Problems with the Documentary Hypothesis

[cyberjosh]

Thanks for the replies. I'll read up on your sources and finish reading your scans you emailed to me and get back to you. I've been busy. I'm working 12+ hour shifts 6 days a week as a manager at Family Dollar and hardly find time to do things anymore.


Kind regards,
~Eric

Hey same here, and I have school starting back in a week, and I may suddenly find myself having a lack of time to pursue this conversation in much depth, but I'll try my best.

P.S. Now to quickly explain why I sent you that scan on the Song of Solomon. Quite simply I just wanted to use it as an example of how internal consistancy & evidences with certain periods in which the literature is said to have been written can be a strong arguement for the date of the writing. I found the points especially strong that that certain type of literature flourished during that early period in specific (in Egypt and elsewhere) and that the cities refered to where only as spectacular as they are spoken of during that same time period. I'm not sure if I could do quite so well in giving other evidences for the Pentatuech and the others books as was done for the SoS, but I'm quite sure the evidences are there. For example, quickly and not all that much in detail, the covenant styles found in Genesis and Exodus are consistant with their two periods respectively which lend credence to the early formulation of the covenant pronouncements (I think even Albright noticed that). Perhaps I could give you more on that later, but the idea was that internal evidences can be compared with external contextual factors of the said period which can indeed vindicate aspects of the literature in question.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Pulled from the contradictions thread (sorry for the overlap that occured):

And you were just ridiculing the proponents of the DH by linking to a blog criticizing them for invoking the 'magical redactor'. Here you are caught doing that exact same thing. Saying it was 'probably Joshua' that wrote Deut xxxiv does not make it so. That is simply a suggestion pulled out of thin air with no evidence whatsoever to support it.

I was in no way desiring to be dogmatic with that assumption, unlike the DH with its concise delineations. However the end of Deuteronomy seems to flow well enough into the beginning of the book of Joshua. So who ever wrote that might have written the account of Moses' death, although it could have been a different author - it doesn't really matter to me who it was (it's the inspiration that counts - which I know means absolutely nothing to you ). At any rate I was only trying to agree with the point made that obviously Moses didn't write about his own death, so someone else must have. I have no affinity to magical redactors whatsoever.

 

[wavy]

I was in no way desiring to be dogmatic with that assumption, unlike the DH with its concise delineations.

And since when do DH proponents make 'concisely' defined dogmatic assumptions invoking a 'magical redactor'? Where do they state: 'We invoke magical redactors when the evidence works against our theory'?

However the end of Deuteronomy seems to flow well enough into the beginning of the book of Joshua. So who ever wrote that might have written the account of Moses' death, although it could have been a different author

And Deuteronomy prior to ch. xxxiv flows well enough into this selfsame chapter. So who wrote the account of Moses' death? Moses or the author of Joshua? DH models, on the other hand, resolve this problem with facility: both Deuteronomy and Joshua were written by the same person (the Deuteronomist historian).

At any rate I was only trying to agree with the point made that obviously Moses didn't write about his own death, so someone else must have. I have no affinity to magical redactors whatsoever.

Moses wrote neither about his own death or the events surrounding it or the events prior to it as recorded in the Pentateuch. The evidence against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is simply overwhelming. It is based on nothing but tradition.

I also find your defense--that you have 'no affinity to magical redactors'--inconsistent with your comments in the other thread where you invoked so-called 'magical redactors' no less than three times to explain away the anachronisms and very un-Mosaic statements in the examples I gave from the Pentateuch.

Thanks,
~Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

And since when do DH proponents make 'concisely' defined dogmatic assumptions invoking a 'magical redactor'?

I never mentioned the redactor in that sentance, I meant they concisely delineate: This section belongs to J, this to E, this to P, this to E again, etc...

Where do they state: 'We invoke magical redactors when the evidence works against our theory'?

Why would they? It would defeat the purpose of the theory.

And Deuteronomy prior to ch. xxxiv flows well enough into this selfsame chapter. So who wrote the account of Moses' death? Moses or the author of Joshua? DH models, on the other hand, resolve this problem with facility: both Deuteronomy and Joshua were written by the same person (the Deuteronomist historian).

To try to move this away as quickly as possible from an outright arguement: Are you implying that the DH holds complete unity for the entirety of Deuteronomy and Joshua, with only D being the writer, not E, J, or P? If so then does this not lend more credence (a piece at a time anyway) to a unified Pentatuech, from one author (no matter how late - that it is argued - it was written)? I mean even if you wanted to concede the point that the entire Pentatuech was written by one very late hand, but was largely unified (Whybray's arguement), it would prove the underlying principle that Evangelicals have of a unified Pentatuech.

I also find your defense--that you have 'no affinity to magical redactors'--inconsistent with your comments in the other thread where you invoked so-called 'magical redactors' no less than three times to explain away the anachronisms and very un-Mosaic statements in the examples I gave from the Pentateuch.

Well as I understand the redactor (as used by the DH anyway), the redactor is someone who amends and corrects the text at will, tampering with it. While later comments by a later writter (as I was suggesting) can reasonably be inserted on top of the original text, only adding to to it, without removing or editing with what had been previously written. That is my idea of any possible later "redactor".

For a quick example, which I think the translators of some of these English translations also realized (thus why they put it in parentheses), I think some brief explanatory notes were made for more "modern" audiences, thus adding notes to the text like in Judges 1:10, "So Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron (now the name of Hebron formerly was Kiriath-arba); and they struck Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai." I think that the original text probably said (although I could be wrong and maybe the entire text is written by a later author), "So Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron; and they struck Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai", and the explanatory note on Hebron was added later for understanding. This then illustrates what I suggest, but the DH is certainly not limited to this - as we both know. That's the difference I'm seeing anyway.

P.S. I'll once again try to lie low with posting until you can get back to previous posts, so that I don't move ahead of you. I'd like to get back to discussing the ANE examples I mentioned above some time soon.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

Thanks for replying wavy.

Oh, good, I'm glad you have access to JSTOR. In that case I wrote to you earlier:

[snipped]

I'm unimpressed by your reviews. Two of three of your reviews attribute the DH to either anti-Semitism or a purpose to undermine biblical 'authority'. I don't find reviews sympathetic to your book source here (which I assume you have not read) relevant. Unless you can cite specific arguments then posting reviews from obviously biased conservative Christian scholars (like E. Yamauchi) is meaningless.

If I had the time or inclination to do so, I would try to find something that addresses Kikawada's and Quinn's views to get a balanced perspective from what DH proponents are answering in defense (your habit so far throughout this thread is simply to quote anti-DH material). But from the looks of this review, no real scholars pay the authors of Before Abraham Was serious attention (see final comment by Yamauchi on pg. 311).

Those links speak of Kikawada and Quinn's book Before Abraham Was and the last link gives a review that states (on the first page, 2nd column) that Kikawada gives two examples of ANE doublets specifically in creation accounts: _Enki & Ninmah_ and _Atrahasis_. See the review there.

I saw only one example of a doublet, and nowhere does it address whether or not that doublet works against the DH. Anyway, as I will show below, I think you're misunderstanding what's being said...

