Morphemics

Meet J, E, P, and D

This follow up to the Documentary Hypothesis post was entered last Sunday. It was divided between an argument against Mosaic authorship and an argument for the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). I responded to the first part over there, saying that I would save a response of the second until now. My first response to the DH was intended to show the negative redemptive-historical implications of the DH. In response to the aforementioned follow up, I defended against the idea that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (although, in that thread, there was no attempt made to show that he had). The discussion also landed over here where it ended up looking into the epistemological assumptions behind the various positions, especially those of Smijer, the author of the original post. This post will focus on critiquing the merits of the DH. The following post will attempt to show a viable literary alternative.

There is a limit to what can be accomplished here. I cannot demonstrate that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, nor can I show when it was written. As a further limitation, I will restrict the focus to Genesis, particularly the passages that Smijer used. If I can tip the accepted evidence in favor of a single author for Genesis, it would still be very easy to sit back and claim multiple authorships and redaction for the other four books.

There should be no doctrinal reasons for rejecting the DH. A theory of unified literary structure is not the provenance of conservatism. It is also embraced by liberal scholarship. All it can prove to the mutual satisfaction of both parties is that someone knew how to write a good story. The further this literary structure is studied, the larger the wedge between original preconceptions. This is especially true of the historical narrative. Greater appreciation for the story telling techniques will lead to greater skepticism that the events could have occurred this way, if at all. In other words, the better the structure, the more likely that it is fictional. For the Christian, however, structured narrative should pose no barrier to belief. The record of redemptive history and the events of redemptive history have the same Divine Author.

The focus here is literary structure, not inspiration. Those who do believe scripture to be inspired will already have the authorship question settled. The NT divides the OT into “Moses (the Pentateuch), the Prophets (including the historical books- called the “former prophets” in Jewish scripture), and the Psalms (including the Wisdom literature). But enough of that. Not all parties in the current debate agree on scriptural inspiration, so, in deference, direct biblical testimony will not be entered into evidence.

The DH is an attempt to trace the origins of the Pentateuch by means of literary analysis. It has some presuppositions: Religion is the product of man and, as such, evolves with him. This evolution occurs both as a whole and within the various religions. It can stagnate in a particular religion or even take a step backward. The general progression includes animism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, and finally, enlightened atheism. Concurrent with this position is the rejection of any form of revelation or scriptural inspiration.

It is agreed that the OT is a [human] product of the ancient Jewish peoples. How do the evolutionary presuppositions of religion apply? The stage at the place and time of their early history was between polytheism and monotheism. There were still several gods, but one was only obligated to worship the god of his particular nation. Conquest of a nation implied conquest of their god. [It should be noted that this snapshot is in line with the biblical record. The current dispute is whether God was simply a member of the Canaanite pantheon.] Included among these nation-gods were Yahweh and Elohim. Israel, in its earliest form, would have been no more than an expedient confederation of various people groups. They would be joined politically and defensively, but each group would retain its own god, worship style, and literature. Eventually a unified religion is seen as a necessary national asset. In order to bring about this unified religious expression, a priestly cult is invented along with a narrative explaining its “ancient” origins. The narrative is not a complete fabrication but includes the splicing together of various sources. J and E material is blended with the newly added P material. The D material provides the link to subsequent history.

The positive evidence for this scenario is found in nothing more than a literary analysis of the Pentateuch in its current form. Note, however, no manuscript evidence has been found to suggest that it ever existed in any other form or forms. The DH starts with the theory of religious evolution and analyzes the Pentateuch accordingly. Does any of this prove that it is wrong? No. There could be some manuscripts hiding somewhere or they could have been destroyed. Admittedly, their current absence does not prove that they never existed. Even if the complete story of religious evolution is not accepted, there really was a Canaanite pantheon. It is not unreasonable to hypothesize confederations of convenience. The question is whether, in light of the viability of the traditional account of ancient Jewish history, such a hypothesis is necessary in this case. It is possible to believe in such an evolutionary account of the Jewish religion; to believe that it was synthesized by priests with an invented narrative, but to reject the cut and paste notion of the JEDP proponents. All by way of saying that any success in demonstrating the unlikelihood of the DH is not going to translate into positive evidence for Mosaic authorship, redemptive history, or divine revelation. Just so we know where we are here.

