Avandris Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I'm curious if any of you can help me. While researching and trying to learn more about the book that I've been living my life by (or attempting to at least) I've come across the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). I've still got a very basic grasp of it but I'm reading more into it. However, I've come across a number of references to the fact that the DH is no longer as widely accepted as it was before. But I'm struggling to find alternatives to it or what might have changed (perhaps I'm simply failing in my search terms etc), so I was wondering if perhaps any of you wonderful people might be able to help me? I'm reading Bart Ehrman's stuff, but is there anyone else I should read on this subject (not necessarily just the OT but the NT as well). Thanks in advance, I look forward to hearing your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I have heard this too but have yet to find accessible, well written information on it. I will say this though, the DH is a vast improvement on the belief that the bible is the inspired word of god written by the character Moses and various other characters whose names are on the books of the bible. I prefer a hypothesis that there were multiple largely unknown authors and much editing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
directionless Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 This wikipedia article has some mention of the newer alternatives to the documentary hypothesis. If you start reading at this quote and continue further there is some info. This changed when R. N. Whybray in 1987 restated almost identical arguments with far greater consequences. By that time three separate models for the composition of the Pentateuch had been proposed: the documentary (the Torah as a compilation of originally separate but complete books), the supplementary (a single original book, supplemented with later additions/deletions), and the fragmentary (many fragmentary works and editions). ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avandris Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 Ah, thank you directionless. I must have missed that last night. At least that gives me something to go on. I shall try to look up the supplementary and fragmentary hypothesises/theories. Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 This is such a huge topic, one hardly knows where to begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 This is such a huge topic, one hardly knows where to begin. I would be very interested in hearing your take on this. Maybe start with a paragraph or two on why some question the DH and whether you think they've got a better hypothesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The basic problem is that positing non-existant "sources" for any ancient text is essentially the same thing as inventing non-existent sources. The same applies to "Q." If theologians stuck to a purely textual approach, then they would be forced to admit that a large number of Biblical pericopes can be found in Greek source texts like the Iliad or Herodotus. But they can never admit that -- the Bible must be "pre-exilic" and Greekless. So it follows that ninth century books ("J" and "E") must be main source for the Pentateuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 This is such a huge topic, one hardly knows where to begin. I would be very interested in hearing your take on this. Maybe start with a paragraph or two on why some question the DH and whether you think they've got a better hypothesis? One cannot even broach the subject without being severely criticized. The DH is gospel and cannot be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avandris Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 Well, in starting this topic I suppose I'm questioning the DH. I don't think fervently holding onto a hypothesis just because it suits us is a good thing to do (isn't this what Christian's are criticised for, clutching onto their Bible and their faith, deaf to the flaws and criticisms). So, I'd be interested to read your take Blood, I can't promise I'll agree but I'm always happy to listen to a differing/new point of view. Sources to back up your assertions would be even better, then I can read up on it myself and come to my own conclusions! If you feel comfortable in doing so, please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I think this is an interesting article on the DH and where it stands today. I haven't finished reading it yet, but thought you might want to look the article over. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/bad368008.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Avandris, you might find some relevant info in this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63951-the-documentary-hypothesis-delusion/page-3#.VE8BemeSxUk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avandris Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 @Overcoming Faith - Thank you for this! I did stumble across his book during my google searching but it is ridiculously expensive! I shall read over that article with interesting! @FreeThinkerNZ - Cheers, I shall have a look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts