Documentary Hypothesis or no?

[kmkemp]

Which side do you fall on? Why?

I was recently at a Bible study that I've been attending for some time. The pastor literally said that 99% of all bible scholars believe in the Documentary Hypothesis. That seems like a load of crap to me. His reasoning was that Moses couldn't write about his own death and that there are four different words describing God. That seems like weak evidence to me. I think it's a given that Moses didn't write about his own death, but that hardly proves or even lends credence to four different authors. How many words are used to describe Christ in the New Testament by a single author? I haven't counted, but I would wager that it is more than 4, even by Jesus himself. Further evidence is that I believe that only one of the four names given in those books is actually a proper name, the rest more like titles. I think he left out the evidence that most scholars would point to first, that being different writing styles.

 

[RevOxley_501]

its very likely...because of the reasons above and the fact that collaborations are easier (oral tradition is where the mosaic books began anyway, very likely there were hundreds of authors)

 

[kmkemp]

It's clear that Moses didn't create all of that by himself. The events cover thousands of years (at least). Clearly, it was the result of oral tradition, but that is not what the Documentary Hypothesis claims. The claim is that Moses is not the one that actually put it into writing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, I think that pastor's right. The scholars who don't ascribe to some general theory of redaction for the Torah are few and far between.

 

[sojourner]

The blending of traditions and the inconsistencies in historical attestation point to multiple authors. Plus, the stories just don't read like an autobiography.

 

[RevOxley_501]

yea, its always "moses did this moses did that" never "I, Moses did this"

 

[rojse]

Which side do you fall on? Why?

I was recently at a Bible study that I've been attending for some time. The pastor literally said that 99% of all bible scholars believe in the Documentary Hypothesis. That seems like a load of crap to me. His reasoning was that Moses couldn't write about his own death and that there are four different words describing God. That seems like weak evidence to me. I think it's a given that Moses didn't write about his own death, but that hardly proves or even lends credence to four different authors. How many words are used to describe Christ in the New Testament by a single author? I haven't counted, but I would wager that it is more than 4, even by Jesus himself. Further evidence is that I believe that only one of the four names given in those books is actually a proper name, the rest more like titles. I think he left out the evidence that most scholars would point to first, that being different writing styles.

I suppose you could do statistical analyses of the different chapters, assuming that you question the authorship of different chapters and not paragraphs or sentences.

You could work out the average word length, the average sentence length, and all sorts of other statistical calculations to get an idea on the writing style. I want to see something that discusses authorship on that basis, rather than the fact that there is four different titles for God, before saying how many authors there are.

 

[sojourner]

I suppose you could do statistical analyses of the different chapters, assuming that you question the authorship of different chapters and not paragraphs or sentences.

You could work out the average word length, the average sentence length, and all sorts of other statistical calculations to get an idea on the writing style. I want to see something that discusses authorship on that basis, rather than the fact that there is four different titles for God, before saying how many authors there are.

There is significant study in that area. It's called "form criticism." However, I would add that different nomenclature reflects different attitudes that suggest different authors. The nomenclature issue is part of the evidence.

Chapters were not originally included in the writings. They are a later interpolation. Just in Genesis, there is evidence, sometimes from paragraph to paragraph, that shows a later redaction of two or more authors.

 

[*Paul*]

Which side do you fall on? Why?

I was recently at a Bible study that I've been attending for some time. The pastor literally said that 99% of all bible scholars believe in the Documentary Hypothesis. That seems like a load of crap to me. His reasoning was that Moses couldn't write about his own death and that there are four different words describing God. That seems like weak evidence to me. I think it's a given that Moses didn't write about his own death, but that hardly proves or even lends credence to four different authors. How many words are used to describe Christ in the New Testament by a single author? I haven't counted, but I would wager that it is more than 4, even by Jesus himself. Further evidence is that I believe that only one of the four names given in those books is actually a proper name, the rest more like titles. I think he left out the evidence that most scholars would point to first, that being different writing styles.

I'm with you brother, I don't buy this redactor or JEP (D) hypothesis. I believe it was the authors choice inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the way he did. Why not vary between saying the personal Yahweh and the general Elohim sometimes and for him to use his impulse where the choice is theologically open to use a run of one expression or another or again a free alternation of the two. Look at the book of Jonah, surely too short to be of multiple authors and yet he uses Jehovah and Elohim interchangably.


Jonah 4:4-7 Then said the LORD, Doest thou well to be angry?
So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.
And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah , that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd. But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

Also the usage of other ancients supports this for example Baal and Hadad are used interchangably on the Ugaritic Hadad tablet (read G. R Driver, Canaanite myths and legends, 1956 p70-72) also there are multiple designations of Osiris on the stele of Ikhernofret.
To treat alternative expressions for a given idea simply as hallmarks of different authors is to miss the nuance of a word, for exampel to "make" in the sense of to cut a deal (hebrew = karath - gen 15:18; 21:27,32; 26:28 & 31:44) ((supposedly JE)) a covenant highlights the historic moment and manner of it's making, to "make" in the sense of to give (hebrew = nathan - gen 9:12; 17:2) ((supposedly P)) a covenant establishes the soverignty and grace of it's Initiator and to "establish (hebrew = quwm - gen 6:18; 9:9;11,17; 17:7, 19:21" ((also supposedly P)) it puts a stress on His faithfulness in giving it effect.