Smijer offers two examples from Genesis for our consideration: the flood narrative and the parallel narratives of Abraham’s lie concerning his wife Sarah. Let’s consider the first. The DH alleges that this is a combination of J and P sources; that, at one time, there existed at least two separate flood narratives that were later combined by a redactor.
The narrative is not straightforward, at least, not by modern standards. It keeps doubling back and repeating itself. It is not, however, quite as bad as suggested when Smijer, pretending to agree with a single author theory, claims that this author repeats himself “practically every other verse in this story.” That’s not fair to the DH.

According to the DH, one of the original narratives refers to Yahweh, the other to Elohim. [Incidentally, it is easy enough to see this variation in English- the translations are ‘LORD’ and ‘God’ respectively.] Allegedly, these sources can contradict each other. An example is given under "Duration of the Flood." In one account, "the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights;" in the other, "the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days." Do I really have to spell out how these are reconciled? Smijer makes the further claim that the name of God is alternated with each repetition. That would make for an easy illustration of the DH, but it’s just not the case. The name changes do not always coincide with the repetitions. For instance, Genesis 7:11-24 repeats and expands upon vs. 6-10. In vs. 6, Noah is 600 years old when the flood waters come upon the earth. Vs. 11 is more precise. Noah is 600 years, 2 months, and 17 days (this might also mean something like February 17 when Moses was 600). This time the reference to the flood of waters coming upon the earth is also more descriptive. Here, the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens are opened. The rain falls for forty days and nights. Both of these verses set the stage for their respective repetition. In both accounts, Noah, his family, and the animals enter the ark. There are variations. The first account distinguishes between clean and unclean animals; the second records the names of Noah’s sons. In the first account, Noah waits for seven days on the ark before the flood actually starts. There is a simple statement that the flood began. The second account skips any mention of the waiting period, but it leads into an expanded account of the flood proper in vs. 17-24.

The biggest problem to the theory that each source had its own name for God is, in both accounts, Noah is acting under the command of Elohim. Immediately after the record of Elohim’s command in the second narrative, Yahweh shuts Noah in. But, if we are to follow the DH, Yahweh has been misplaced. The statement would fit perfectly into the second repetition if the name had only been Elohim. The account of the flood proper, immediately following the statement about Yahweh, doesn’t mention God at all. When he is mentioned again at the beginning of chapter 8, where the waters begin to subside, it is Elohim. The source theory is not matching up with the observation about the doublets.

If both parts of this doublet use Elohim, it is possible that the flood narrative is still composed of J and P sources but that the latter likes to use repetition. This seriously begs the question. The simplest explanation is to admit that a single source is responsible for the whole thing. But that‘s not what the DH does. It sticks to the theory and does a hatchet job to make it fit. Get into the more advanced forms and divisions are made even within sentences. The part about Yahweh shutting them in is from the J source, even if it has been stripped of its original context. The repetition of Elohim can be explained in one of two ways: redactor error or a third source. The E source just happened to use the same name as the P source. It gets less and less likely.

The second example is that of the parallel prevaricating patriarch narratives, which constitute an example of doublets on a larger scale. The evidence for multiple authorships is sleek: the first uses Yahweh, the second Elohim. Smijer makes his own observations to question the veracity of these accounts, but these depart from an analysis of the literary structure and are therefore irrelevant to the point.

The next post will consider both of these narratives again in the broader context of Genesis with an attempt to offer a viable alternate interpretation to the literary structure.

Posted by kcourter at agosto 19, 2004 9:28 PM