In the previous post I had considered two passages from Genesis that had been offered as evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). This was limited to pointing out what was wrong with the original analysis. Now, I want to consider the structure of each of these passages in the context of Genesis. The most that I can hope to demonstrate is that the origins of the book of Genesis are best explained under a single author. Within the parameters of this post, I cannot demonstrate that this author was Moses or that he wrote the rest of the Pentateuch. I cannot demostrate that this is an historical record rather than a work of fiction. For the sake of argument, I will write as though there was only one author. I will propose a literary structure for the book and the specific passages and then leave it to the reader to decide whether or not this structure is plausible and, if so, whether or not it is best explained by a single author. I will call the author "Moses." [Feel free to use a Bible because I don't want to type out all the verses.]
The book of Genesis comprises a prologue and a series of ten "toledots." These can be identified by the phrase, "these are the generations of____." They are as follows:
1) the heavens and the earth (2:4)
2) Adam (5:1)
3) Noah (6:9)
4) the sons of Noah (10:1)
5) Shem (11:10)
6) Terah (11:27)
7) Ishmael (25:12)
8) Isaac (25:19)
9) Esau (36:1)
10) Jacob (37:2).
They range anywhere from narrative biography to genealogy. As a rule, the subject matter of the toledot is not that identified in the title but whatever is immediatley following. For instance, that of Terah is largely about the life of his son Abraham. The main exception is that of Noah, which actually is about Noah (there is, immediately following the title, a short genealogical note mentioning his three sons). Most, if not all of the toledots are linked by a hook device. Some are more easy than others to indentify. For those that aren't so obvious, other suggestions are welcome. The hook device is found at the end of the previous toledot (or the at the end of the prologue in the case of the first toledot). It is a brief reference either to the subject matter, opening key words, or the title of the next toledot. These hooks, in the order of the toledots, are:
1) "work"- God's rest from work (2:2) and the statement that there was as yet "no man to work the ground" (2:5). It might also be the title itself as referenced in 2:1.
2) Seth and Enosh (4:26; 5:6). This hook is a short preview of the full genealogy with which the toledot opens.
3) Parallel statements of God's intent to destroy all life on the earth; along with a mention of Noah (6:5-8; 9-17).
4) This toledot opens with the genealogies of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who are featured in the previous pericope (9:18-29).
5) This toledot consists exclusivley of a genealogy of Shem. The hook wraps around the preceding narrative of the Tower of Babel to another genealogy of Shem through a different descendant.
6) "Abram, Nahor, and Haran" (11:26; 27).
7) This could be Ishmael himself (25:9). I think it more likely to be the mention of the sons Keturah bore Abraham (25:1,2) compared with the note that Ishmael was the son that Hagar bore to Abraham (25:12).
8) This hooks links to the previous hook (the toledot of Ishmael is very short). This time, there is no mention of who bore Isaac to Abraham; instead, "Abraham fathered Isaac."
9) Esau himself (35:29).
10) Jacob himself (37:1).
The hook device for the toledot of Shem was found in the double genealogy. This is another common feature found throughout Genesis: parallel genealogies in which the chosen line is always found in the second. The toledot of the heavens and the earth ends by tracing Adam's descendants through Cain. The toldeot of Adam begins by tracing his descendents through Seth. The two Shem genealogies split between Eber's two sons. The first follows Joktan and the second follows Peleg leading to Abraham. There is a note in the first that, in Peleg's days, the earth was divided. This genealogy, along with the genealogies of Shem's brothers Ham and Japheth, is also known as the "Table of Nations." The division that scatters these descendants across the earth is recorded in the Tower narrative found between the two Shem genealogies. The toledot of Ishmael consists of a genelaogy of his descendants. It is placed immediatley prior to the toledot of Isaac, which, although not a genealogy, is a record of Isaac's sons Jacob and Esau. The same thing happens with the toledot of Esau. It is a genealogy set just prior to final narrative of Jacob's descendants.
This is as far as I will go with the structure of the book as a whole. Within each toledot are various structuring devices. Some are more common than others, some even overlap others. I will only focus on the narratives in question. The first is the flood narrative found in the toledot of Noah. This toledot consist of two parts, the second being the account of Noah's vineyard. My only interest is in the first. The evidence alleged in favor of the DH was that this narrative consisted of doublets that consistently alternated between Yahweh and Elohim. Each of any pair of doublets was explained as being from a different source, either J or P, idenified by the use of the divine name. I have agreed that the doublets exist but have already shown that, in this case, the name theory does not fit. Now, I would like to take this same evidence, doublets and altenations of the divine name, and interpret it in line with a single author hypothesis.
The flood narrative consists of a series of five doublets or parallel passages. The existence of the first has already been explained by the hook device. They are not all merely repetitions of the same event. The first three consist of repitition and expansion: the same chronological time is repeated and developed in the second section. In 6:5-8, Yahweh plans to wipe out every living thing on the earth. It is noted that "Noah found favor in the eyes of Yahweh." In 6:9-17, this is repeated (with a name change to Elohim) along with instructions for Noah to build an ark. The second doublet is found in 6:18-22 and 7:1-5. In the first half, Elohim tells Noah to bring one pair of every kind of animal onto the ark In the second half, Yahweh tells Noah to bring seven pairs of clean animals onto the ark. This is additional information, not a contradiction. He also explains why: because of the upcoming flood. The third doublet is found in 7:6-10 and 11-24. In the first half, Noah actually takes his family and the animals onto the ark and waits for the rain. In the second half, this information is repeated along with a narrative of the flood proper. This is the doublet in which both halves refer to Noah obeying the command of Elohim. The second does contain the note that "Yahweh shut him in."
