Introduction
It seems that the debate regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch has generated more discussion and disagreement than any other of its kind. Opinions are quite varied on the topic as some claim that Moses wrote every word, while others claim that Moses had nothing to do with it. This form of critical scholarship of the Pentateuch supposes that authors of much latter dates than Moses composed the Pentateuch, and from different sources and documents the Pentateuch was constructed. Given this opinion, rather than primarily expressing my own, I would like to interact with its claims and see if they stand up to criticism.
A (brief) History of the Documentary Hypothesis,
and the Authorship of the Pentateuch
The notion that Moses had nothing to do with the Pentateuch was first suggested in 1670 by Jewish philosopher Benedict Spinoza. This is in fact the beginnings of what scholars refer to today as the documentary hypothesis. The documentary hypothesis proposed that instead of having one document, written and put together by one author (i.e. Moses) you have many documents or sources (J, E, D, and P), and the authors of these alleged sources are the real authors of the Pentateuch.
The first real documentary hypothesis scholar to suggest the existence of a J (or “Yahwist”) and E (or “Elohist”) source for the Pentateuch was the French physician Jean Astruc in 1753. The characteristics the J source can be identified by the use of Yahweh in Gen 2 and the E source can be identified by the use of Elohim in Gen 1. For Astruc, the reference to God as Elohim and Yahweh was evidence of authorship and not a stylistic literary purpose. In addition to the divine names, another characteristic and proof of the J and E sources were the evidence of doublets. Following Astruc, Johann G. Eichhorn in 1780-83 identified the J and E source by literary characteristics. For example, J was identified in Gen 12:10-20 when Abraham and Sarah were in Egypt
Further proof of the existence of a J and E source were brought forth by W.M.L. DeWette in 1807. He marks the next important stage in the development of the documentary hypothesis as he suggested that different phraseology (such as vocabulary and style) were parts of later contemporary authorship and thus nothing in the Pentateuch and the J source pre-dates 1000 BC and 900 BC for the E source. The proof for such a late contemporary authorship was the similarity of phraseology between J and E and the book of Jeremiah. Also, there were anachronisms, such as allusions to the temple in Dt 12:5 and allusions to Kingship in Dt 17:14-20, which prompted him to conclude that this phraseology proves latter authorship since there was no temple until the time of Solomon and the writing of 1 Kgs 9, and the notions of kingship meant that the text must have been written when there were actually kings in the land.
As DeWette was one of the first to suggest a D source (commonly understood among documentary hypothesis scholars as a reference to the book of Deuteronomy), the grounds for its identity and characteristics can be found within the Deuteronomistic History (this would have been everything from Joshua to 2 Kgs). Why? Because of the parallels with the Deuteronomistic phraseology. The identity of the Deuteronomistic phraseology is writing from a Covenant Lawsuit perspective. In other words, it evaluated the legitimacy of the northern kingdom. The work Traditional Historical Studies by Martin Noth in 1943 further develops these notions. He proposed (as well as Dewette) that the book of Deuteronomy was fabricated by someone, perhaps Josiah as he discovers a “Book of the Law” in 2 Kgs 22-23, and thus writes in a Deuteronomistic phraseology in order to use it as a preface for the histories. In other words, Deuteronomy was a “pious fraud” or counterfeit in order to produce reform. It was to centralize worship (Dt 12:5) so that the nation would come under control of the priests. Deuteronomy also functioned as providing further theological rational that accounted for why the nation had gone so astray.
This move to centralize worship in the temples and thus under the control of the priests, as well as the writing of covenantal material are crucial characteristics of D. However, within the Pentateuch there was actual achievement of the centrality of worship so documentary hypothesis scholars identified one more document: the P or “Priestly” source. The first to identify P was Hermann Hupfeld in 1853 in light of certain legal and priestly material found within the Pentateuch. Shortly thereafter, the hypothesis reached its classical form with the works of Karl Graf, Abraham Kuenen, and the brilliant German scholar, Julius Wellhausen. Frist, Graf in 1865 looked at the P source and concluded that P was later than D, because D seems to not know P on account of D not citing P. For if one reads D, then one would not find any of the core material of P, which is Lev 17-26. Again, his logic is that if D does not quote P, then P did not exist until after D. He categorizes P as being exilic or sometime during the exile, and slits P into two portions: Legal P, which was exilic, and Historical P which was much earlier. Next, given Graf’s suggested split with P, Abraham Kuenen in 1869 was the next crucial scholar for the hypothesis. He was the first to claim that there was only one “P” and suggested that it was quite late (either exilic or post exilic), and then provided the documentary hypothesis with its official ordering of the documents: J, E, D, and P.