Now following up on that I looked around on JSTOR and found this article on Atrahasis which on the last page (marked #155 - click back to see the beginning) it mentions that Atrahasis borrowed from previous creation stories, namely the Gilgamesh Epic and "Enki and Ninmah", and also seems to be citing another example of a double creation when it notes that in a Babylonian creation text that, "Ea nips off the clay and Aruru fashions it". Now, of course, the article would make the statement "Like Genesis, Atrahasis is the product of a long process of development", but regardless of its conclusions it clearly acknowledges the other sources which it pulls from (which in turn have doublets themselves), and even mentions a doublet in the Gilgamesh Epic, "In the creation of Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic, long recognized as a doublet to the creation of man..."

The author of this article in The Biblical Archaeologist, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, maintains the DH (see column 2, p. 152). That there may be a doublet in the Gilgamesh Epic doesn't mean the DH is supposedly untrue (and the article never states as such, since its author is obviously a DH proponent). The key now is for you to prove why this doublet undermines the DH, and to do that you need to determine whether this doublet results from differing traditions, multiple authorship, or is a common literary practice of the ANE and therefore the complete produce of a singular author. Now I will show why you're misunderstanding your source...

Enki and Ninmah also has a doublet, and you can find some results on Google by typing "documentary hypothesis Enki Ninmah" which cite it as a doublet. One site cites Kikawada again, summarizing,

[snipped]

And another site that quotes Kikawada and Quinn also states about Genesis under the heading "literary context in ANE":

Repetition with variation/detail - the Hebrew way (can also be found in other ANE religious texts--Akkadian and Ugaritic)

Akkadian being the Atrahasis story, and presumaby Ugaritic has the Gilgamesh epic, leaving the Sumerian with Enki and Ninmah - three stories that have doublets. Kikawada, though I disagree with the conclusion, sees Genesis as formed out of this "cultural tradition" for creation accounts with doublets and says,

[snipped]

Firstly, the creation of man in the Gilgamesh Epic that serves as an alleged 'doublet' parallel to Genesis i & ii shares a common literary or oral source with the Atrahasis Epic where humans are created to replace the worker gods who rebelled against Enlil and his council. They were both written in Akkadian (there are Ugaritic copies as well, if I am not mistaken). They were not written by the same hand, and that's where your error begins. The doublets are not internal in each myth; that is to say, there are not two versions of creation in the Gilgamesh Epic and two versions of creation in the Atrahasis Epic. There is one story of creation in each version of the myth. Because both stories are distinct versions containing one account of the creation of man each, they cannot serve as an ANE parallel to Genesis i & ii being the work of a singular author. The tablet containing the myth of Enki and Nintur's (Ninmah's) contest is also based upon the same tradition as the Atrahasis Epic (both attribute the creation of man as a work force as an alternative to the lesser gods).

You've erroneously assumed that three versions of the same story each contain doublets within themselves, while the truth is that each version repeats unrelatedly the same story found in another version in a different way. Unless you can demonstrate that each of these were written by a single hand (and for that I wish you good luck), then this is irrelevant to disproving the DH.

At this point it's not the conclusions I'm worried about arguing, but rather first establishing that there are infact ANE parallels that have doublets, and specifically with creation stories.

Please see my exposure of your misunderstanding of your sources above. Also, I don't know what your last source from christian-thinktank is trying to say here:

Sumerian history of Enki and Ninmah (circa Abraham)--has 'two' creation accounts, one of which describes the creation of man after the 'form' of the god Enki

I'd like to see references, please. I've searched and searched and read translations of the contest between Enki and Nintur over their creations and cannot find two creation accounts.

Enki and Ninmah both make human beings (one after the other) and try to out-do each other by improving on the others work, the result is some good humans and others that were created already crippled or with strange medical disorders, etc. At any rate, there has been literary criticism on these texts and scholars seem to have noticed some patterns in them which they would term doublets. Also you could hardly criticize formation of doublets in the Bible if the Bible were the only (and anomalous) place in ancient literature in which they were found, so obviously doublets are encountered in ANE literature as well, else the Bible would be unique indeed concerning a literary feature that no one had ever used before.

See above. As I said, I've read the story in translation as well and cannot find any doublets comparative to Genesis. If you would be so kind as to point them out. ;-)

Kind regards,
~Eric

 

[wavy]

To try to move this away as quickly as possible from an outright arguement: Are you implying that the DH holds complete unity for the entirety of Deuteronomy and Joshua, with only D being the writer, not E, J, or P?

No. There is evidence of at least J in Joshua (and all four strata in Deuteronomy).

Well as I understand the redactor (as used by the DH anyway), the redactor is someone who amends and corrects the text at will, tampering with it. While later comments by a later writter (as I was suggesting) can reasonably be inserted on top of the original text, only adding to to it, without removing or editing with what had been previously written. That is my idea of any possible later "redactor".

It's the same thing. You have a satirical understanding of the DH.

Thanks,
~Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

I'm unimpressed by your reviews. Two of three of your reviews attribute the DH to either anti-Semitism or a purpose to undermine biblical 'authority'.

Those extrapolations are the author's "opinions", when I was mainly interested in pointing out the arguments of the sources they cited (or were reviewing). As for the undermining of Biblical authority, I would agree that the theory is arrayed toward that, but I know we would disagree until we were both blue in the face about it, so it seems pointless to try to argue about that.

I don't find reviews sympathetic to your book source here (which I assume you have not read) relevant. Unless you can cite specific arguments then posting reviews from obviously biased conservative Christian scholars (like E. Yamauchi) is meaningless.

I do apologize for having to work through reviews, because I did not have these books on hand. I have to admit that I was not expecting to have to go fetch books over this, however it seems that it was necessary. I have school coming up soon and I think I will have to let this thread sit for a while, till I have time again. I'll have to go through all the relevant books and come back at a later date and restate my arguement with more specific quotes from my sources. This actually has been a bit of a progression of knowledge for me as well since I had never heard of the Atrahasis Epic before, so some of these arguments in specific were new to me. However I've read in more than one place that the DH is based on a misunderstanding of ANE literature. I did take their word for it, but if you are wanting more specific evidences, I suppose I have to defer you to those who are more qualified than I.

As for the reviews themselves, ad hominem arguments against who wrote them are equally meaningless if you don't evaluate the actual argument. However I was only quoting specific sections of those reviews that were able to tell me more about Kikawada's book without actually having it in my hand. I've tried my best with limited resources, but now that that is not enough I'll have to wait a while till I have both time and those actual books to peruse for the relevant arguments.

If I had the time or inclination to do so, I would try to find something that addresses Kikawada's and Quinn's views to get a balanced perspective from what DH proponents are answering in defense (your habit so far throughout this thread is simply to quote anti-DH material).

I really wish you could indeed find such a source, and not as if I'd run from it! The problem is that I haven't seen these objections answered in works by DH proponents. And I really wouldn't mind seeing their explanation of it - but if it isn't there then it isn't there. Thus I have been largely forced to quote from sources that are not DH proponents. And I have made the anti-DH arguments in order to set up more of a foundation for my own arguments, while I don't necessarily care for the more extreme polemical arguments which have accompanied some of those sources. It's often impossible to find the ideal source that has it all right, so I have the laborious job of picking and choosing and compiling my own argument from it all.