The fourth doublet, found in 8:1-12 and 13-19, does not repeat the same time period. The second half is chronologically subsequent to the first. This time, however, the events of the first half foreshadow the events of the second. The receding waters of the first half parallel the dried land of the second. The dove, first bringing an olive leaf and then failing to return to the ark, predicts the exit from the ark in the second. The fifth doublet, found in 8:20-22 and 9:1-17, may either be in chronological sequence, recording God on two separate occassions promising never agian to wipe out all life; or, it could be another case of repitition and expansion. If it is the latter, then the events of 8:20-22 actually come after those of 9:1-7 (they would parallel 9:8-17). Once again, each half of the doublet uses a different name for God. The first half uses Yahweh; the second, Elohim.
If there is a chronological switch in the fifth doublet, it may be explained by another structuring device that also overlays the flood narrative: the chiasm. The name is taken from the Greek letter "Chi," which looks something like an "X." The chiasm was a common structuring device in ancient literature. It could range from a single sentence to the outline of an entire book, or anything in between. An example of the smaller kind can be found in the flood narrative, 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." The second phrase reverses the order of the first. The pattern is ABCC'B'A'. This pattern can be extended indefinitely and often includes a mid-point: ABCDC'B'A'. While the smaller chiasms tend to be a matter of style, larger chiasms serve an interpretive function. In modern writing, the main idea is commonly found close to the beginning, such as in a topic sentence. In ancient writing, the main idea is found at the midpoint of the chiasm. While reverse repitition of single words serves for smaller chiasms, larger ones have more options. The halves may be identified by the use of key words or phrases, synthetical or even antithetical themes, or parallel narratives of the same or substantially similar subject matter.
The flood chiasm is outlined as follows:
A) Genealogy-Shem, Ham, and Japheth (6:9,10).
B) Key words: God promises to destroy all flesh on the earth (6:11-17).
C) Noah told to take the animals onto the ark and to provide them with food (6:18-22).
D) Divine name is Yahweh. Instructions regarding clean animals (7:1-5).
E) Entering the ark (7:6-10).
F) Flood begins (7:11-16).
G) Waters rise- mountains covered (7:17-20).
H) Main point: Death of every living thing (7:21-24).
G') Waters recede mountains uncovered (8:1-12).
F') Flood ends (8:13,14).
E') Exiting the ark (8:15-19).
D') Divine name is Yahweh. Noah is offering the clean animals (8:20-22).
C') Animals delivered into Noah's hand. He may use them for food (9:1-7).
B') Key words: God promises not to destroy all flesh on the earth (9:8-17).
A') Genealogy-Shem, Ham, and Japheth (9:18,19).
Notes- The possible chronological switch between 8:20-22 and 9:1-7 is best explained by the positions expected for D' and C'. Other than the single statement that "Yahweh shut him in," this name is only found in D and D' (it also occurs in the hook, but this stands outside of the chiasm). The switch from "Elohim" is nothing more than a means to provide a key word for identifying these sections of the chiasm. Sometimes a particular divine name is required, but this needs to be determined from the context, not from a structural analysis. The use of key words is important in single narrative chiasms. The most common means of communicating the Bible, or for that matter, any kind of narrative in the original tongue was verbally. The sounds of the words were intended to be heard in a specific order in order to clue the listener in on the possible repitition of a theme. Identifying enough of the outer themes was essential to identifying the main point.
Chiasms can also be larger than a single narrative and be used to tie together several related stories. The first major section of the toledot of Terah consists of a chiasm:
A) Abram obeys God in faith [leaving home] (12:1-9).
B) Abram and Sarai in the court of a Pharaoh (12:10-20).
C) Stories of Lot and Sodom (13,14).
D) Ishmael (16).
E) God's covenant with Abraham and his offspring. (17:1-14).
D') Ishmael (17:15-27).
C') Stories of Lot and Sodom (19).
B') Abraham and Sarah in the court of Abimelech (20).
A') Abraham obeys God in faith [sacrifice of Isaac] (22).
Notes- The word or themes that define a particular chiasm are not necessarily the main point of their respective pericopes. "Ishmael, " for example, is simply a key word that only occurs at DD' in this chiasm. He is mentioned again within the chiasm (21), but not by name. Gaps are acceptable. Not every narrative has to match up as long as some do and in the right order (a little bit of variation is allowed, but the overall structure cannot be lost). It is entirely possible that Moses filled this in in greater detail. I have seen chiastic schemes suggesting that he did. In my opinion, it's better to be safe and throw out everything that doesn't seem obvious or that I am not equipped to notice. For instance, many chiastic indicators are available only in the original language. Even worse, the language of translation might indicate markers that aren't really there. Since the idea is to determine author intent, it's best to underestimate. The main function in chiasms of this size and type is to emphasize the central narrative (E).
I have not tried to demonstrate the historicity of Genesis or whether it is connected in any way to the rest of the Pentateuch. For all anyone can tell from this, the DH might be true for the other four books. The sole purpose of this post is to show that a single author hypothesis for the book of Genesis is not unreasonable. True, it is possible that a later redactor could have the skill required to get this level of organization by piecing separate works together. But it is not as likely. Besides, this begs the question of the central conceit for the DH. Supposedly, the lack of order is so obvious that liberal scholars have no choice but to postutlate multiple sources. Evidentally, doublets and divine name variations can have no other explanation. However, if I have succesfully shown that they can have another explanation, that such things may even be the rule in Hebrew writing, then the idea of a later redactor seems to be an unecessary complication.