Therefore, given Kuenen’s ordering of the documents, the man who most refined and populized the hypothesis was Wellhausen, who was an expert in Semitic languages. In 1876, being highly influenced by Hegelian philosophy and Darwinian evolution, he concluded that the practices of the religious institutions during the writing of Pentateuch evolved, not revealed. The proof he needed can be found among the varying characteristics of the document. The ritual practice of centralized worship is mentioned in D and not achieved until P. Moreover, J and E never write about the centrality of worship, so they are much older than D and P. Given his presuppositions and conclusions, he was prompted to provide dates for each one. J was written around 850 BC by someone from Judah (the southern kingdom) who emphasized biography as well as ethical and religious concerns. E was written around 750 BC by someone from the northern kingdom and was more objective in his narrative writing style. D was written around 621 BC by the high priest Hilkiah who incorporated notions of the law and legal religious practices most likely as a result of the reign of Manasseh. Following both Graf and Kuenen, Wellhausen dated P as a post-exilic source. According to him it was mainly compiled and edited by Ezra around 450 BC. Ezra incorporated genealogies, lists, origins, sacrifices and the description of the Tabernacle into the Pentateuch. Along the way there were redactions that combined each individual document. JE was redacted and combined into one document in 650 BC; JED in 550 BC; and JEDP in 400 BC. While the exact dates for the documents are still to this day highly debated within this hypothesis, Welhausen’s dates are considered by many to be more-less representative of this view and more-less “close enough.”
To conclude this brief historical account, this hypothesis took the scholarly world by storm. It gained enthusiastic support from numerous biblical scholars and theologians. As a result, this way of thinking was state of the art among liberal biblical/theological scholarship, and if one was considered to be a serious biblical scholar then this approach was adapted. S.R. Driver was the most influential English scholar to articulate the hypothesis and promoted its appreciation and acceptance for British scholarship, while Charles A. Briggs of Union Seminary did the same for American critical scholarship. Lastly, Frank M. Cross, formerly a professor of OT at Harvard Divinity School
A Critique of the Documentary Hypotheses
The problems and weaknesses concerning the documentary hypothesis are quite numerous, as reaction and opposition to it began as early as the nineteenth-century. The key scholars are too numerous to simply even mentions, but their main criticism rested upon the hypothesis’ inconsistent and contradictory methodology. To begin, none of the alleged documents have even been found. Also, the same verse or passage might be assigned to different documents depending upon the scholar. In addiction to this, some respected scholars have identified additional sources (K, L, or S). Therefore, these inconsistencies and contradictions concerning the methodology of the hypothesis certainly beg the questions concerning its reliability. Also, this subjective handling of the texts does little to increase one’s confidence in the method.
The next form of criticism worth mentioning notes the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) parallels found among the literature of the Pentateuch. On a side note, in a much earlier blog post I mentioned one account that clearly proves ANE literary parallels within the Pentateuch, and I think it would be a source to consult for a further and more detailed discussion. Here’s a link: http://nicholaslutzo.blogspot.com/2011/02/ane-suzerian-vassal-treaties-creation.html. In fact, these ANE parallels are too numerous for me to simply list, but I will provide a few examples. For one, hypothesis scholars claim that there is a J and E source because of a discrepancy concerning divine names. If you remember, they claim that it is a result of authorship and not literary style. This is simply absurd! There are many singular gods among the ANE who had numerous names: The Egyptian sun god Ra was also referred to as Amon-Re; Osiris is referred to as Wennofer and two other names; and the Ugaritic god “Koshar and Hasis” is a compound name and no one suggests that such a compound is a result of different authors and documents with respect to particular Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts. In fact, since there is an obvious parallel to what one sees with the divine naming and compounding of Elohim and Yahweh in the biblical texts, then one can similarly conclude that the text is a result of one author and document. Also, the reason for the ANE style of using different divine names was for literary purposes. Therefore, the reason for the different uses of the divine names speaks not to issues of different authorship, but to the nature and purposes of the context of the passages. Again, this is just a few examples of how the documentary hypothesis appeals to arbitrary discrepancies upon texts.
There also seems to be an antisupernatural bias or naturalism assumed among certain hypothesis scholars when working the texts. Since some would presuppose that miracles and prophecy do not exist, then texts that speak of kings and a temple must have been written when there actually were kings and a temple in the land. This highly begs the questions and is quite the illogical move for the scholar. Next, there is an arbitrary appeal to redactors. A prime example is much later covenantal material (D source) found within a much earlier narrative of Exodus 20:2-17 (J and E). The primary D material being referred to here is the Decalogue (Dt 5), and since you have it in Ex. 20 then they conclude that a D redactor had their hand in the content of J and E. However, this account does not take into consideration the fact that this covenantal lawsuit material can be found in the ANE Tukulti-Ninurta Epic in 1240 BC. The literary structure of the Ex. passage is:
I. Narrative (JE)
II. Cov. material (D)
III. Narrative (JE)
However, if you look at the Tukulti-Ninurta epic, then you will find the same literary pattern existing there:
I. Narrative
II. Cov. lawsuit
III. Narrative
Also the documentary hypothesis proposes artificial stylistic restrictions. But style has nothing to do with authorship and everything to do with subject/genre in the ANE. There are also artificial discoveries of discrepancies, and duplicates. For example the Gen 12 and Gen 20 story of Abraham and Sarah. Is it possible that Abraham made the same mistake twice? Sure it is we do all the time! Lastly, as I pointed out above, the documentary hypothesis seems to have not adequately taken into consideration how the people in the ANE wrote. There are many ANE parallels found in the Pentateuch that one need not look far to see how authors of that time wrote and thus support the notion that the text of the Pentateuch is quite old and primarily written by one author (i.e. Moses).