I saw only one example of a doublet, and nowhere does it address whether or not that doublet works against the DH. Anyway, as I will show below, I think you're misunderstanding what's being said...

I think I had in mind the subsequent mention of the Atrahasis epic, although reviews don't make for detailed example-givers.

The author of this article in The Biblical Archaeologist, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, maintains the DH (see column 2, p. 152). That there may be a doublet in the Gilgamesh Epic doesn't mean the DH is supposedly untrue (and the article never states as such, since its author is obviously a DH proponent). The key now is for you to prove why this doublet undermines the DH, and to do that you need to determine whether this doublet results from differing traditions, multiple authorship, or is a common literary practice of the ANE and therefore the complete produce of a singular author. Now I will show why you're misunderstanding your source...

My first aim was to establish that ANE doublets are not unprecedented. Now beyond that is (as you have pointed out) the conclusion stage. There is much more for me to build up on this (which I will pursue in the future), but if you held that all ANE doublets were formed my various hands woud indeed would have a wide spread phenomenon of redacting on your hands, which require loads and loads of proof. I'll address the rest as relevant below...

Firstly, the creation of man in the Gilgamesh Epic that serves as an alleged 'doublet' parallel to Genesis i & ii shares a common literary or oral source with the Atrahasis Epic where humans are created to replace the worker gods who rebelled against Enlil and his council. They were both written in Akkadian (there are Ugaritic copies as well, if I am not mistaken). They were not written by the same hand, and that's where your error begins. The doublets are not internal in each myth; that is to say, there are not two versions of creation in the Gilgamesh Epic and two versions of creation in the Atrahasis Epic. There is one story of creation in each version of the myth. Because both stories are distinct versions containing one account of the creation of man each, they cannot serve as an ANE parallel to Genesis i & ii being the work of a singular author. The tablet containing the myth of Enki and Nintur's (Ninmah's) contest is also based upon the same tradition as the Atrahasis Epic (both attribute the creation of man as a work force as an alternative to the lesser gods).

You've erroneously assumed that three versions of the same story each contain doublets within themselves, while the truth is that each version repeats unrelatedly the same story found in another version in a different way. Unless you can demonstrate that each of these were written by a single hand (and for that I wish you good luck), then this is irrelevant to disproving the DH.

Whoa there, something is definitely getting confused here. I don't understand your argument. Assuming for the moment that the three examples were valid and they had doublets, each story by itself would indeed have that double. While it seems like you are saying that they borrowed from one another (and that very well may be), but then seem to conclude that since they borrow from one another that instead of 3 doublets you have one that is recycled (which doesn't change the fact that it's in 3 different places). But infact it still attests to 3 separate examples of doublets in ans of themselves (whether related or not).

Now if we were to draw conclusions from this, imagine this scenario: The initial story is compiled by "many hands" and contains a doublet (and not necessarily one of contradictory explanations - that's another argument), a later story pulls off of this one (but is written by one single person who incorporated the "multiple traditions" as a doublet or even triplet - however many there were) yet was only reporting the traditions as handed down and didn't want to exclude it. The first can be accused as having multiple authorship, but the second, third, fourth, etc. if only pulling on the previous tradition but were written by a single person each time, cannot be accused of having multiple authorship.

Now that particular scenario I would only (hypothetically) apply to the non-Biblical ANE examples, if indeed they borrowed from one another. Now some scholars seem to think Genesis was just yet another such text that borrowed from those previous sources (which actually would discard the DH in favor of a "borrowing" en masse paradigm). But if I were to apply a similar principle/line of thought to the Bible, then who is to say Moses did not hear of two separate (not necessarily contradictory - like I said that's another argument - we can talk about that in the other thread) accounts and simply incorporated them both? Now from my perspective Moses would have known of these accounts from God himself (and who else could know what a happened in the beginning except God anyway?), but the idea stands of "what if" it was the single author who included them both (by my argument Moses)?

Side note: From some similarities in what I have admitted about some later additions being added, and your recent arguments, it almost makes me wonder if the DH (if it were simply wishing to point out that not all the comments were originally penned by the first author), is not compatible with Biblical inspiration. Of course it is never argued this way, but it makes me wonder, if the requirements for believing in the DH are whittled down to simply admitting that somethings were contributed by another hand (far from making many specific conclusions that some DH scholars have), which even evangelicals will admit.

Please see my exposure of your misunderstanding of your sources above. Also, I don't know what your last source from christian-thinktank is trying to say here:

Sumerian history of Enki and Ninmah (circa Abraham)--has 'two' creation accounts, one of which describes the creation of man after the 'form' of the god Enki

I'd like to see references, please. I've searched and searched and read translations of the contest between Enki and Nintur over their creations and cannot find two creation accounts.

I have no idea what the "form" reference is to, but I believe (we would have to read respective reviews on it by scholars to see what the real contention is) that creation was made once by Ninmah (and improved upon by Enki), and that forms one unit, and it would have explained how humans were created by itself (were it left alone). But the story also wanted to explain why some people are crippled, have medical problems, etc. so it sets out again for a second round of creation where Enki creates them already ailed and Ninmah does a poor job of improving them. Thus you have one "good set" of creation, after which the contest then supposedly switched around for the second round which made the "bad set" of humans. That is what I'm thinking the doublet is.

We shouldn't expect the doublet (nor the story - obviously) to be exactly similar to the one in Genesis, but a doublet is a doublet.

See above. As I said, I've read the story in translation as well and cannot find any doublets comparative to Genesis. If you would be so kind as to point them out. ;-)

I've given my guess at the one pointed out in Enki and Ninmah, and I'll have to get the books of my sources to point out the exact doublets for Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. Like I said, you'll have to give me soem time since school is starting for me and I'll have significantly less time on my hands. I'll let this thread rest for a while till then, unless we can keep up a discussion on another aspect of this, until I can get my hands on those books.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

To try to move this away as quickly as possible from an
It's the same thing. You have a satirical understanding of the DH.

What do you mean "satirical understanding"? Can you explain any relevant distinctions in that supposed "understanding"?

Thanks,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

However I've read in more than one place that the DH is based on a misunderstanding of ANE literature.

This is argued by virtually all opponents of the DH. Since you've been reading anti-DH material, no doubt you've read it in more than one place. But claims are one thing. Proof is another...

As for the reviews themselves, ad hominem arguments against who wrote them are equally meaningless if you don't evaluate the actual argument.

There's a difference between blatant ad hominem and negative criticism.

Whoa there, something is definitely getting confused here. I don't understand your argument. Assuming for the moment that the three examples were valid and they had doublets, each story by itself would indeed have that double. While it seems like you are saying that they borrowed from one another (and that very well may be), but then seem to conclude that since they borrow from one another that instead of 3 doublets you have one that is recycled (which doesn't change the fact that it's in 3 different places). But infact it still attests to 3 separate examples of doublets in ans of themselves (whether related or not).

No, you're not understanding me. Each story is a separate myth (although it is a well-known that the Gilgamesh Epic is a version of the Atrahasis Epic).