Posted by kcourter at agosto 23, 2004 12:45 PMI'm not going to respond to the toledot superstructure to which you refer, or it's putative use of hooks, because that would entail far too much research. I see that as a weaker case than the argument from chiasms (my inner biologist wants to name them chiasmata; lol). I want to respond to the two chiams you present.
My first instinct was to dismiss the argument outright, on the grounds that chiasmata can too easily be the product of selective attention. Here is an excellent essay on the seemingly unintentional chiasm in the Book of Mormon, with an example of how they can be found even in a programming manual when the subject matter is repetitive. On first thought, I would point out that the doublets in these texts are quintessentially repetitive, and leave it at that.
However, on closer examination, I found a qualitative difference between your case as it applied to the Flood narrative and that of Abraham and Sarah. I reviewed the case of Abraham and Sarah, and I noticed a couple of things that convinced me that I was right to write off that seeming chiasm on the basis of repetition:
What I noticed in the flood narrative, however, was that there were far fewer bits of the narrative that were unrelated to the structure of the chiasm, and no major anti-palindromic elements that would break the structure. However, I don't think that the chiasm does a very good job of supporting a one-author hypothesis. I think it fits better with a hypothesis that the chiasm was P's work, or was a present in the oral tradition P was built from, and that the redactor skillfully matched J elements with the corresponding P elements in order to tie the two narratives together.
To show why, I will have to break down each element of the chiasm and show how it fits the hypothesis of a P chiasm.
A & A': I think this is questionable as part of the chiasm, as it appears to me that A' (Gen 9:18,19) is actually another toledot, introducing the story of Noah's vineyard, and does not properly fit with the flood narrative. If we do count it, it goes against my hypothesis, since A is attributed to P, and A' is attributed to J.
Conclusion: questionably against my view and for yours.
B & B': Both passages are attributed to P:
Positive toward my view.
C & C': Both passages are attributed to P:
Positive toward my view.
D & D': On Divine name is Yahweh: both passages are attributed to J, however, many other passages use YHWH as the divine name, so this doesn't proplery belong as an element in the chiasm.
On instructions for clean animals, D speaks about both clean and unclean animals in order to make a distinction on how either group is to be loaded into the ark. D' only speaks of clean animals, because those are the ones being sacrificed. As part of a J narrative, this doesn't seem chiasmatic as much as it would seem that J is explaining why the extra numbers of clean animals are taken on board.
Neutral toward both views (IMHO).
E and E': Both of these elements have a counterpart in P, but only one has a counterpart in J. E is present at 7:1-5 in J. E is present at 7:13-16 in P, and E' is present in P at 8:15-19. So this element is chiasmal only in P.
Positive toward my view.
F and F': This is chiasmatic in both P and J, but chiasmatic structure isn't needed to understand either case. If the flood had never ended, we would all be living on a boat.
G and G': I will break this down into G1 and G2, and their primes, because the mountain element must be treated separately from the abatement element if the J/P structure is to be apparent:
G1 and G1': Mountains are split. G1 is J material and G1' is P material
Negative to my view, and positive toward your view.
G2 and G2': the rise and abatemnt of waters are, like the beginning and ending of the flood, natural palindromes (not necessarily conscious chiasms). Both are J material
Neutral to both views.
H: H is the main idea, so it should have no substructure. Nevertheless, JEPD scholars attribute 7:21 to P and 7:22-23 to J. This attribution, I'm sure, has a fair degree of uncertainty to it, so I would not measure it a net gain for my view.
Neutral to both views.
I hope this adequately shows how, in the case of Abraham and Sarah, we are not justified in assuming that the pattern we are able to find represents an author's intent to create a chiasm, and that in the case of the flood narrative, the presence of a chiasm can be explained just as well as an artifact of one of two hands as it can as an artifact of only one hand.
Posted by: smijer at agosto 23, 2004 6:14 PM"The presence of a chiasm can be explained just as well as an artifact of one of two hands as it can as an artifact of only one hand." My point exactly. Normally, when considering any literary work, the ruling assumption is, "Somebody must have written this." The DH claims that by performing nothing more than a literary and structural analysis of the work, we can override this assumption. However, if once it is admitted that the structural evidence can be explained just as well either way, then what reason is there for not adopting the ruling assumption? Don't bother, I'll answer. The proponents of the DH enter with a prejudice toward a particular view of religious history and development. This, and not the literary evidence, changes the balance for what may be considered the ruling assumption. I might buy it if there were any external evidence for their original prejudice.
Since you won't respond to the toledot superstructure by virtue of "far too much research," then I declare victory on that score by default. I see the point in the link to the Book of Mormon. Chiasms can be found anywhere if there's enough random repitition and if the elements of the chiasm are kept simple enough. But then, none of the examples I offered are anything like that.
Concerning the Abraham chiasm, you write it off "on the basis of repitition." That's what chiasms are supposed to do. Repitition is only a problem if the unique elements of each chiastic pair keep popping up in other places. It's not that repitition occurs, but where it occurs. Nor is rarity of palindromic elements a problem in a chiasm of this length. Remember its primary function: to emphasize the material in the middle. It would be sufficient to the function of this chiasm if the only relevant elements were BDED'B'. The elements next to the center would need to act as an inclusio to mark it off. So there could be no room between these. It would not work for the structure to be ABEB'A'. This would assume that C, D, C', and D' were unrelated elements. There would be no way to tell which one of these was being singled out for emphasis. And if it were a simple inclusio, we would only know that E was a unique pericope; we would not know that it had any special importance. Structurally, all that is needed is a central narrative within an inclusio and two other narratives obviously similar to one another on either side. The remaining material can be unrelated to the structure. It shouldn't, however, be unrelated in content. The importance of the central narrative is in relation to all of the narratives within the chiasm. In this particular case, all of these criteria are met.