Conclusion and Defense of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
It seems that the most basic reason that best accounts for such a movement within biblical scholarship is based upon what one wants to see in the Bible. If you want to see discrepancy then you will find it. However, if you want to see unity then you will find it. In other words, the issue of authorship of the Pentateuch is a matter of starting points. Given my response to the notions of the documentary hypothesis, let’s begin from a perspective of unity within the Pentateuch.
First of all, it seems that we should look for unity within the compositional structure of the book(s) as a whole rather than the solely among its individual parts that make up the whole, since it is possible that the author might have used a collection of clay tablets, which contained on them the accounts of creation, the flood and the lives of the early patriarchs. Given this, the author would have written the Pentateuch in the same manner as Luke say he wrote his gospel (Lk 1:1-4). However the author did it it seems rather certain that the Pentateuch accurately depicts the age and historical period of the Exodus. There are many reasons that support such a statement, but it is mainly proven by our knowledge of how the people of the ANE wrote. Also, assessing unity from the structure of the whole accounts is supported by how narrative literature works. In other words, it tells a story. For example, the building of the tower of Babel
Among other aspects of unity found in the Pentateuch, the author is certainly concerned with history and impressing upon the Israelites the ideology of their identity and the meaning of God’s kingdom. Themes of God as the creator and redeemer, and ones that relate to his attributes, such as his holiness, along with the descriptions of who God is and how who humanity is (sinful) speak to issues of history, identity and the meaning of God’s kingdom. Accompanying the talk of God as redeemer that are notions of human salvation from destruction and the coming of a Messiah or Anointed One who will ultimately rescue humanity from their sin. There is also consistent mentioning of covenants being made and being referred back to as humanity either upholds or breaks them. These factors of literary unity speak to the issue that the one writing is more than a crude redactor or editor who simply compiles patches together the sources.
Given these themes and the many parallels with other writings of the ANE, it is rather valid and sound to claim Mosaic authorship. He would have received superb teaching and training, and such teaching and training in many respects can be found reflected in what is found in the Pentateuch. In addition to the Moses’ education, his other qualifications for authorship are tied to his exceptional spiritual gifts, his divine calling and high role as a political and religious leader of Israel Israel
In addition to Moses’ qualifications, we have statements within the Pentateuch which would provide further support concerning his authorship: Ex 17:14; 24:4, 12; 31:9, 24; 34:27-28 (“the Book of the Law,” which is a clear reference to Ex 20-23); and Num 33:2 all speak of Moses writing something that pertained to the Law and is mostly likely found within the Pentateuch. There are also clear references to Moses being the author of parts of the Book of Deuteronomy (Dt 31:9, 19, 22, 24). There are also speeches from God that are introduced with the phrase “The Lord spoke to Moses” (Lv 4:1), which implies that what follows has come from Moses’ hand. Lastly, without mentioning the references, there are many other statements to be found within the OT and even the NT that ascribe authorship to Moses.
To conclude, I would like to clearly state that I do not think that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch as we have it today. What I hopefully have laid groundwork for is primary Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, with later editors adding minor additions to meet the needs of the postexilic community. But we can discuss further reasoning later.
Interesting post, Nick. A few observations to that I think help clarify things before I respond. The idea of these observations is to point toward some of the things that I think a typical proponent of the documentary hypothesis might say to you upon reading this. Hopefully that will help make the position more clear and help identify which lines of battle are really worth fighting over:
ReplyDeleteFirst, Its interesting to me that Wellhausen is the culmination of your discussion. In most discussions of the documentary hypothesis, he is the starting point. Similarly to how Darwin might be associated with evolutionary theory or how Gallileo with the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, it would be inaccurate to say that Wellhausen was the first to come up with the ideas that underlie the documentary hypothesis. As you have pointed out, the ideas were circulating in various forms for a while beforehand. However, Wellhausen was the first to put those ideas together in a really compelling way that received a lot of attention. So Wellhausen is usually attributed with the beginning of the documentary hypothesis. The reason I think this is significant is that like all theories, the beginnings and the contemporary understanding look very different. By ending your treatment with Wellhausen, where most scholars begin, you are overlooking a whole host of developments since his time. Just looking over the reading list of the class I took on this very topic this semester, where do Hermann Gunkel, Gerhard von Rad, Rolf Rendtorff, Richard Elliot Friedman, Martin Noth (you mention him briefly, I did notice that, yes), James Barr, Brevard Childs, etc. fit into your account? While all of them to some extent or another accept the documentary hypothesis, they all have very different takes on the theory than Wellhausen did. So by culminating with Wellhausen, whose idea was compelling to a lot of scholars but was quickly seen to have serious problems which these later thinkers have attempted to solve, you are kinda short-chaning the argument a bit.
Second, we need to keep in mind that these are hypothetical "documents." Perhaps a better word would be "strands." I don't know any documentary theorist who actually expects us to find the J-Source. Similarly, I don't know any New Testament scholar who actually expects to dig up the Q-Source of the gospels. The "source" is a hypothesis based on shared accounts and readings. The same idea applies to the Documentary Hypothesis. We don't have exactly parallel accounts like we do in the gospels, but we can, a theorist would say, note how some parts of the Pentateuch seem to fit better together than others and construct these four "strands" of text which seem to reflect four traditions which developed prior to their all being combined together in the Pentateuch we have today. Whether we ever dig them up or not really doesn't matter that much, most theorists would say.
Third, inconsistent results do not necessarily mean bad idea or methodology. No two philosophers have ever agreed on everything. That doesn't mean philosophy is a dead project (unless your Jacques Derrida). So we need to be careful about drawing too quick of a conclusion here. Disagreements exist in Evangelical theology on a number of topics, we don't that to mean those projects are worthless. We take that to mean more work needs to be done. Documentary Theorists will say the same thing about their project.
Fourth, I think you are oversimplifying the divine name issue for two reasons. First, this was noted by scholars because of the way the alternating between divine names happen. For the most part, we don't have situations were God is called Elohim and Yahweh in the same story. We get one story where every time God is mentioned it is Elohim. Then in another story God is always Yahweh. The consistency within a particular story gives rise to the idea that said story might have existed independently at one point. Which is not nearly as arbitrary as you are making it sound. Second, in two places in Exodus we have accounts of God revealing the divine name Yahweh to Moses, and in both cases it said that this name was unknown prior to its revelation to Moses. Yet, in Genesis there are multiple stories where Yahweh is used by characters. These stories in Exodus are one of the major drives behind the documentary hypothesis and are taken to suggest there may have been a different source in which Yahweh was used and known prior to the revelation to Moses in Exodus. That part of the argument again makes the distinction seem a bit less arbitrary than you seem to think.
ReplyDeleteFifth, the accusation that documentary theorists don't pay attention to Ancient Near-Eastern parallels is a bit ridiculous. I would actually go out on a limb and say evangelical scholars wouldn't pay any attention to ANE parallels if it wasn’t for documentary theorists bringing them up first. Be careful who you make that accusation to, it may be turned around on you very quickly!
Sixth, your statement about anti-supernatural bias is also a bit off base. Most documentary theorists are very committed believers in either Judaism or Christianity. Wellhausen saw his theory as proving the validity of his Protestant faith in opposition to Roman Catholicism, for instance. Most of these theorists are anything but anti-supernatural. They firmly believe in God's working in history. They would likely affirm a strong belief in the resurrection. Their beliefs about the formation of the Pentateuch are not the result of being anti-supernatural. Again, be careful about who you make this kind of accusation to.
Seventh, I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrary appeal to redactors." Arbitrary implies without reason. Most documentary theorists would give you a lengthy list of reasons for why they attribute a certain text to a particular source or to a redactor. Also, you're case study in Exodus 20 is not one that is likely to upset many documentary theorists. As I said in our earlier conversation, I think most would reverse the order you have suggested. They would say that D is a later source and that it borrowed the decalogue from the earlier account in JE. The closest to what you have suggested I have found is Richard Elliot Friedman, who suggests that the decalouge is an insertion, but not from D. He thinks it was probably an independent document that someone inserted here later and that another version was circulating which was picked up by D, explaining the differences between them (see his book The Bible With Sources Revealed).
To close this off, I want to offer a kind of account of the basic motivation behind the documentary hypothesis and then lay some of my own cards on the table.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary hypothesis develops from two directions at once. The first direction is the study of the Pentateuch itself. It can be noticed pretty clearly that of the five books we have, two seem fairly independent of the rest, namely Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Both of these books could be read without having the rest of the Pentateuch and they would still make sense as a coherent "book." The other three, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, are occupied with narratives that are much more intertwined, especially in the case of Numbers, which really needs Exodus to provide context for its story. After this we might notice that some of the stories in the narrative material seem to fit more naturally with some of the other stories in terms of their content and their style. Finally, it is often observed, some of the stories have a clear correlation with what we know of late Israelite history- Aaron making a golden calf gets "echoed" in a remarkable way by Jereboam in 2 Kings, for instance. There are many statements in the Pentateuch that are clearly aimed at a later audience- "the Canaanites were then in the land" seems to presuppose the audience of the book lived at a time when the Canaanites were not in the land, for example. With these observations in mind, it begins to seem plausible that there are multiple stories being told in the Pentateuch, or perhaps that the material has been reworked to make it relevant for later circumstances, or something like this that suggests a process or development.