But firstly, let's define a 'doublet'. A doublet is simply the name for two versions of a story that relay that same story in only minutely different ways. You've misunderstood your sources because you believe each individual story--(i) the Atrahasis Epic, (ii) the Gilgamesh Epic, and (iii) the Enki and Nintur myth--contain creation doublets within themselves; i.e., that the Atrahasis Epic contains two versions of creation, that the Gilgamesh Epic contains two versions of creation, and that the Enki and Nintur myth contains two versions of creation (a total of six creation stories). That's not what your sources are saying (except for the one from christian-thinktank for the Enki and Nintur myth, but for that see further below).

I'm saying that each of the three myth examples contain only one version of the creation of man each...a total of three stories. Your quoted your source from the The Biblical Archaeologist (the article by Tikva Frymer-Kensky) as saying:

"In the creation of Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic, long recognized as a doublet to the creation of man..."

This is not saying that the Gilgamesh Epic contains two creation of man stories. This is saying that the creation of Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic is reworked from other stories in other myths...in this case, the Atrahasis Epic. In the Atrahasis myth, man is created as a substitute work force for the lesser gods (as is the case in the Enki and Nintur myth which is based on the same tradition). There is only one creation story in each myth, which resemble each other. In Genesis, there are two creation stories. In each of the three above listed stories, there are not. Each of the above listed stories have only one, but they share commonalities with each other and thus each account of man's creation in each story is called a 'doublet' to another version of the story in the other myths.

In order for this to be 'evidence' against the DH, you have to show that each version of the creation of man in each myth (one creation per myth, unlike Genesis which has two creations of man) was part of an original literary work composed by a singular author.

Do you get what I'm saying?

It's this:

Atrahasis Epic = 1 creation of man story (humans created to take place of lesser gods)
Enki and Nintur myth = 1 creation of man story (humans created to take place of lesser gods)
Gilgamesh Epic = 1 creation of man story (the creation of the man Enkidu, which seems to be a rehash of the above older creation of man stories, and thus is called a 'doublet')

Not:

Atrahasis Epic = 2 creations of man stories
Gilgamesh Epic = 2 creations of man stories
Enki and Nintur myth = 2 creations of man stories

Now if we were to draw conclusions from this, imagine this scenario: The initial story is compiled by "many hands" and contains a doublet (and not necessarily one of contradictory explanations - that's another argument), a later story pulls off of this one (but is written by one single person who incorporated the "multiple traditions" as a doublet or even triplet - however many there were) yet was only reporting the traditions as handed down and didn't want to exclude it. The first can be accused as having multiple authorship, but the second, third, fourth, etc. if only pulling on the previous tradition but were written by a single person each time, cannot be accused of having multiple authorship.

Now that particular scenario I would only (hypothetically) apply to the non-Biblical ANE examples, if indeed they borrowed from one another. Now some scholars seem to think Genesis was just yet another such text that borrowed from those previous sources (which actually would discard the DH in favor of a "borrowing" en masse paradigm). But if I were to apply a similar principle/line of thought to the Bible, then who is to say Moses did not hear of two separate (not necessarily contradictory - like I said that's another argument - we can talk about that in the other thread) accounts and simply incorporated them both? Now from my perspective Moses would have known of these accounts from God himself (and who else could know what a happened in the beginning except God anyway?), but the idea stands of "what if" it was the single author who included them both (by my argument Moses)?

I think your scenario above shows a misunderstanding of the issue. You ask what if Moses heard of two traditions and incorporated them into his complete literary piece (i.e., Genesis)? That solution is no different from what DH proponents suggest: two creation traditions were strung together in the book of Genesis (in this case, the Priestly and Jahwist traditions). The only difference is that DH proponents would substitute Moses for the final redactor, who did exactly what you proposed: strung two different traditions together. The reason why Moses is not proposed is because the evidence simply does not support Mosaic authorship, but either way, the end result is still recognizing two different traditions coming from two or more different hands. Your scenario argues exactly for what DH proponents argue for with the exception of Moses.

Side note: From some similarities in what I have admitted about some later additions being added, and your recent arguments, it almost makes me wonder if the DH (if it were simply wishing to point out that not all the comments were originally penned by the first author), is not compatible with Biblical inspiration. Of course it is never argued this way, but it makes me wonder, if the requirements for believing in the DH are whittled down to simply admitting that somethings were contributed by another hand (far from making many specific conclusions that some DH scholars have), which even evangelicals will admit.

As Friedman wrote and as I quoted, there are many who believe inspiration is compatible with the Documentary Hypthesis. The DH does not assume anti-supernaturlism by default (whether the Pentateuch is 'inspired' or not is a conclusion reached by each individual person who studies it, not a default assumption of any given analyzation of the Pentateuch itself, DH or non-DH).

I have no idea what the "form" reference is to, but I believe (we would have to read respective reviews on it by scholars to see what the real contention is) that creation was made once by Ninmah (and improved upon by Enki), and that forms one unit, and it would have explained how humans were created by itself (were it left alone). But the story also wanted to explain why some people are crippled, have medical problems, etc. so it sets out again for a second round of creation where Enki creates them already ailed and Ninmah does a poor job of improving them. Thus you have one "good set" of creation, after which the contest then supposedly switched around for the second round which made the "bad set" of humans. That is what I'm thinking the doublet is.

We shouldn't expect the doublet (nor the story - obviously) to be exactly similar to the one in Genesis, but a doublet is a doublet.

That's not a 'doublet' comparative to Genesis or a 'doublet' at all. The story is one continuous narrative with two characters interacting with each other. Nintur begins to create and then Enki subsequently creates in competition with her. For that to classify as a 'doublet' both creations would have to be telling the same story, not telling separate active and reactive events one after another. That's like arguing that a story that reads: ' (i)The god Booger created a man then (ii) the god Booger created another man (ii)' is a 'doublet' just because you could take the first clause by itself. No, these are two separate acts, one following the other. The two creations in Genesis are describing the same event (the one creation of the first human beings, animals, plants, etc.) in different ways, just like the virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke are describing one event. There aren't two virgin births that follow one after another. There is one virgin birth story described in two different ways. Likewise, when the second creation in Genesis is describing the creation of Adam and Eve, it isn't describing something that happened after the first story, i.e., that Adam and Eve were created after the anonymous 'male and female' of the first story. The first story is describing the first human beings, and the second story is describing the first human beings. There weren't two creations of the first human beings.

Enki and Nintur's creation contest describes events that happen one after another: Nintur creates, and then Enki counters what she already created. This isn't a 'doublet'. I shouldn't even have to explain this. It's self evident.

I've given my guess at the one pointed out in Enki and Ninmah, and I'll have to get the books of my sources to point out the exact doublets for Gilgamesh and Atrahasis.

I've dealt with your 'example' from Enki and Ninmah, but see above about the Gilgamesh Epic and the Atrahasis Epic.

Thanks,
~Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

No, you're not understanding me. Each story is a separate myth (although it is a well-known that the Gilgamesh Epic is a version of the Atrahasis Epic).