While such a minimal number of elements may be sufficient for a chiasm, more elements do make it easier to identify. The one I offered does have more elements. I mentioned other chiastic schemes that fill in more details. I'm going to copy one that, other than ending at the birth rather than the sacrifice of Isaac, covers the same ground. It is taken from "The Literary Structure of the Old Testament" by David A. Dorsey, p. 56:
a introduction: journey to Canaan and the promise of descendants (12:-9)
b Abram lies about Sarai in Egypt; God protects her in a foreign king's court (12:10-20)
c Lot settles in Sodom (and Abram settles in Hebron) (13:1-18)
d Abram intercedes for Lot and Sodom militarily (14:1-24)
e promise of a son: from Abram himself (15:1-21)
f Ishmael's birth: promise to him (16:1-6)
g CENTER: Yahweh's covenant: Abram's and Sarai's names changed; circumcision instituted; promise of a son reiterated (17:1-21)
f' Ishmael and Abraham circumcised (promise to Ishmael) (17:22-27; cf. 17:18,20)
e' promise of a son: from Sarah herself (18:1-15)
d' Abraham intercedes for Sodom and Lot in prayer (18:16-33)
c' Lot flees Sodom, which God destroys; settles in Moab (19:1-38)
b' Abraham lies about Sarah in Gerar; God protects her in a foreign king's court (20:1-18)
a' conclusion: birth of Isaac (and tension resolved) (21:1-7)
The overall structure is sound enough to assume an intentional design. I would propose some minor changes, but I have theological reasons for doing so. I figured you wouldn't be interested so I just chopped it down to the basics (although, I did include the sacrifice of Isaac). Both mentions of Abraham's extended family are outside of the structure of the chiasm. It begins at 12:1 and ends at 22:19 (it ends at the sacrifice of Isaac, the rest of 22 notwithstanding). That being said, they could be included. They would work best as inclusios (which is what I think they are) marking of the parameters of the larger structure: much like the dual mention of Noah's sons in the flood narrative. Even if what you're suggesting is the case, it wouldn't be sufficient to break the palindromic structure. If these elements are inserted, the structure looks something like this: abcxded'c'b'a'x'. It remains intact as long as the other elements remain apparent. All of this being said, I really don't need to defend the narratives of Abraham and Sarah at all since your only literary evidence against single authorship was the use of a different divine name in each.
Your analysis of the flood chiasm is based on the "hypothesis that the chiasm was P's work, or was a present in the oral tradition P was built from, and that the redactor skillfully matched J elements with the corresponding P elements in order to tie the two narratives together." It could work but, to be fair, there needs to be a side by side conparison.
A. If you think it's questionable, go ahead and take it out. Actually, if the chiasm is limited to the narrative itself, then this may hold more of the function of a literary inclusio; that is, it's a set of bookends that demarcate the limits of a particular pericope. The toledot of Noah includes two of these: the flood and Noah's vineyard (a toledot is specifically marked by the phrase "these are the generations of...). If we count the subsequent toledot, that of Noah's sons, then both pericopes are set off by a reference to Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the last one being considerably more extensive. If we do count it, though, it does not go against your hypothesis. If we do assume that A is attributed to P and A' is attributed to J, there is nothing to stop a redactor from arranging them into opposite points of a chiasm. But then, if these are both the products of a single original author, there is nothing to stop him from arranging them in precisely the same manner.
B & C. Positive toward both views, not just your own. All you've said is that B,B' and C,C' are attributed to the same author. I agree.
D. I'm not following your first point. What do the many other passages that use YHWH have to do with this being an element in the chiasm. I can see how this would make a difference if those many other elements were within the narrative in such a way that they messed up the structure. But all there is is the single reference to the LORD shutting them in and the hook in the previous toledot. None of these should make a difference. I can see why you would not want it to be a part of the chiasm. If it's simply a matter of the same author writing either half, then either a redactor or the original author could have arranged the halves. The greater problem is found in the relative lack of YHWH as the divine name in the other elements of the chiasm. This suggests a possible reason for a single author to change which divine name is used: he wants to set these off as parallel points. As to the mention of clean animals, it ony serves to strengthen the argument for a chiasm if the reasons for mentioning something on either side are connected. The extra numbers were taken on board in order to be sacrificed. It's not as if chiasms are only valid if their components explain nothing. If you want to argue against the validity of considering clean animals as a component of the structure, then show how the mention of clean animals is too repetitive and random in the rest of the narrative.
E. What's your point? By saying, "this element is chiasmal only in P," you're saying that it only includes the parts that I included. It doesn't matter that entering the ark is repeated three times while exiting is only mentioned once. If that were the only point of each repitition and they were separate from one another, then it might be cause to wonder why one of them gets to be included in a chiasm and the others don't. As it is, even though there is a threefold repitition, the first and third mention an element, other than entering the ark, that serves as the chief point in their respective positions. 7:1-5 has an element (YHWH) apart from entering the ark that matches it with 8:20-22. [7:6-10 also mentions clean animals, which I allege as one of the elements in D,D'. This might be enough to discredit this as an element except that the force behind using this as an element is found in the purpose of the clean animals, which was sacrifice. Both D & D' suggest this. E does not.] 7:13-16 emphasizes the beginning of the flood. This element is also found in E in 7:10, but it only mentions that the flood happened. I think that emphasis makes enough of a difference, but if not, I'll give it to you. It won't affect the structure. All I need to do is incorporate E, E' into F, F'.
