Quote Originally posted by slaveofone View Post
I wrote an outline of the main arguments in Umberto Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch. Perhaps it would be allowed here? It talks about several things that came up in the "debate" and are very strong arguments against foundational claims of the Documentary Hypothesis as well as some of Mr. M's arguments or assumptions. Unfortunately, D, and therefore also the Deuteronomistic History, is not really discussed, which was a major focus in this thread. But the subject was JEPD, not just D, so I think it still fits. For a fuller presentation of the arguments and their evidences, see the book itself.

1 - Divine names

Pro: Variations in the use of divine names shows that Torah was composed of(by) different texts(authors) which can be identified by the use of particular divine names (Elohim for source E; Yahweh for source J). Each new author/text represents stages in the development of the religious community, from a primitive stage which thought of god in more human terms to a classical stage that thought of god in more abstract terms, eventually culminating in a corrupt stage which lost god in ritual and law keeping. The different sources were later pieced together by a Redactor, who picked and chose from one source here and one source there to form a disparate mosaic. This accounts, therefore, for the haphazard divine name usage throughout.

Con: A. Misunderstanding of ancient narrative and grammar

Different divine names (a generic appellative and a proper name) were chosen for specific purposes. Elohim for philosophical, wisdom, pagan, and transcendent relation; Yahweh for personal interaction, moral association, poetic, nationalistic/ethnic identification. One can go through all five books of Moses and beyond and encounter this purpose for every use of a divine name. This rule is also definitive of ancient near eastern literature whether Egyptian, Babylonian, or something else.

B. Refuted by other texts

This rule is followed in all Hebrew literature in all times. It is seen in every occurrence in scripture. Therefore such use of a particular divine name cannot be called characteristic or identifiable of a particular author or source text.

C. Inconsistent

Selection of different divine names for purpose and content of text occurs in other ancient works that are universally attributed to only one author (example: Temple Scroll). In certain sections of text which are believed to belong to E or J, the wrong name appears and is thus either erased or assumed to be an error introduced by the Redactor. The wrong name is then changed and replaced with the one desired by the presupposition.

D. Based on philosophy/methodology of the time

Wellhausen was friends with others who thought in Romanticism’s idea of stages of cultural development and different texts being assembled into one mosaic. Mimicked the exact same ideas occurring in other areas like Homeric studies. While those theories were eventually rejected, the Documentary Hypothesis was not. His theory originating in a Protestant antinomian bias of the time which saw the “spirit” as good but the “law” debased/bad.

2 - Language and Style

1. Language

Pro: There are characteristic linguistic differences in the Pentateuch. Because an author rarely changes linguistic usage from chapter to chapter in the same composition, different uses of vocabulary and grammatical construction point to different authors. Example: “To bring up from Egypt” and “to bring forth from Egypt” both convey the same idea, but use different words to do so. The change in word usage evidences change in author.

Con:

A. Mechanical instead of Literary Investigation

Many of the linguistic differences arise because one is dealing with the text superficially, divorcing words from their context. Looking deeper, one sees meaning and purpose in the change of usage. “To bring up from Egypt” expresses something different than “to bring forth from Egypt.” The first speaks of a future goal—entry into the Promised Land, while the second speaks of liberation from past and present bondage.

B. Ignoring linguistic rules

Grammatical changes associated with a specific author are the result of rules of the Hebrew language which apply to all authors at all times. In some cases, it is impossible to construct vocabulary differently than how they exist. Thus, the differences are due to the exigencies of a language and not restricted to a particular person’s expression.

C. Circular reasoning

Because it is supposed a certain author only said a certain word, it is assumed that when a certain word is used, it is indicative of that author. It is not always shown why a certain author used the word supposedly characteristic of him. Sometimes this is explained because a particular divine name occurs nearby. But when we wonder why the one who said a certain word should also be the one who used a certain divine name, we are usually only left with the premise which has yet to be established—that said author who uses that specific divine name usually says that word.

2. Style

Pro: Differences in style which point to different authors. P is cold and dry, extremely detailed, and constantly repeating the same things, whereas others like J and E are passionate, poetic, and full of life.

Con:

Things that are characteristically applied to P are limited in narrative and composed of that which is hard to infuse life and warmth into (like genealogical lists). In the few places where a genealogical list is assigned to J, we find the same frigid and passionless manner of writing. And in those few narrative portions ascribed to P, there is more vitality and freedom of expression. Stylistic differences occur, therefore, not because of the existence of specific documents by different authors, but because of the form of language being employed.

3 - Contradictions and Disparities

1. Theophanies

Pro: Different conceptions of Israel’s god and how he relates to his creation reflect different authors. J thinks of Israel’s god in human terms, interacting personally with men. E thinks of him in more transcendent terms, interacting through the agency of dreams, visions, or angels. To P, god is abstract and removed. We know only that God spoke to someone.

Con:

A. Divine names

The change in conception of deity and his relation to creation is easily answered by the reasons given for divine name usage in argument 1. Ancient Near Eastern literature, including all Hebrew literature, use different names to speak of god in different ways.

