and each one needs to be critically examined.
These phases do not have to proceed in order but can be examined simultaneously.
That is my current thinking on the best way to proceed. Any comments, criticisms, or alternative or additional approaches would be appreciated.
The TMH / DH Project - Request for Comments
In this ongoing project, I would like to request that readers make comments. Obviously, my analysis might be wrong on a particular topic, and if so, let me know.
But there is another good reason for comments. Neither I nor anyone also has access to all of the information bearing on a particular topic. For any particular topic, some reader might have his or her own interpretation or understanding of the issue that sheds some light on the question. Or might know of some other ancient document that is similar or different. Or might know of a commentary by a more obscure traditional commentator or an article in some academic journal. One of the huge benefits of this sort of blog is that it is a device for aggregating widely dispersed information. And that only works if people comment. So comment away.
The TMH / DH Project - Bias
Before beginning this project, I thought I would add a quick note about my own personal bias and what I can do to try to minimize this problem.
We all have biases, and there is no way anyone can approach any significant question in a completely neutral way. (It is not even clear that there is such a neutral way.) The best we can to is acknowledge our biases, critically examine arguments without letting the bias get in the way, and subject our conclusions to the critical evaluation of others who disagree with us. So here goes.
My own belief is that the evidence for the DH is pretty strong. However, this is not a solid dogmatic belief. I base it on having read the Torah (obviously) and some more popular works about Bible Criticism. The arguments seem convincing. Also, the DH is accepted by pretty much all of academia (with huge debates about some details) some Orthodox Jews, and most Christian groups, including the Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations. In contrast, the only people who advocate TMH are mainly Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. Moreover, no one advocates even an early date for the Torah (say, before King Solomon) or a single author (even if not God). I have also found most of the kiruv type arguments to be less than convincing, although several have some persuasive force.
However, I have not thoroughly investigated all these claims. Advocates of the DH often make assertions that I have not checked. And of course there are oodles of traditional Jewish commentary offering explanations for anomalous verses or stories in the Torah, most of which I have not checked either. This subject is complicated and important, and I for one am not comfortable reaching any conclusion without having analyzed this material in much greater detail. (Hence, this project.) I recognize my bias, but I also recognize that my conclusions, although based on a fair amount of good evidence and argument, are still tentative, especially when I realize how much important evidence and argument is out there than I have not considered.
I routinely put my own biases aside in evaluating arguments. I am a practicing appellate lawyer. I spend a huge amount of time doing exhaustive legal research and making legal arguments in great detail. My briefs do not go to juries; they (usually) go to three-judge appellate panels. My audience is very smart, very sophisticated, and very thorough. As a result, I spend much of my time critically examining arguments that both support and oppose my position. And I frequently decide that arguments that would be helpful to my client are not likely to prevail. I have a great deal of experience in analyzing my arguments and other arguments from different perspectives, and I hope to employ those skills here.
Finally, I will subject my conclusions to the critical comments responses of others. (See next post for details.)
Introducing the TMH / DH Project
I am formally launching the Torah Min Hashamayim / Documentary Hypothesis Project. In a very long-term ongoing series of blog posts, I will comprehensively examine and analyze, in detail, the arguments for and against both Torah Min Hashamayim and the Documentary Hypothesis. I have been meaning to do this for myself for a long time, and this blog will provide a good opportunity to do so.
This issue is central for many people's religious beliefs and practices. If the evidence shows that TMH is much more likely than DH, one should be Orthodox or something very close. And if the evidence shows the opposite, one should probably not be Orthodox.
Of course, there are some people for whom this debate is not important at all. These people have such strong prior beliefs about either TMH or the non-divinity of the Torah, that they just do not see any reason to take part in such a silly debate. This project is not for them.
I will start with several introductory posts discussing what I am going to examine and how I am going to examine it. Stay tuned . . .
Posts