F. Obviously the mere mention in chronological order that the flood began and the flood ended would be no reason to suspect a chiasm. This is just the nature of the case. The reason for including this as an element in the chiasm has to do with its positioning between the other elements. Also, the structure of a chiasm is not intended to help understand the specific content of each point. The primary purpose of the structure is to reveal the main point of the narrative as a whole. And it isn't simply a matter of what comes in the chronological center of the narrative. It is apparent that every living thing would have died during the flood, after it began and before it ended. But that's the nice thing about writing and using literary structure. If a straightforward telling of the story won't put the main point in the proper place, repeat something until it is in the right place. You did notice that the entrance into the ark is repeated three times against the exit's one? This might be one of the reasons.
G1. Stop taking such a negative postion on your own view. A skillful redactor is not limited by the provenance of his source material. And this is no more positive toward my view than if the DH people attributed both of these to the same author. My view is that a single author wrote everything no matter what name is used. [I don't suppose that G1 is J material because it's too awkward for Yahweh to be shutting Noah in after he had just finished obeying Elohim's commands? Best for this to happen before the flood continues. Anything to avoid those petty squabbles betwixt the deities.]
G2. See comments on F, F'. There is nothing to stop an author from using a natural palindrome in a chiasm.
There is nothing within the structure itself that is any more positive or negative for either view. If either view is assumed, then the evidence fits. A skillful redactor, working with various materials of similar enough quality, could easily arrange them into a chiasm. So my point is not to question whether a redactor could have done it. I'm more interested in whether there would have been any need for the redactor. What evidence do you have for the initial presupposition of a redactor? Not only have I demonstrated that a single author could have written this account, but I have also answered the initial objections to suggest that there was more than one source; namely, repitition and alternation between the divine names. The presence of this literary structure accounts for both of these features if written by a single author. Structural symmetry along with the need to get the main point in the middle account for repitition. The desire to use a particular divine name as a means of identifying a pair within the chiasm accounts for the name change. I fail to see any literary reason to postulate a second author and a redactor. One author will do just fine. Thank you and you're very welcome, Mr. William of Occam.
Posted by: Kevin at agosto 25, 2004 3:47 AMI laughed at myself after I read my previous comment. I don’t know how to form the plural or the adjective forms of “chiasm”, but that doesn’t keep me from plowing right through! So, when you see chiastic, chiasmal, chiasmatic, or chiasmistical, you know what I am trying to say.
I admit my response was designed to counter the argument that a single author was needed to explain the coherent structure.
I can’t see any other argument to answer. If you are saying that a single author explains the repetition between J and P and the variant uses of names for God between the two, then I can see how you are arguing on Abraham and Sarah, but not on the flood. You would need to show that J was needed to complete the chiasm structure complemented by P, and instead, you have shown that P generally has a chiasm internal to itself. That doesn’t explain why we have a P narrative and a J narrative in the text, nor does it explain why one uses YHWH and the other Elohim.
I also don’t understand your point on the use of Yahweh. The use of Yahweh is sprinkled throughout the narrative (due to the influence of J, IMHO). What’s so special about this pair of uses, besides that it happens to fall in a convenient place for the chiasm interpretation? I hate to be obtuse, but I think I need this spelled out for me.
Posted by: smijer at agosto 25, 2004 10:17 AMThe DH begins with the assumption that the text cannot be explained by a single author. The only option left is multiple authors and a redactor. All I'm trying to do here is show that the literary evidence can be interpreted just as well under a single author hypothesis as under the DH. Once that is accomplished, all I need to do is apply Occam's razor. A single author hypothesis is considerably less messy. There needs to be positive evidence, other than what is found in the literary structure of the Pentateuch, to justify the more complicated approach. To date, no such evidence exists.
There is a single narrative; no J, no P, just A(uthor); consequently, I do not need to show the necessity of J in completing the chiastic structure of P. A wrote the chiasm all by himself. So when I have shown that "P generally has a chiasm internal to itself," this only because P is really A. You write that my treatment of the flood pericope "doesn’t explain why we have a P narrative and a J narrative in the text." Why would I want to do that? This is a defense of the single author hypothesis. As such, it assumes that separate J and P narratives do not exist. Of course I'm not going to explain why they're there. I can, however, throw in an explanation for why, under the DH, "one uses YHWH and the other Elohim." Because, when either name does occur, this is the primary reason for assigning a particular portion of the text to one of the alleged authors.
If the use of Yahweh were sprinkled throughout the narrative, this would be cause to question its use in determining a chiastic structure, even if it did fall in the right place. But it is not. The occurences in 6:5-8 stand outside of the structure. Other than that, it occurs only once in 7:16. There are other factors, besides the fact that it is there, to help decide whether or not this single mention nullifies the other uses as chiastic markers. If the word itself or the mere mention of Yahweh were intended as the marker, then there might be reason to wonder. In the case of D,D' though, the focus is on what Yahweh says; it is on the word of the LORD. What he says in both cases are related. In the first, he arranges the conditions for a sacrifice; in the second, he responds to that sacrifice. In the first, he says that he will blot out every living thing from the face of the ground; in the second, he promises to never again strike down every living creature. A single author wrote the entire narrative. There is no J or P. Though there may be other hermeneutical reasons for so doing, the author's choice to use Yahweh, more specifically, the word of Yahweh, in D, D' stands, at the very least, as a structural indicator.