But firstly, let's define a 'doublet'. A doublet is simply the name for two versions of a story that relay that same story in only minutely different ways. You've misunderstood your sources because you believe each individual story--(i) the Atrahasis Epic, (ii) the Gilgamesh Epic, and (iii) the Enki and Nintur myth--contain creation doublets within themselves; i.e., that the Atrahasis Epic contains two versions of creation, that the Gilgamesh Epic contains two versions of creation, and that the Enki and Nintur myth contains two versions of creation (a total of six creation stories). That's not what your sources are saying (except for the one from christian-thinktank for the Enki and Nintur myth, but for that see further below).

I'm saying that each of the three myth examples contain only one version of the creation of man each...a total of three stories. Your quoted your source from the The Biblical Archaeologist (the article by Tikva Frymer-Kensky) as saying:

"In the creation of Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic, long recognized as a doublet to the creation of man..."

This is not saying that the Gilgamesh Epic contains two creation of man stories. This is saying that the creation of Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic is reworked from other stories in other myths...in this case, the Atrahasis Epic. In the Atrahasis myth, man is created as a substitute work force for the lesser gods (as is the case in the Enki and Nintur myth which is based on the same tradition). There is only one creation story in each myth, which resemble each other. In Genesis, there are two creation stories. In each of the three above listed stories, there are not. Each of the above listed stories have only one, but they share commonalities with each other and thus each account of man's creation in each story is called a 'doublet' to another version of the story in the other myths.

In order for this to be 'evidence' against the DH, you have to show that each version of the creation of man in each myth (one creation per myth, unlike Genesis which has two creations of man) was part of an original literary work composed by a singular author.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Oh, I gottcha now. Yes that was my mistake in misunderstanding them. Now however, at least for the Enki and Ninmah story Kikawada and Quinn argue that there is a double creation. I finally got a hold of the book, and I'll quote from it below.

I think your scenario above shows a misunderstanding of the issue. You ask what if Moses heard of two traditions and incorporated them into his complete literary piece (i.e., Genesis)? That solution is no different from what DH proponents suggest: two creation traditions were strung together in the book of Genesis (in this case, the Priestly and Jahwist traditions). The only difference is that DH proponents would substitute Moses for the final redactor, who did exactly what you proposed: strung two different traditions together. The reason why Moses is not proposed is because the evidence simply does not support Mosaic authorship, but either way, the end result is still recognizing two different traditions coming from two or more different hands. Your scenario argues exactly for what DH proponents argue for with the exception of Moses.

That sheds a little light on that position, however I still think there is an important distinction which can be made between my view and how the DH seems to treat it. Simply being aware of previous information and reporting it does not call for multiple hand authorship, and these traditions if anything would have probably been more orally transmitted (we'll forget for a moment here that I believe that God cut out the middle man and told the writer everything they needed to know - not incorporating previous writings of any sort), and we know just because a "historian" (for comparison) pulls on previous sources that it does not mean his text was written by anyone else than himself. I think there is a difference between acknowledging the incorporation of multiple sources of information, versus splicing multiple writings together in their different forms in a sort of "patchwork" rather than being wholly the intended form of the writer.

As Friedman wrote and as I quoted, there are many who believe inspiration is compatible with the Documentary Hypthesis. The DH does not assume anti-supernaturlism by default (whether the Pentateuch is 'inspired' or not is a conclusion reached by each individual person who studies it, not a default assumption of any given analyzation of the Pentateuch itself, DH or non-DH).

That's interesting.

That's not a 'doublet' comparative to Genesis or a 'doublet' at all. The story is one continuous narrative with two characters interacting with each other. Nintur begins to create and then Enki subsequently creates in competition with her. For that to classify as a 'doublet' both creations would have to be telling the same story, not telling separate active and reactive events one after another.
...
Enki and Nintur's creation contest describes events that happen one after another: Nintur creates, and then Enki counters what she already created. This isn't a 'doublet'. I shouldn't even have to explain this. It's self evident.

Ok, as I admitted above that was my "guess". Now that I have Kikawada & Quinn's book I've seen differently. Here is what they argued:

*I'll talk more about the book itself in another post, but the context is that they are comparing the Genesis creation to several other ancient texts - they give 4 or 5 examples, including in Greek Mythology - and are working out possible constructions for the Genesis narrative: why they are like they are. Here they have just shown in how several of those narratives that there is a pervasive theme of that after the gods created man they destroyed them (analogous to the flood - and some of the sources he quotes actually used a flood narrative) because of overpopulation - and Kikawada & Quinn do a good job of laying out all their source proofs - but I'll talk about that later...*

When we turn to the Hebrews, we find population also important - but in exactly the opposite sense. The Hebrew God, far from punishing man for population growth, is rather ordering him, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." This command, so long familiar to us, is in its cultural context utterly startling, as unexpected as the monotheism. Frymer-Kensky suggests that this command to fertility represents "an explicit and probably conscious rejection of the idea that the cause of the flood was overpopulation and that overpopulation is a serious problem." A command, which now seems commonplace to us, was argumentative, almost polemical, in its original context.
Moreover if some features of Genesis now commonplace seem strange in its original context, the reverse might also be true. Perhaps some features of Genesis now strange to us (and hence taken as evidence for divergent traditions) will become commonplace when placed in their mythic context.
Take, for instance, the double-creation of man. We find man created in Genesis 1, and then formed again in Genesis 2; we naturally assume that two creation stories have been combined. And yet when we look at ancient Near Eastern stories of human creation, such a double-creation story is not unusual. We find it in the Sumerian primeval history of Enki and Ninmah. This history was written about 2000 B.C., perhaps at about the time Abram was ordered by God to leave Mesopotamia to become a nomad.
The story of Enki and Ninmah, starts at the very beginning of time. Only the gods exist; they must do all the work to carry vats and dig canals, and they complain bitterly about it. Enki's mother, Nammu, comes to Enki disturbing his sleep and informing him of the gods' dissatisfaction. She suggests that Enki fashion "substitutes" to do the work for the gods. He agrees, and these human beings are patterned after the "form" of Enki himself (much as man in Genesis 1). Then, a party is held and Enki is praised by the other gods.
The second stage of creation in Enki and Ninmah occurs when these two become drunk drinking beer at the party. Ninmah challenges Enki to a contest; she will make six creatures, and he will decree their fates. Ninmah makes six creatures who are weak in some part of their bodies, especially the reproductive systems, and who might have difficulty surviving. Enki declares a fate for each one that counteracts the weakness and facilitates its survival.
..
[more summarizing of the story - no points made]
...
In the story of Enki and Ninmah, the creation of mankind to do the work of the gods is first described in general terms, and then recounted more specifically with an emphasis on the human capacity for reproduction. We seem to have in the second, more specific version, the ancient Near Eastern equivalent of the Original Sin; it was not the original human sin, but rather the original divine mistake. We know from reading comparable myths that the gods should not have enabled mankind to reproduce on its own, for humans will overuse this capacity and thereby become a burden on the earth and a nuisance to the gods. Some of the gods will begin to feel like the sorcerer's apprentice, and bad times - including the great flood - are probably in store for man.