The second direction is from the study of what has become known as the "Deuteronomistic History"- Joshua-Kings. These books are so named because, upon studying them, it becomes apparent that they share an extremely similar ideology/theology, to the point that many of the speeches given by major leaders in these book are extraordinarily similar, in some cases identical, to one another. Then, upon further reflection, we discover that they are also extremely similar to the speeches of Moses in Deuteronomy. Which gives rise to the theory that they are all closely related to Deuteronomy in some way. Which then further strengthens the notion that Deuteronomy may have at one point existed independently of the other books of the Pentateuch. Similarly, when we read post-exilic books like Ezra-Nehemiah or Chronicles we see a sudden emphasis on purity and temple regulations and the role of the Levites that we haven't seen before. Which, we can notice, is remarkably similar to how these issues are dealt with in Leviticus. Which perhaps adds credence to the idea that his book also existed independently at some point.
Now, I have intentionally phrased this account in extremely general terms. I am simply trying to show some of the things that might motivate the documentary hypothesis. At its most basic level, this hypothesis is simply that at one time there existed various versions of the story of the Pentateuch and that at some point those versions were combined together into a grand national epic. In its most famous form, stemming from Wellhausen, this theory posits four sources that were combined together in three different stages- JE, JED, JEDP. In more recent works the problems with this model have been dealt with and several additional "sources" have been identified and the order has been played around with in different ways, sometimes D being the last stage, in some cases J is the final editor, etc. To lay out my cards, I think that the basic idea of the hypothesis has a high degree of plausibility. I don't know that I am convinced by any particular model of the hypothesis, though. In fact, I would say I am not. I think Robert Alter and several like-minded critics have done a fantastic job of showing, in a way similar to what you suggested when you pointed out that doublets are not necessarily indications of a different source, that many of the stories can be seen to flow with one another much more easily than has been supposed and that separating out the sources may be an impossible task.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, though, I want to leave you with a question. Does the most basic idea of this hypothesis- that the Pentateuch was not always one text- really prove to be a threat? Granted, it challenges Mosaic authorship. But what is really lost by dropping the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch? I know later writers, especially in the NT refer to Moses as author. But they also say the sun circles the earth. We take that statement to be speaking in idiom- that is what people of the time believed. Can we say the same about Mosaic authorship? Is it really something we need to defend?
Alex, Thank you for responding. You and I have discussed this material in person just recently, and now we have the chance to continue our dialogue together and hopefully with others who find interest in such matters. Also, I enjoy this format for dialogue as we both to take more time and read carefully what each other is saying and thus better understand the points being made.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I didn’t end my discussion of the hypothesis with Wellhausen. I concluded the historical section with this:
“To conclude this brief historical account, this hypothesis took the scholarly world by storm. It gained enthusiastic support from numerous biblical scholars and theologians. As a result, this way of thinking was state of the art among liberal biblical/theological scholarship, and if one was considered to be a serious biblical scholar then this approach was adapted. S.R. Driver was the most influential English scholar to articulate the hypothesis and promoted its appreciation and acceptance for British scholarship, while Charles A. Briggs of Union Seminary did the same for American critical scholarship. Lastly, Frank M. Cross, formerly a professor of OT at Harvard Divinity School, is only one of many modern scholars who promote and teach this approach as most plausible concerning the authorship and dating of the Pentateuch.”
In many respects I brought this theory into the 19th and 20th century and did not simply end it with Wellhausen. But the reason for focusing primarily on Wellhausen is because most of the documentary theorists will rely so heavily upon his conclusion while yes making alterations to parts of his argument and conclusion. I did briefly explore their many disagreements in short detail under the criticism section, and I’ll again bring this back up very soon in a response to something you stated. However, the scholars I mentioned above were done so for time purposes and also because they are considered by most (conservative or not) to by the key players for this theory.
Now you have mentioned a host of scholars that I did not and you did well to point them out and thank you for doing so. Therefore, perhaps I will include a brief account of what only two of them, as many find them to be the fathers of a particular method of criticism and perhaps the most important ones to mention here.
First, the reason for not mentioning those scholars was due to the fact that they are more associated with other methods of OT criticism and not primarily with the documentary hypothesis (or source criticism). While they do (as you noted as well) “accept parts of the documentary hypothesis, they have very different takes on the theory than Wellhausen did.” However, I’m not for sure that each one is too different from Wellhausen. Furthermore, the relationship of other methods of OT criticism and that of Wellhausen is quite strong, because each one did not become popular until shortly after Wellhausen’s development of the modern source criticism.