Posted by: Kevin at agosto 25, 2004 2:56 PMThe occurences in 6:5-8 stand outside of the structure. Other than that, it occurs only once in 7:16.
In the chiasm as you have defined it, YHWH is used in 7:1, 7:5, 7:16, 8:20, and 8:21. You ascribe 7:16, 8:20 & 8:21 to the chiasm, whereas I ascribe it to the influence of J.
If we go outside the strict "chiasm" that is defined beginning with the toledot that is generally ascribed to P, we find YHWH used in 6:5-8 as well. In each case, we can find a repetition of the same part of the narrative that uses, where a name for God is needed, "Elohim". I know you argue for an exception in 7:16. But let's leave that up in the air, and look at each other case:
6:5-8 uses YHWH, repeated in 6:11-16 with Elohim
7:1 uses YHWH, repeated in 6:17-18 with E
7:5 uses YHWH, with 2-4, is repeated in 6:19-22 with E
7:16 (the anomaly)
8:20 - 21 uses YHWH, repeated in 9:8-17
Other pieces of the narrative that are repeated, but do not use the name of God include 6:10 & 12 with 6:11 and 7:24.
I'm asking how your single author hypothesis accounts for this repetition. This isn't the same set of repetitions that your chiasm structure makes. Your chiasm structure makes sense equally well in terms of either one author A, or two authors (P providing the chiasm, J being woven in). However, these repetitions do not make sense in terms of a single author. They make more sense in terms of two authors using differing names of God. How do you explain them?
Posted by: smijer at agosto 25, 2004 4:53 PMWhy don't they make sense in terms of a single author? Is it the mere fact of repetition or just the general pattern of switching names? I noted that the flood narrative consists of five pairs of repetitions. Four of these are examples of repetition and expansion, one of foreshadowing and fulfillment. I gave one possible explanation for the use of this kind of repetition: to make the main point of the story appear in the center. Another possibility is that Moses wanted to follow the pattern started by the hook into the previous toledot. As a narrative device, parallel repetition of this sort is common, especially in shorter examples. Take Hebrew poetry, for instance, in which the verses are written in synthetic, antithetic, or constructive paralellism. This is especially apparent in the Proverbs. An example of this shorter kind of repetition is found in the account of the rising waters in 7:18-20. Three times "the waters prevailed. " The first time, they increase greatly on the earth. The second, they are above the mountians. The third, they cover them by fifteen cubits. The form of the narrative, not just the words, is used to describe the rising waters. The same repetition and expansion is also used in a larger form. I would suspect that this is most likely a mnemonic device. Both patterns exist, the chiasm and the series of repetitions. If there are reasons for the repetitions, is it reasonable to think that these repetitions overrule Occam's razor for the chiasm?
I believe that Moses intended both structures. Both structures make use of pairs. Those of the parallel repetitions tend to be synthetical; those of the chiasm, antithetical. The parallels can be seen by virtue of subject matter and being adjacent to one another. The chiasm focuses on key words or simpler concepts. Within each section of the parallel structure, there would most likely be a certain consitency: the same name will be used throughout (other than 7:16). But there would really be no need to alter the names between repetitions. Since the chiasm uses key words, then, assuming that it wanted either Yahweh or Elohim as a key word, it would control the choice of names. In other words, the apparent pattern of alternation between the repetitions may just be a byproduct of the chiasm. I'm going to match up the parallel structure with the chiastic structure to show how this would be the case. The lines will start with either E or J, followed by the verses covered in the reptitition, concluding with the points of the chiasm (X = no match).
J 6:5-8 X / /E 6:9-17 A,B
E 6:18-22 C/ /J 7:1-5 D
E 7:6-10 E/ /E(J) 7:11-24 F,G, H
E 8:1-12 G'/ /E 8:13-19 F',E'
J 8:20-22 D'/ /E 9:1-17 C',B',A'
Note that each side of the chiasm has the same name of God. This doesn't mean that each use of E serves the function of a key word. This belongs to the rarer J. Following two simple rules try to see what happens when the E is altered to a J in any section. 1) Adjacent points on the chiasm cannot both have a J. 2) Each half of the fivefold repetition must keep the same name throughout (7:16 excepted). The only chiastic pair that matches up with two complete halves in the series of repetitions is D, D'. Change any repetition or any other point in the chiasm to J, and the first rule is violated: the function of Yahweh as a keyword will be lost.
If this scenario is right, in which the name pattern in the parallel structure is no more than a by product of the chiastic pattern, there might an explanation for 7:16. The other three pairs consisting of repetition and expansion alternate names. Once this is noticed, the J in 7:16 could be inserted as a token to provide a consistent pattern of alternation. It wouldn't affect the points in the chiasm. The fourth pair would not need to fit this pattern since it is not an example of repetition and expansion but of foreshadowing and fulfillment. To me, this is looking more and more like the work of a single author.
Posted by: Kevin at agosto 26, 2004 12:21 AMWhy don't they make sense in terms of a single author? Is it the mere fact of repetition or just the general pattern of switching names? I noted that the flood narrative consists of five pairs of repetitions.
It is the combination of the two (and to hear scholars tell it, other stylistic elements as well): not just in the accounts I singled out as illustrations, but throughout the Pentateuch.
Four of these are examples of repetition and expansion, one of foreshadowing and fulfillment. I gave one possible explanation for the use of this kind of repetition: to make the main point of the story appear in the center.
I don't understand this. I thought the chiasm was sufficient structure to place the main point of the story in the center.