B. Not mutually exclusive

Different aspects of a person can be described by a single author. Unless it is inherently conflicting to describe the divine as in one instance human-like, and in another transcendent or abstract, there is no reason to postulate multiple sources.

C. Not the only explanation

There is nothing inconsistent or uncommon about a unitary work displaying divergent concepts. If one starts with the presupposition that the Pentateuch is a mosaic of different sources, they have not provided a better answer here than can be made by starting with the presupposition that the Pentateuch is a unitary work meant to be understood as a whole.

D. Literary purpose and meaning

Name usage reflects the purpose and intent of the story, not different authors.

2. Ethics

Pro: Patriarchs are shown in different moral lighting. While J and E allow the patriarchs to be tarnished in a few respects, P’s portrayal of them is ideal and beyond reproach. The issue is not whether we might see them as doing good deeds, the issue is how the Torah judges the act.

Con:

A. Moral light and judgment takes the form of story, not doctrine

Different portrayals of patriarchal morality have meaning in the story, they are not evidence of different stories. Example: While Torah does not say when Jacob exploited his father’s age and infirmities to acquire the blessing that this was evil, the story bears it out. Just as Jacob took advantage of the darkness in his father’s eyes to switch brothers, so Laban took advantage of the darkness around Jacob’s eyes to switch daughters. And just as Jacob, the younger, presented himself in the place of the firstborn, so Jacob complains to Laban about having daughters switched, saying, “it is not done so in our country to give the younger before the firstborn.” Thus, out of his own mouth, Jacob condemns himself.

3. Family customs

Pro: Different customs reflect documents that come from different environments. Example: Sometimes a father names his son, but sometimes the mother does so.

Con:

So-called divergent customs are not reflected in the text. In the example above, the reason a father sometimes names a son or daughter instead of a mother or vice versa is because when the circumstances surrounding a son or daughter’s name is connected to his/her father, the father is does the naming. When a son or daughter’s name is connected to his/her mother, the mother does the naming.

4. Outright inconsistencies

Pro: Openly conflicting passages show that one passage originated with one author and the other from a different one. A Redactor introduced the inconsistencies as he pieced the different sources together.

Con:

A. Not an answer

This does not solve the problem, because a Redactor would have just as much reason to avoid purposely introducing inconsistencies into a text as an author would.

B. Divergent traditions, not authors

Inconsistencies are better explained by the presence of variant traditions among the Israelites. Instead of rejecting one in favor of the other, Torah found ways to include them both.

4 - Duplications and Repetitions

1. Duplications

Pro: Duplicate stories are conclusive proof that a Redactor had before him various sources that told the same story in different ways.

Con:

A. Official and folkloric traditions

Like every other society, stories were likely handed down through sages/philosophers as well as more simple-minded commoners. Torah likely made use of both. While this doesn’t deny the possibility of different sources, it shows that a single source or author can draw from multiple traditions.

B. Many "duplications" are not duplications

In the case of the supposed creation story "doublets", the first story is cosmological, but the second, which does not reference the sun, the moon, the stars, the sea, or even the creatures of the sea, cannot be cosmological. Stories which do not even fit into the same literary genre, therefore, cannot be duplications.

C. Many "duplications" are complimentary, not contradictory

Parallel stories serve to add detail to or expand on something already said. They do not, therefore, require an additional author. When the first creation story says the heavens and earth were made in six days and then the second story says "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens", there is no contradiction. "In the day" is not a reference to a single day of creative activity. It means "at the time". Thus, although Moses spoke with God on Sinai for forty days and forty nights, we see in Numbers 3:1, "in the day when the Lord spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai."

2. Repetitions

Pro: Repeated occurrences or motifs are conclusive proof that a Redactor had before him different presentations or versions of the same ancient tradition.

Con:

A. Literary purpose

Repeated motifs and occurrences serve a purpose and design in the story as a whole, which shows they were not pieced together from disparate authors and documents.

B. Different traditions do not require different authors

The Roman historian Livy, when writing of the father and son—Decius Mus—who gave their lives in battle to ensure victory, included parallel accounts of both father and son in the same work, despite similarity of accounts. That in no way destroys the unity of Livy’s book.

C. Torah explains its own repetitions

Genesis 41:32 says, "And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice, it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." We are, therefore, told explicitly that something recurs because it is fixed by god. This is a matter of intentional recapitulation, not the work of separate authors and a Redactor.

5 - Composite Sections

Pro: There are many duplications or inconsistencies that can only be explained as having been formed by combining fragments from different sources.

Con:

A. Literary purpose

Again, supposed duplications or inconsistencies arise from purpose and design in the story as a whole and therefore argue for Torah’s inner unity.

B. Inconsistent

Pieces which are said to belong to one author contain the divine name which is supposed to be characteristic of a different author.

C. Impossible language divisions

Many of the supposed sections which come from different authors are joined together by the rules of the Hebrew language and therefore show a fundamental connection in their very structure.

D. Many "duplications" are complimentary, not contradictory

As shown in 4, many parallels are not contradictory, but add details to previous statements or occurrences.
Very well put together SlaveofOne!