If we juxtapose this story with Genesis, the Hebrew author seems to have put new wine in old bottles. Much as we have in Genesis apparent residues of the old polytheism ("Lets us make man in our image"), so we also have residues of the old mythic structure. The Hebrew author would naturally suppress the detail that explains the need for a double-creation, for he is far from identifying the original sin/mistake with reproduction. But other indications of the older myth might still peek through, as when Eve says, "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord."

Let us assume that the author (or authors) of Genesis 1-11 presumed that its audience would familiar with the primeval history as it was usually told in the ancient Near East. This is not a very daring assumption, for the land of the Hebrews was often both politicallly and culturally dependent upon the great civilizations occupying the Tigris and Euphrates river systems. Not a very daring assumption but potentially a very illuminating one. If we could reconstruct the convention for primeval history as it developed in the ancient Near East, we might just be able to recover an important part of the rhetorical context in which Genesis 1-11 was composed. Then we might just be in a position to determine to what extent the apparent diversity in Genesis 1-11 is in the text and to what extent it only seems to be there just because we have applied the innappropriate standards of judgement.
...
[Then they continues on with their study]

Well right off the bat you can see that is says some things no evangelical would ever say (and he does not engage in religious polemic at all in the book) and even says "author (or authors)", even though precisely what he desires to do in the book is show its unity out of its apparent diversity (and he uses the DH as his building blocks - rather than rejecting it outright), by saying that the DH must move over in favor of it's unity.

Now as for Enki and Ninmah he does mention the "form" of man (and I did see that word in the translation for "forming" the clay), but we see Enki telling Nammu that she shall surely create man from the clay, and then it seems she actually created them. I think these authors we have been talking about that make commentary on the Enki and Ninmah know something we don't and I think it has to do precisely with the section where the online translations say "6 lines fragmentary" because it is precisely here where it is said that man was created, and thus why they were having the party. To fill in the gaps I looked around for a summary of Enki and Nimah and found this, "With the goddess of birth as her companion, Enki's mother Nammu mixes in blood the clay from above the Apsu ( = the primordial ocean), the seven assistants nip off the clay as she fashions the bodies. Afterwards, they celebrate the results by drinking beer..."
I think that they must be comparing the story with other copies of the story, or that readable words peek through (as they often do) in the "6 lines fragmentary" section that allow discernment of this first "general" creation as Kikawada and Quinn call it. So there is in fact a double creation of sorts in the story, following the general and then "more specific" form that it is argued Genesis does.

Likewise, when the second creation in Genesis is describing the creation of Adam and Eve, it isn't describing something that happened after the first story, i.e., that Adam and Eve were created after the anonymous 'male and female' of the first story. The first story is describing the first human beings, and the second story is describing the first human beings. There weren't two creations of the first human beings.

Interesting because that's exactly evangelicals' stance on that as well. That's why, similar to Kikawada and Quinn's example, we argue that the first gives a general description of the creation and the second one goes in for a more detailed account mostly focusing on man. That is how we explain the two accounts, and have no need for the DH to explain that.

P.S. I hope that quote will finally get us somewhere on this. It took me long enough to acquire the books I ordered. I also have Kitchen's book, but I got his newer one rather than the older one that deal more with the DH (although he mentions it briefly - and often referring to his previous writing for proofs), so I may have to go back and order Kitchen's other book as well.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Ok, as for the book review on Before Abraham Was. I got the book on Monday and by that night had already read 3/4 of the book, I'm on the last chapter already. It is about as original and non-boring as you could ask for from a book of it's topic, and I just kept the pages turning for 3 hours straight. If I hadn't been so tired that night I could have read it all in one sitting. It is only roughly 140 pages, and that being said I recommend that you read the book for yourself.

In the preface Kikawada, in so many words, spells out his indebtedness to the DH and says that those who off handedly dismiss the DH as worthless are making an arguement that is basically "reductio ad absurdum", and he acknowledges the important observations that it has made of the complex structure of Genesis, but then he puts in a sincere and reasonble plea that he wants to now use those observations to draw a different conclusions from the current ones held to instead argue for Genesis's unity. He appeals to what he calls a "historical analogy" to help the reader understand his position, and he mentions how Newtonian Physics was the dominant system in the physical sciences until our modern physics with Relativity came in, but that does not mean that is rendered Newtonian Physics worthless nor necessarily expelled it, but rather was actually only enabled to get to the point it had because of Newtonian Physics.

Then he continues on and gives an even closer historical analogy which he thinks fits this situation even better. He mentions how that Homeric studies in the Illiad also once had its own documentary hypothesis which was developed by an associate of Welhausen's, which remarkably has taken quite a different turn than the Biblical Documentary Hypothesis. Kikawada and Quinn wrote:

In Homeric studies Wilamowitz occupied the same position as his friend Wellhausen did in Pentateuchal studies. (Wilamowitz himself dismissed the recieved text of The Illiad as a "wretched patchwork.")
Remarkable is the degree to which these two fields of scholarly inquiry parallel each other through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And this makes it even more intriguing that they should have so sharply diverged from each other in the midtwentieth century. At roughly the same time that Noth, von Rad, and their colleagues were hammering out the detailed consensus of which von Rad was so justly proud, someone of equivalent stature within German classical studies, Wolfgang Schadewaldt, was profoundly challenging the documentary approach to Homer. To be sure, there had always been doubters. Goethe, after first hearing of the documentary hypothesis of Homer, wrote to Schiller, "When all is said and done, there is more subjectivity in this business than they think." Schadewalt's Iliasstudien "brought crashing to the ground a century and a half of German scholarship."
Actually Schadewaldt's work was so effective precisely because he did not bring the earlier work crashing to the ground. He did not want to render it futile. He did not want to because it had provided the true basis for his own work. He accepted the observations on which the earlier scholars had based their consensus. But he used their observations to challenge their inferences. He began his own unitary intepretation of The Illiad with the very books 8 and 11 that has always been the strongest part of the documentary case. He showed however that these books were parts of a greater whole; it was just that The Illiad had a far more complex unity than anyone had previously suspected. And we would never have appreciated the extraordinary complexity of this unity had it not been for the century and a half of work by gifted Homeric critics. His work was inconcievable without theirs, much as the twentieth-century revolution in physics was inconcievable without the two centuries of Newtonians who tried to finish the system.

Now if that isn't a reasonable approach and justification for an attempt at your own work to try to argue for Genesis' unity if they think there is something to be observed (and they most certainly do), then I don't know what is.

They then continue to clairify a bit where they are going with the book:

Recent collections of Homeric criticism (atleast those published outside Germany) no longer seriously consider the documnetary hypothesis of Homer at all.
...
Of course, the fact that classical studies has long since passed Wilamowitz by does not mean that the Old Testament scholars are backward because they still agree essentially with Wellhausen. Gensis does have the appearance of a loosely organized collection of traditional narratives, while The Illiad most emphatically gives the impression of being a single narrative. Perhaps Wellhausen, unlike Wilamowitz, had just found the appropriate material on which to use the method the two scholars shared.
Perhaps, but an alternate explanation does suggest itself. The unity of Genesis might be subtler, less direct than that of The Illiad, and hence more difficult for us to appreciate. If that is so, then we would expect the documentary hypothesis to be able to hold out longer here here because the need to see beyond it was less obvious.
What we can conclude from the analogy with Homeric studies (and more emphatically from the analogy with Netonian physica) is that the issue of unity is not closed for Pentateuchal studies, nor is it likely ever to be. However imposing the consensus, the documentary hypothesis remains a hypothesis. Its formulation may well have represented the dawn of a new day for biblical scholarship, but days have their dawn and their dusks.
In this book we propose a unitary reading of Genesis 1-11. Add we do it in the spirit of inquiry, not of polemic.

So I find the premise rather reasonable, but you'll have to evaluate what is presented yourself. That's why I think that if it is at all possible for you to get the book and read it, that you should do so. The reason why is that, aside from it being easy to read, interesting, and not all that long, is that their arguements are systematically presented by amassing several observations and then summarizing. They don't give a whole lot of "arguements in a nut shell" that I can quote, and it might do injustice to the book to tear it out of it's context where the arguement might not make as much sense or may seem weaker than it actually is.

Even that decently long quote I gave you in the last post was only one example of about 4 more they give. They discussed the theme of overpopulation and the devices of the gods to remedy it by first refering to a Greek work in the Epic Cycle which is the prequel to the Illiad, called Cypria, which shows that Zeus started the Trojan war and the Theban war as a plan (called the "plan of Zeus") to lessen the population. They then also step through the Atrahasis epic, which they actually reproduce the text of and make comments after each section that they gives to make observations. Then they give an example of an Old Iranian Flood Tale which they refer to as the "Zorastrian tale of Yima". Then they show how between Genesis, Atrahasis, Enki and Ninmah, the Greek examples, and the tale of Yima, how they all share a similar 5 part structure. They draw many more conclusions and very interesting observations which I couldn't do justice to here.

They also toward the end of the book gives several examples of chiasmuses that show a symmetry that suggests purposeful unity, and interesting the chaismuses they reveal extend over what they call the "seams" of the DH, meaning the chiasmus goes right through areas though to be attributed to different sources, which make different sources extremely unlikely in that area.

This has only been the briefest of reviews, and I hope you can find time to read the book if you can get your hands on it. But anyway that's my summary and that's all I have to say about it for now.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hey, I'm not even interested in this thread, but I accidentally found this information, so I thought I'd give you a link

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504fea1sb3.asp
What Is the Documentary Hypothesis?

 

[wavy]

bump

 

[cyberjosh]

Well, since this topic was bumped...

Here is a very detailed argument for Moses having a large hand the making of the Pentateuch (although oddly they don't think he wrote it, only edited it!): Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis.

None the less, it claims, "These two theses, when combined, are an explosive package capable of completely shattering the documentary (JEDP) theory". Should make for an interesting read.

~Josh

 

[wavy]

Is there anything specific you'd like me to address from that article, Josh?


Kind regards,
Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

Is there anything specific you'd like me to address from that article, Josh?

Not in particular. I half posted that to remind myself to read all of it, and I have yet to do so. Perhaps when this horrendous semester is over I'll actually have time to dive back in real deep like we did previously, but right now I have nether the time nor the will to debate this in any real level of depth. That doesn't mean I can't address certain points if you would like to comment on something in the article that strikes you, but I just won't have time right now to respond in the level of depth I have in my previous posts. My new favorite topic(s) are in the Biblical Archaeology section, I find that far less exhausting than trying to guess literary compositions that happened 2,500 to 3,000 years ago. ;) I'm spending most of my time discussing those topics right now.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

I may be able to pick up a little of this discussion again, but I wanted to discuss a subtopic that feeds into the overall concern of the JEDP theory: early composition of books of the Bible. With the Documentary Hypothesis in place all dates of books tend to gravitate closer and closer to Exilic and Post-Exilic dates (6th century and afterward), yet there are several that purport to be much earlier and definately some of the prophets (Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Joel) lived in - and whose books were probably also written in - the 8th century BC, and also Song of Solomon shows earmarks of a quite early date. The significance with the Prophets is their unique comission primarily for calling the people back into proper covenant relationship with God, and their baseline and constant references for that covenant relationship are to none other than the law of Moses and the covenant established by God in the Pentatuech. That quite obviously shows the existence of the Pentatuech prior to that date. And their references are rather quite complete and reveal a knowledge of all the elements of the JEDP categorizations of the Pentatuech before that time (8th century), which causes a problem for the JEDP theory.

Look at the link here for this google book: here.

The relevant portion I wanted to show is:

The prominent place occupied by- ritual of sacrifice does not need to be pointed out. The very idea of a revelation in connection with ritual implies that the primary object of such a revelation wd. be to lay down rules for an acceptable approach to Deity ; this would naturally include words of praise and prayer ; these as naturally would assume the form of poetry. Connected with this would be legends of the origins of things, the creation of the world and the origin of evil. The earliest portion of the Heb. Scriptures we shd. expect to be (though this is in direct opposition to predominant theories) the ritual of worship as we find it in the documents designated P. ; and along with this, some portion of the book of Psalms. When the ritual, at first traditional, was written down, it would necessarily be preceded by a book of Origins, narrating how the institutions regarded as sacred came into being.

In accordance with this we find in Amos and Hosea, the earliest of the literary prophets, that the law is known and recognised as supreme, and they manifest an acquaintance with all the component parts of which, according to the critics, the Pentateuch is made up. The case of Amos is very striking, as he, a herdsman, uses the technical terms for special sacrifices in a way that implies that he expects his audience to be acquainted with the legal requirements involved (cp. Am. 4:4 with Num. 28:3- 4 ; Deut. 14:28, 26 v. 5 with Lv. 7:13, 22.18f). All this means that the law was no mere possession of the priests, but was generally known ; in other words it had been, to some extent at least, committed to writing. AMOS also has references to the narratives in Gn.  the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah  using the word hapak, wh. is used in Gn. in regard to this catastrophe. The exodus fm. Egp., the wilderness journey, the conquest of the territory of Sihon are also referred to (Am. 2.10). Hosea has yet more references, especially to the history of the Pentateuch, and in terms which suggest, if they do not imply, that there were written records of these things. Further we learn from Amos (5:23) that music of voice and instrument accompanied the sacrifices. Thus we have, in the days of the earliest literary prophets, evidence that the people had a book of the law which contained all the elements J.E.D. P., which critics have found in the Pentateuch : also there was a Psalter of some sort. The history as given in Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, is also appealed to, though not so frequently. If, however, we regard Samuel as authentic history we have an earlier reference to the law. We are told (1 Sam. I0.25) that the prophet " told the people the manner (mishpat) of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord."

Also read this here, by the Old Testament scholar Douglas K. Stuart:

Consider the situation of Hosea, for example. His prophecies date from the reigns of Jeroboam II and the several succeeding northern kings (i.e. circa 750-722 BC). This means that the legal Stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, ritual, religious, ethical and civil, had been known in Israel for as much as six hundred years by the time he, the second earliest of the 'writing prophets', came on the scene.