The parallels can be seen by virtue of subject matter and being adjacent to one another.
On the point of subject matter, I agree with you. However, these repetitions are not always adjacent to one another, either within the flood story or in the Pentateuch as a whole. The overview of major comparisons presented here is a useful tool for comparing the positions of the elements in the flood narrative. And, as easy as it is to say this repetition must have been for this, and this one for that, and the names alternate the way they do as a consequence of the chiasm structure, the larger picture doesn't really support such a view. The names continue to alternate throughout the Pentateuch, whether a chiasm is in play or not, and without regard to the specific patterns of the flood narrrative. In fact, the chiasm you describe around the repetition of Abraham's deceit uses opposite names of God in that particular element of the "chiasm" (I still don't agree that the chiasm is native to the text instead of an amplification of our pattern-seeking behaviors); so that breaks the "rule" that opposing points in the chiasm must use the same name for God.
You have presented very credible evidence for the existence of a chiasm in the flood narrative. You have not shown adequate explanations for the repetitious patterns that the documentary hypothesis exists to explain.
Posted by: smijer at agosto 28, 2004 6:06 PMThere is nothing to stop a single author from repeating himself or using any number of names for the same subject. Neither one of these, alone or in combination, is sufficient to posit more than one author. If there are other stylistic elements that argue against a single author, then I want you to point them out and demonstrate why this would be the case. I have no intention of making a case against scholarly hearsay. I already said that any demonstration that this story was by a single author would prove nothing about the rest of the Pentateuch. The most it would do is establish a basis for a closer examanination of other disputed texts. Other than that, you need to show the specific relevance of other stylistic elements in the Pentateuch to this particular text. Simply stating that they exist proves nothing. Whereas you might take these as evidence that other portions of the Pentateuch are pasted together, I would take it as evidence that Moses was consistent.
The chiasm is sufficient structure to have a center; it is not sufficient structure for the main point and the center to be the same thing. In the flood chiasm, D could just as easily have been incorporated into C. The only really new information is about the seven pairs of clean animals. But D' has an action significant enough to the development of the narrative that it can't simply be absorbed into something else: Noah's sacrifice of the clean animals. In terms of telling the story, D can go, D' needs to stay. If this happens, though, H will no longer be in the center.
The apparent disjointed nature of the repetitions is due more to the presentation of the example you linked to than to anything in the narrative itself. The first example, plans for the flood, is separated by verses 9,10. Proof of dual authorship or expected toledot-hook structure of Genesis? The next two points, Noah's special status and the animals by pairs, are again presented to show separation. But if Noah's status is combined with the animals in each case, there is no break at all. The beginning of the flood looks adjacent, 7:10 and 7:11, but they matched up the wrong pair. 7:11 actually goes with 7:6. 7:10 goes with 7:17-24. [They also got the chapter wrong.] They split the duration of the flood by 12 verses. But the first reference isn't about the duaration of the flood; it's about the number of days that it rained. So this one doesn't count at all. It also shows me that whoever compiled this list isn't much interested in the narrative itself. Confusing rainfall with flood duration is too elementary a mistake. The examples of the end of the flood do not constitute repetitions but progression in the narrative. In the first, the flood is still not over. Again, another elementary mistake. The last example, God's promise, splits these up by not considering 9:1-7, which focuses on instructions about the shedding of blood and God giving the animals to Noah. There is a thematic relationship to Noah's sacrifice in 8:20. Bottom line, they have presented a disjointed narrative because their system can't afford to acknowledge a context. The parts are not disjointed. But, even if they were, this would prove nothing against a single author hypothesis. I would be very interested to see if you can construct whatever larger picture it is that "doesn't really support such a view."
You write, "The names continue to alternate throughout the Pentateuch, whether a chiasm is in play or not, and without regard to the specific patterns of the flood narrrative." First, I am not operating under the assumption that Moses cannot alternate names unless he's using a chiasm. This is just a possible explanation for this specific case. Second, how do you know whether there are other chiasms in play or not? Your first inclination was to dismiss the flood chiasm. And now I'm supposed to believe that you've sufficiently studied the other cases of alternating names to make this statement? You may be right, but then, for each case, we could look into other structures or perhaps into the theology behind Moses' writing. There may be a reason, beyond structure, for choosing a a particular name. The point is, you don't know. You cannot just assume that more than one hand is at work. Once you've exhausted any reasons there might be for name changes, you still can't give any reason why they're not arbitrary. The name changes are not sufficient reason to postulate a more complicated authorship theory.
What "'rule' that opposing points in the chiasm must use the same name for God"? I never said that. If I have presented credible evidence of a chiastic structure, then I have also presented credible evidence of one author. If, from that standpoint, we can go into the text assuming a single author, then other explanations for the repetitions would need to be extremely weak in order to even consider the DH. I've already listed some of these- natural byproduct of the chiasm, intentional to get the center of the chiasm right, mnemonic device, Moses just likes to repeat himself. How are any of these so unlikely that a theory as complex as the DH is needed to explain the structure of the Pentateuch?
There is nothing to stop a single author from repeating himself or using any number of names for the same subject. Neither one of these, alone or in combination, is sufficient to posit more than one author. If there are other stylistic elements that argue against a single author, then I want you to point them out and demonstrate why this would be the case.
