From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Fri Nov 29 2002 - 09:37:31 EST
Peter Ruest wrote:
just a few comments: it does sound like a
recommended reading.
> .... Rofe himself opts for a new variant of a fragments
> hypothesis recognizing many different early and late traditions,
> "adequately reflecting the richness of Israel's literature", which were
> merged together mainly after Israel's Babylonian exile.
It sounds quite consistent at least. Consider that
people typically take things for granted until some
big event happens to shake them up. The return for exile would have
been one of those profound "wake
up calls". There are references to other sources
in Kings for example so more material existed at one
time than we have now.
On the other hand, where as the _form_ we see is
perhaps a post exile editing, I dislike the impression
that little scraps of paper and oral traditions were
all thrown together into a pot and stirred and the
contents poured out. This is what the JEDP hypothesis
seems to leave me with if it is carried too far.
>
> As a consequence, there is much less need for different sources (2). It
> might be sufficient to postulate earlier sources for the whole book of
> Genesis - earlier than Moses -, as well as some minor added remarks for
> the other 4 books of Moses.
>
It strikes me that even the English translation
of Genesis (I cannot read the original) is rather jarring in terms of
the transitions, fluidness of thought, and relationships
in the earlier parts but by the time one
has reached the part on Joseph, it has become quite
natural. There are places in Exodus that also seem
a bit jarring although I have seen some explanations
for part of that and it is much better than Genesis.
That has left me with some objections on the notion
that it is _all_ post exile editing. I would think
that the early books of Genesis were probably
assembled mainly post Exodus (another wake up call
time in Israel's history), and were quite fragmentary
and jarring because they were early.
>
> Therefore, I feel at ease to treat the Documentary Hypothesis as one
> hypothesis among others, rather than "the assured result of scientific
> investigation, with which all competent scholars agree". I don't think
> we have sufficient evidence to discard all alternative hypotheses out of
> hand.
I think the main problem is that it is subjective.
It is not so different from the famous claim that
"history is one of class struggles". That one
assertion had a major impact on the 20th century,
and there is a small grain of truth in it, but
that is not the same as saying that this is what
history is.
In a way though, that does give me some deeper
insight into why it is that the documentary
hypothesis would have been the product of that
precision German engineering.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 29 2002 - 13:13:35 EST