When one carefully examines the message that Hosea preached it becomes evident that this message has in essence two facets only: (1) to call people back to obedience to the Mosaic covenant; (2) to remind them of the blessings and cures contained in that covenant. There is no passage in the book that does not have the Mosaic scripture as its basis. God's words of judgment or blessing fall into the categories already proclaimed in the covenant curse and blessing passages, especially those of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 - 33. Indeed, a remarkably high percentage of key vocabulary words and metaphors in Hosea reflect the previous revelation of a single chapter of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 32.7

For a single example of Pentateuchal allusion in a single verse, consider Hosea 4:2.

Cursing, lying, murder, stealing and adultery break forth, and the idols crowd against one another.

Here in this verse, six of the 'ten commandments' are mentioned, though not strictly 'cited'. In three cases (murder, stealing, adultery) the very vocabulary word of the two-word prohibition in Exodus 20...

[p.12]

/Deuteronomy 5 is repeated. In the remaining instances (cursing, lying, idols ...) the term used in Hosea 4: 2 summarizes a relatively longer commandment that in its entirety could hardly be cited in the poetic context of Hosea 4 without utterly disrupting the poem.

This example is only one among hundreds that could be adduced from the prophetical books. But it makes our point adequately. According to their inspiration to do so, the prophets recast and re-ordered the covenant stipulations. They took the mostly prose legal material and shaped it (mostly poetically) especially employing a rich imagery via metaphors and allegories, God's purpose through them being to express the essence of the covenant message effectively. Their inventiveness is always in service of the long-extant Mosaic covenant. What they do cannot be described as innovation, i.e. making new theological points.
---------------------------------------------------------

The entire article is excellent. You can read it here: The Old Testament Prophets' Self Understanding of Their Prophecy. I've actually met this man in person and he is an impressive scholar that, according to a brief biography on him, "is a scholar of the Old Testament, Assyrian and Babylonian languages and literature, and the cultures of the ancient Near East. He controlls the use of many languages including Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Egyptian, Ugaritic, Babylonian, Assyrian, Syriac, Arabic, French, and German. [He has also] written nine books: .....". So anyway I have found his articles and seminars always informative.

In addition to this, I also have a scan from my Archaeology Bible which I can send you that has an article that discusses "Hosea's Use Of The Old Testament", which begins:

Hosea was one of Israel's first prophets whose message was put into writting. Nevertheless Hosea's message, like those of Israel's other "writting prophets," cannot be understood in isolation from the law and the books of Joshua and Judges, books to which Hosea often alluded. For example he used the Old Testament as follows:

[proceeds to give a list of 9 examples]

And then concludes:

Hosea's allusions to Genesis through Judges are highly significant. First, they help to establish the fact that these books had already been written by the time of Hosea, in the eighth century B.C. (Many scholars consider these books to be from the sixth century B.C. and even later.) Second, Hosea's construal of these books helps us to understand early Biblical interpretation, which in turn gives us a better understanding of how the New Testament interprets the Old.

I think this calls for some consideration.

~Josh

 

[knerd]

Dear wavy and cybershark !!!

What a splendid and respectful exchange, guys! A tip of my imaginary hat goes to both of you. The debate content is interesting and informative, of course, but the debate process was measured, careful and done with sensitivity and tact.

A lot of Christian websites demonstrate a resistance to listening to others' ideas and sometimes the back and forth can get needlessly hurtful and rude.

Good work! You CAN disagree "without being disagreeable." It's just that most of us weren't raised by our parents to treat others as ourselves.

And now that I am finished reading your debate I can now actually get back to the real important stuff of perusing my own inbox full of spam. I have just been informed by e-mail that a friend of a friend of a friend who is involved with the Nigerian governmnet has promised me a sizable sum of money. I am now figuring out how to raise a sizable sum of my own to send to him so I can GET MINE !!!! ;)

 

[cyberjosh]

Dear wavy and cybershark !!!

What a splendid and respectful exchange, guys! A tip of my imaginary hat goes to both of you. The debate content is interesting and informative, of course, but the debate process was measured, careful and done with sensitivity and tact.

A lot of Christian websites demonstrate a resistance to listening to others' ideas and sometimes the back and forth can get needlessly hurtful and rude.

Good work! You CAN disagree "without being disagreeable." It's just that most of us weren't raised by our parents to treat others as ourselves.

Thanks for the kind words. And yes, I always try to enter into serious debates with reasonableness and a level head. And my hat is off to you if you read all the posts in this long winded thread! Looking back on it I have no idea how I could stand making my posts as long as they were. But I learned some important things along the way, and made the formulations for my arguments more precise. And once again, I thank wavy for his patience of reading through my posts - and I know I didn't even get to reply to all of his posts because there was so much to address.

But I learned of some important sources now, Kikawada & Quinn's book, which was an interesting read, and much more significantly Kenneth Kitchen's Book On The Reliability of The Old Testament, which was his Magnum Opus, and enormous book with over a thousand citations. It will come in handy in the future for many more debates other than the documentary hypothesis, because of the sheer volume of Ancient Near East history and archaeological data in it. It was actually one of his earlier books though that dealt with the DH in specific, but he is now a new favorite Bible Scholar for me. His works are truly impressive.

Anyway, this debate was progression for me, and now that I've got all the long winded stuff out of the way perhaps I can now focus on smaller specifics that don't require me to write a novel in the process. :D I think I best stated the progression for me, and my intentions, in this post:

"I do apologize for having to work through reviews, because I did not have these books on hand. I have to admit that I was not expecting to have to go fetch books over this, however it seems that it was necessary. I have school coming up soon and I think I will have to let this thread sit for a while, till I have time again. I'll have to go through all the relevant books and come back at a later date and restate my argument with more specific quotes from my sources. This actually has been a bit of a progression of knowledge for me as well since I had never heard of the Atrahasis Epic before, so some of these arguments in specific were new to me. However I've read in more than one place that the DH is based on a misunderstanding of ANE literature. I did take their word for it, but if you are wanting more specific evidences, I suppose I have to defer you to those who are more qualified than I."

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[knerd]

Thanks. Yep I did read the whole thing. There is so much pro and con on EVERY bit of faith and history and if you are like I am as far as being someone who follows the truth wherever it leads the path can be confusing but always seems to come right back home to myself.

I think I am at the point now where I know what I believe and just look for reasons, quotations and other seekers who merely confirm my own beliefs. I think it may be a little like Thomas Kuhn's "Structures of Scientific Revolutions." He is--or was--a scientist who held that when a new scientific worldview emerges, all the evidence that confirms that view is collected and added to the theory making it more substantial and persuasive. After awhile, though, certain bits of information come in and are evaluated that don't really seem to "fit" with the overall theory. These anomalies are basically "swept under the rug" because they are of no use to the main theory and, frankly, are troubling to those who hold to the main theory.

After awhile, said Kuhn, the "pile of information under the rug" becomes so large and unavoidable that at some point the entire previous theory--the entire scientific world view up until that time--somehow "flips" and is replaced by a new theory built up on those old anomalies that challenged the first theory.

That, he said, is how revolutions in science work and I am convinced the same process goes on even in theological and dogmatic theories in religious history. Look up "Thomas Kuhn" or the "structure of scientific revolutions" on Google and you can find out more about it.

What I guess I am saying is that I have my own paradigm of what I take to be Jesus and Christianity and it is subject to change.

Does that make any sense to you?