There is nothing to prevent a single author from repeating himself, or using any number of names for the same subject. There is, however, the simple fact that a pattern of redundancy, where there is near universal alternation between the names of God does suggest multiple authors. Perhaps one narrative, by itself, is inconclusive. Perhaps there is still room for doubt when much of the Pentateuch follows the same pattern of redundancy and alternation. However we don't have a lot of strong evidence for a singular author, either. The weight of the evidence that I can actually look at slightly favors the documentary hypothesis. Unfortunately, I don't speak Hebrew and am not trained in literary criticism, so I cannot fact-check the scholars who claim style differences that follow the same boundaries as well. I do take their views into acccount, however, because they are well trained and have no obvious motivation to invent stylistic differences that don't exist.
I believe you are reading mistakes into the summary of the flood repetitions that are not there. The repetitions can, and do match up on general content, even if there are specific differences in how they are presented.
It would be fallacious to conclude multiple authors with no more evidence than the repetitions in the flood narrative and the story of Abraham's lie. I mentioned those two as examples of larger trends that scholars have recognized and acknowledged for nearly two centuries now. It was not my intention to debate apologetics over whether the single author hypothesis can be salvaged by ascribing these features to unusual literary conventions.
I firmly believe that the evidence strongly favors a multiple author hypothesis, but I will concede that a single author cannot be ruled out without more evidence. I hold to my contention that the repetitions and alternations that lend weight to a multiple author hypothesis go well with a cumulative case against Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch.
First, I am not operating under the assumption that Moses cannot alternate names unless he's using a chiasm. This is just a possible explanation for this specific case.
There is a strong pattern of repetition. If your explanation isn't general enough to account for the pattern, then we are looking at a series of ad hoc explanations instead of a single, powerful explanation.
Second, how do you know whether there are other chiasms in play or not? Your first inclination was to dismiss the flood chiasm. And now I'm supposed to believe that you've sufficiently studied the other cases of alternating names to make this statement?
I had in mind the creation repetition specifically.
What "'rule' that opposing points in the chiasm must use the same name for God"? I never said that.
These are the words that I understood to depend on such a rule:
Note that each side of the chiasm has the same name of God. This doesn't mean that each use of E serves the function of a key word. This belongs to the rarer J. Following two simple rules try to see what happens when the E is altered to a J in any section. 1) Adjacent points on the chiasm cannot both have a J. 2) Each half of the fivefold repetition must keep the same name throughout (7:16 excepted). The only chiastic pair that matches up with two complete halves in the series of repetitions is D, D'. Change any repetition or any other point in the chiasm to J, and the first rule is violated: the function of Yahweh as a keyword will be lost.
Finally....
If I have presented credible evidence of a chiastic structure, then I have also presented credible evidence of one author... How are any of these so unlikely that a theory as complex as the DH is needed to explain the structure of the Pentateuch?
That isn't the case at all. A chiastic structure that does not depend on the disputed second author material to exist doesn't really answer the question of repetition. You even admitted as much in your own statements above: that the redundant material might result from expansion or foreshadowing and fulfillment. All you have shown was that there was at least one author whose contribution is preserved enough to reflect his intended chiasm. You cannot generalize from that to one author only, and it is not good evidence against the DH because it does not explain the material the DH exists to explain.
The DH is not, as you put it, a very complex theory. It solves several puzzles about the text with the relatively simple device of multiple authors and a later redactor. Other explanations are possible, but no single explanation actually explains every instance. Moses likes to repeat himself? Sure, but it doesn't explain the alternations of name. Mnemonic device? Sure, but it doesn't explain repetitions that are far removed from one another, or the alternations of name. Byproduct of chiasm, or padding for same? Maybe, but that explanation doesn't apply the same way to each repetition. So, we cannot go to the text with the assumption of a single author, and these other explanations are not necessarily weak: they simply aren't as parsimonious as the explanation that there was more than one author and a redactor.
Posted by: smijer at agosto 30, 2004 4:29 AMWe don't need a lot of strong evidence for a single author. This is the ruling assumption for any piece of literature unless it can be proven otherwise. "Single author" can include more than one author so long as this represents an original collaboration or the editing of a single work. The DH, which posits a redactor combining multiple sources, needs a lot more proof than any that has been offered. I beg to differ on the lack of obvious motivations among the scholars. Such an idea would never have occurred to them had they not assumed an evolutionary view of religious history. Some form of the DH is almost necesarry to support this view. I am completely unsympathetic to your lack of training in Hebrew or literary criticism. Get a dictionary or study a textbook-anythig to make yourself able to check the facts and explain your position. Otherwise, don't bring these "facts" into the discussion. They amount to hearsay and give your own position an unfair advantage.
I am not trying to salvage the single author hypothesis by ascribing features of the specific examples in question to "unusual literary conventions." Parallelism, repetition, and chiastic structure are common features of Hebrew literature. If it is admitted that the evidence of repetition in the flood narrative or the record of Abraham's lie is insufficient to conclude multiple authors, then these examples cannot be used to demonstrate any larger trends. Find other examples for these alleged trends.
The use of Yahweh in D,D' of the flood narrative is specific to this particular chiasm. It just happens to be the key word chosen and does not represent any rule that a specific name of God must be the same at both ends. In other chiasms, the name of God might not be an identifying feature at all or, if it is, the relationship might be antithetical instead of synthetical. It isn't a question of rules but of context.
Multiple authorship with a redactor is not simple device, even if it can be stated simply. The reality it represents is far more complicated than that of a single author. The other explanations offered are not only possible, but they also are tied together under a single explanation; namely, Moses. It's almost as though you don't think a single author is capable of variation or of the use of any number of literary devices. You've already mentioned a lack of training in literay criticism: should this be expanded to include literature in general? How boring do you think an author has to be?