So, the first movement I wish to speak about is form criticism. The major idea associated with form criticism is that style is related to genre (subject matter) and not authorship. This really began with Eduard Norden, who produced works in both 1898 and 1913 that expressed such views. But the father of OT form criticism is Hermann Gunkel, who is one of the most influential biblical scholars of the past century. He embraced the teaching of Norden, evident in his commentary on the Psalms. However, following the Grimm Brothers release of their collection of fairy tales, which aided in the production of the notions of sage, legend and fairy tales, Gunkel was so impacted by it that he developed similar notions about certain biblical forms. As a result, he produced his The Legends of Genesis and in it explained that this was how the people of the ANE told their stories. In other words, they were legends or myths. Moreover, he makes a distinction between legend and history and says that history arises out of an organized state and political matter. His point of many of this was his assumption that God does not interact with creation. In other words, he assumes naturalism.
ReplyDeleteGunkel is also famous for his development of the Sitz im Leben or the setting and life of the folk or people. For Gunkel it plays the most significant role in the creation and use of certain texts. The three different types of settings were the cult, the school and the tribe and each one of them produced a different text form. The cult refers to the religious institutions which produce P; the school produced D; and the tribe produced J and E or sages and legends.
Now as for Gunkel’s notions concerning the myth telling of the ANE, I don’t think the same is true concerning the events depicted within the Pentateuch. Most of us would want to say that the events of creation, the flood, the plagues, the exodus, etc., were real events. In fact, the point that most of these find their parallel within ANE literature doesn’t mean they are of the same vain or nature, but that they are true events that historically took place. Dr. John D. Currid at RTS has done a good bit of work on this subject, and you can find some of it on itunes U. It’s called “Crass Plagiarism?” His most basic conclusion is that it is polemic, and he states that the fact that these parallels exist in other literary works outside of the biblical accounts are quite encouraging. For it means that they more than likely took place! Moreover, these parallels show us that the Pentateuch was more likely written much earlier than the documentary hypothesis suggests. Now you stated that the hypothesis paid attention to ANE parallels. Well if it did, then I think it would at least reflect it in its study and conclusion concerning the dating of the documents. True?
Next, (and too briefly) I’ll mention Brevard Childs, who is the father of canonical criticism. In 1979 he published Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. There, focused on the final form of the text itself as it exists within a Canon. From that stating point, his goal was to obtain theology. However, he affirmed JEDP and as a result his task does not make sense. How can you gain theology from a set of documents that don’t agree with one another?
Next, sure no NT scholar has great hopes in actually finding Q, but in light of textual criticism we have a pretty good idea that (1) it existed and (2) what parts of it contained. Therefore, let’s do the same with the attempt to do use the same science with the documentaries of the hypothesis. Given that OT TC is quite the more daunting and difficult task than its NT counterpart, it seems that ANE literary works create a more accurately account and scenario for what we find in the Pentateuch than the hypothesis hypothesizes. Moreover, my reading of the proponents of the theory is that they are convinced it is more a matter of fact than what its name claims it is: A hypothesis.
Also, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough concerning another criticism of the hypothesis. It’s not simply that certain scholars within the movement are inconsistent with one another, but that they contradict one another (similar to how the documents contradict one another). The order, date, composer, redactor, etc., are frequently contradicting what the other is saying. Now some form of this might exist within conservative thinking, but not in regard to the extreme variants one finds within the documentary theory. Now I think that your illustration of differing philosophical ideas is missing the point. Granted that there are differences of opinions in all disciplines, but the issue is not that they exist independently of each other but dependently. In other words, the hypothesis is based upon dating and identifying documents to a particular time and author as a result of alleged discrepancies within the narratives (this is just one example and I know there are many others). However, there is much disagreement as to what go with what, the date of what, the order of what, the author, complier and/or redactor of what, etc. Does my criticism make better sense now? Thank you for pointing it out.
ReplyDeleteNext, I don’t think that I am oversimplifying the differences of the divine names within the Pentateuch narratives. Mainly because of how the ANE wrote and different names for the same god are frequently found within their literature. Ok, sure one narrative account will always refer to God with Yahweh instead of Elohim; however, for the hypothesis to still insist on this being the result of different authors is absurd! The ANE used different names as a result of literary purposes and meaning(s) related to certain terminology. I know you know this but one does not have to go far to find support for this either. Just look up their meaning in HALOT, TDOT, TWOT, etc. Now your latter reason concerning this issue is very interesting and I think a little more serious than the former. Please provide me with the texts you’re referring to in Exodus and I’ll give them a more detailed look and get back with you.
Next, like I stated earlier, if the documentary hypothesis paid close attention to ANE parallels then a much earlier dating would be reflected in their scholarship. Sadly, it is not, and therefore cause for my critique was given. Again, check some of them out if you get the chance. Some really good sources would be a couple of books from my prof this spring semester Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology and God at Sinai. Also, check out J.B. Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts (it’s pretty much the standard); Matthews and Benjamin’s Old Testament Parallels (Third Ed.); Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Vol. 1; Arnold and Beyer’s Readings from the Ancient Near East; and Walton’s Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. I have really enjoyed Duane Garrett’s Rethinking Genesis, but I’ll talk more about his thinking later.
Next, I’m fine with your statement that some documentary theorists are/were firm believers in a god (perhaps the God) that interacts with creation. However, given those notions, doesn’t it make sense then to claim that certain texts that speak about things to come were in fact written before they came true? I think so! I know you would, just stating the logic.
Now for the arbitrary appeal to redactors. I stated it that way because it seems arbitrary to me, because there seem to be better reasons for no or simply not as many redactions as the hypothesis suggests. Sure they have reasons for what they think about the text and its versions, but in light of the ANE it seems rather arbitrary that the hypothesis appeals to so many redactors and redactions. Still remaining on this topic, the criticism raised against my case study of Ex 20 is quite telling of the hypothesis. As for your former understanding of the issue, the charge would then be that since this material, which is characteristic of D, existed much earlier than D allegedly did then wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that D could have existed much earlier? Moreover, perhaps it could have existed much closer to the dating of JE, but I’m of course going to date it much earlier than that. Furthermore, the fact that this covenantal material existed during the 2nd millennium BC is evidence enough of its dating, but like I said the hypothesis seems to not be paying close enough attention to this ANE parallel. As for Friedman’s understanding, well…that just further illustrates and provide proof to my point.
ReplyDeleteNext, you state two directions or motivations of the documentary hypothesis. First, it seems relevant to state that there is clear unity to be discovered within the Pentateuch. Yes there is diversity as well, but the diversity doesn’t mean that there is no unity. Also, my statement earlier regarding starting points is rather telling of both camps. Remember it? “If you want to find diversity in the bible, then you will find diversity. However, if you want to find unity, then you will find unity.” Now it wouldn’t be much fun if I simply made that statement and didn’t respond and/or try to explain the diversity noted by certain scholars would it? So I’ll try to respond to the examples you noted.
First, sure Deut and Lev might seem like independent books over against Gen, Ex and Num. But like I said, there is still many themes found in each one of those that tie them together. Quite nicely I might add. For some of these themes take a look again at the one’s I mentioned in the post. Moreover, read Sailhammer’s The Pentateuch as Narrative and The Meaning of the Pentateuch, and many others like it for further reasoning and examples of unity.
Next, what about the “echoes” of the golden calf in 2 Kgs? Here are my thoughts. I remember when I took Acts with Dave at SEBC. There, I drew a parallel with the attitude and response of Simon in Acts 8:24 to that of Pharaoh in Ex. His response and question for me was: What does something in Acts have to do with something in Ex? I’ll never forget it as I was terrified sitting there in my set. My answer to that question is not that important but does serve as an illustration. Therefore, I ask the documentary theorist the same question: What does something in 2 Kgs have to do with something in Ex? Their appeal to the “Deuteronomistic History” is noteworthy, but it seems to be special pleading to suggest that there is borrowing going on here. It seems nothing more than the fact that the same thing that happened during the exodus happens again during the time of the kings.
Next, your reference to the statement found in Gen 12:6 “The Canaanites were then in the land” is interesting as well. I remember reading that in the article you sent me and was quite perplexed about it. However, it seems to not offer that much a problem for authorship if the author one point in time prophesied to his audience that one day the Canaanites would not be in the land. You see how it’s a matter of starting points. I’m suggesting an earlier dating as a result of God inspiring or the author being prophetic. This is a prime example of the antisupernatural bias I mentioned. Note that I am not calling you a naturalist, but directing it to the theorist who needs to take that into account before accepting the hypothetical later dating. Also, I want to suggest to you and anyone else reading this the New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer. I used it in class at SEBC called “Apologetics and the Bible” (and Alex, it was taught by Steve of course). It will provide answers to the many examples often raised by the hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteI would like to conclude with answering your question:
“Does the most basic idea of this hypothesis- that the Pentateuch was not always one text- really prove to be a threat? Granted, it challenges Mosaic authorship. But what is really lost by dropping the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch? I know later writers, especially in the NT refer to Moses as author. But they also say the sun circles the earth. We take that statement to be speaking in idiom- that is what people of the time believed. Can we say the same about Mosaic authorship? Is it really something we need to defend?”
This is the point where I mention Garrett’s view. As a result of the state in pentateuchal studies following the claims and conclusions of source criticism, the evangelical thought has offered a most viable alternative. Garrett has suggested a four-state development of Gen whose major redaction is attributed to Moses. I don’t know if I fully agree with Garrett’s system, but it at least may suggest or prove that Moses might very well have had some sources he used to construct the Pentateuch (similar to Luke’s construction of his gospel), but that possibility that Moses might have had sources does not mean that he is or could not still be regarded as the primary author of the text. Moreover, the internal and external evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is quite defendable and overwhelming (as I mentioned a few arguments in defense of it in the post). The greatest defense and support for such a notion is the essential unity, which is governed by a discernible overarching plan or structure of the Pentateuch (I’ve also mentioned some factures of unity earlier but won’t repeat them again here). To answer your next question, the real threat to losing Mosaic authorship has typically been understood as then loosing the authenticity and authority of the text as God’s inspired and inerrant word. So at some level I think we do need to defend Mosaic authorship in some way or fashion. Again, check out that encyclopedia I mentioned above for answers to many bible difficulties. For you mentioned one of the many answers regarding the idioms or figures of speech used in the bible. Could the same be true of Mosaic authorship? A good bit of work is being done right now regarding answering claims of forgeries being found in the NT. For example, did Paul write Ephesians? Therefore, I’m guessing that your question followings the same thinking. Well, the question I would have for you is, Is there any evidence that such a practice took place during the ANE? Moreover, what is the likelihood of the former? That is, the fact that Paul did not write a letter that is attributed to him. So to answer your question I would say no.