Anyway I trust His Word that it is given to us as He intended.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Look at the book of Jonah, surely too short to be of multiple authors and yet he uses Jehovah and Elohim interchangably.

Actually, the Jonah story is not too short to be the work of more than one author.

 

[Smoke]

Which side do you fall on? Why?

Solidly on the side of the documentary hypothesis.

I was recently at a Bible study that I've been attending for some time. The pastor literally said that 99% of all bible scholars believe in the Documentary Hypothesis. That seems like a load of crap to me. His reasoning was that Moses couldn't write about his own death and that there are four different words describing God. That seems like weak evidence to me. I think it's a given that Moses didn't write about his own death, but that hardly proves or even lends credence to four different authors.

Supposing that the Bible was actually divinely inspired, why couldn't Moses have written about his own death? However, it would be odd under any circumstances for him to write that no one knows "to this day" where Moses is buried.

But why insist that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, anyway? That's just a pious tradition, and the books don't of the Pentateuch don't name their author. If you accept the pious tradition that Moses is the author of the Written Torah, why not accept the other part of the tradition, that he's the author of the Oral Torah, as well?

It's true that Jesus repeatedly refers to Moses as a lawgiver, saying that Moses allowed this or taught that, but Moses could have been a lawgiver without being the actual author of the Torah. (And you may hear me say that "Matthew" said this or that, not because I really believe Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name, but because that's how we conventionally refer to the author.)

How many words are used to describe Christ in the New Testament by a single author? I haven't counted, but I would wager that it is more than 4, even by Jesus himself. Further evidence is that I believe that only one of the four names given in those books is actually a proper name, the rest more like titles. I think he left out the evidence that most scholars would point to first, that being different writing styles.

There's much more to it than names of God; in fact, the different authors and redactors don't all have their own distinctive names for God. Pick up a copy of Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman if you'd like a readable introduction to the documentary hypothesis.

 

[Smoke]

yea, its always "moses did this moses did that" never "I, Moses did this"

Not to mention, "Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth."

 

[*Paul*]

Actually, the Jonah story is not too short to be the work of more than one author.

Ok I guess it's not impossible, this short message isn't either, my wife will add the full stop.

 

[*Paul*]

I'm with you brother, I don't buy this redactor or JEP (D) hypothesis. I believe it was the authors choice inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the way he did. Why not vary between saying the personal Yahweh and the general Elohim sometimes and for him to use his impulse where the choice is theologically open to use a run of one expression or another or again a free alternation of the two. Look at the book of Jonah, surely too short to be of multiple authors and yet he uses Jehovah and Elohim interchangably.

Did *Paul* write all of this or did someone (maybe a mod) act as a redactor. Notice how *Paul* uses Yahweh and Jehovah interchangably in this quote, I propose that the final emboldened sentence was written by a later source after *Paul* had logged off.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Did *Paul* write all of this or did someone (maybe a mod) act as a redactor. Notice how *Paul* uses Yahweh and Jehovah interchangably in this quote, I propose that the final emboldened sentence was written by a later source after *Paul* had logged off.

Well, sometimes there is evidence for supposed redaction, and sometimes it is baseless speculation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was recently at a Bible study that I've been attending for some time. The pastor literally said that 99% of all bible scholars believe in the Documentary Hypothesis.

So, on the one hand we have Biblical scholarship, on the other hand we have you - and I am willing to bet that you have never read a single serious work on the Documentary Hypothesis. When faced with these two options, I would recommend that those interested avail themselves of the scholarship.

 

[kmkemp]

So, on the one hand we have Biblical scholarship, on the other hand we have you - and I am willing to bet that you have never read a single serious work on the Documentary Hypothesis. When faced with these two options, I would recommend that those interested avail themselves of the scholarship.

I would surely take that bet except that any work I've read would no doubt fall under the non-serious category. =)

Perhaps you should re-read the OP and realize that I was taking a poll to see what kind of results I would get here. I am willing to bet that it doesn't come close to the 99% that the pastor claimed, at the very least. (yes, that was an objective bet.. usually the way that it works, btw =P)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would surely take that bet except that any work I've read would no doubt fall under the non-serious category. =)

As does the poll. =)

Perhaps you should re-read the OP and realize that I was taking a poll to see what kind of results I would get here.

Frankly, it doesn't improve upon rereading.

I am willing to bet that it doesn't come close to the 99% that the pastor claimed, at the very least.

Why should it? Why should a poll of people, many if not most of whom are devoid of anything resembling Biblical scholarship, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the views of "99% of all bible scholars"? Certainly such a poll is worthless as a means of judging the DH. At best it gives an indication of the extent of the ignorance about it and the doctrinal bias against it. In other words, it says more about the 'voters' than about Wellhausen.

 

[kiwimac]

It is likely the Ezra was the actual author / editor who brought together the various threads that made up the oral tradition. I recommend Bloom's the Book of J as an interesting look at the Documentary hypothesis.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is likely the Ezra was the actual author / editor who brought together the various threads that made up the oral tradition.

It is a viable hypothesis popularized by Friedman. There is nothing 'likely' about it. Confusing 'possible' with 'likely' is classic pretense all too common when dealing wit antiquity.