Thanks again and I look forward to continuing our discussion,
Nick
Nick, as always, greatly enjoy these discussions. To keep this from becoming a small book by the time we are done, I'm being a little selective in my responses and trying to hit multiple issues at the same time.
ReplyDeleteFirst up, one major voice that you have not discussed that I think is significant to this discussion for a lot of reasons is Martin Noth. Noth's big innovation, the way he is remarkably different from Wellhausen, is that he is interested in the "oral tradition" more than the documentary sources. Noth's theory is that the story of Israel's history existed as an oral tradition long before it was written down (which seems sensible enough to me) and that this tradition, as is likely to happen with an oral tradition that was likely passed on for centuries developed a few variations over the years. Later in history as literacy became more prominent this tradition in its different variations was written down and later the various strands were combined and eventually that became the Pentateuch as we have it today. Now this is interesting to me for a variety of reasons in the context of this conversation. First, it could be proposed that Moses was the originator of the oral tradition (though I suppose we could never prove this), so perhaps this theory doesn't so much challenge inspiration as redefine it to refer to something other than the final text as we have it today. Second, it means the documents might not ever have existed after all and might just be things we detect by the same kind of methods we might use to find Q. But this also the kind of thing I had in mind when I critiqued you for culminating (but not ending) your discussion with Wellhausen- there have been a lot of significant changes to the theory since his day that seriously change the way it could be interpreted theologically and methodologically.
Second, I think there may be at work in some of your arguments what we can call a "fallacy of dating by parallels." I’m not sure that this is technically a fallacy that has been catalogued in some textbook somewhere, but I think perhaps it should. Parallels between cultures and documents are frequently misused, as you and DA Carson are quick to argue with relation to the NPP, for instance. When it comes to the OT I think we have even more reason to be cautious. For one thing, we are going a lot farther back in history, and so we have significantly less textual evidence to draw from. For another, the textual evidence we have is frequently rather generic and relatively stable for large swaths of time. So for instance, the famed Suzerain-Vassal Formula for treaties: while we have evidence for a form of treaty-making following this pattern that dates pretty early (I think earliest I’ve heard scholars argue for is 3rd millennium BCE), we also have lots of evidence of treaties that follow the same basic formula in the 1st millennium BCE. And just because something uses a pattern doesn’t mean it was written while that pattern was “in vogue,” but assuming for the sake of argument that the treaty in question (namely, Deuteronomy) must have been written while such patterns are used, we have successfully narrowed down its date to a 2000 year time period via “dating with parallels!” In other words, every theory for when Deuteronomy was written currently in the academic marketplace that I am aware of can claim that there are parallel treaties being written at approximately the same time and opting for the earliest date these parallels exist is arbitrary unless we have other reasons to choose such a date. To summarize, the claim “we have examples of x dating to year y, therefore document d must also be from around year y” doesn’t work unless year “y” is the only time “x” was ever done- if we also have examples of “x” through the time period from “y to z” then we can only potentially narrow down the date of “d” to somewhere between “y” and “z.”
To anticipate a move, sometimes this fallacy is paired with another one, which we can call “hyper-sensitivity to changes in a form.” In other words, we notice that over time the general trend of a pattern is that it gets shorter (people do tend to take short cuts) or that some new element becomes popular. These kinds of trends can be helpful for dating, but they are not decisive. Who is to say that an author didn’t intentionally choose to revert to an older style? Who is to say that an author didn’t feel the ability to creatively adapt a popular cultural formula? We do both of these things all the time, why can’t an ancient author do either? This is especially the case when we are dealing with a pattern from which our “extra-biblical evidence” is from another culture or written in another language. How do we know that the Ancient Hebrews didn’t only have access to older documents when they encountered this pattern? Or that they didn’t intentionally modify the way the formula worked in their own writing and that their modification turned out to be closer to how the pattern worked at another time in another culture? Basically, I think its safer to stick with noticing the big-picture patterns when looking at ANE parallels and not attempt to overemphasize particular details when using such parallels to approximate the date of another text.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify what I’m trying to say here: I’m not claiming that biblical material must be dated late or that it couldn’t be as early as the earliest parallels we have. It could quite possibly be that early. But when the same parallels exist at a later date which is also proposed for the writing of the text, appeals to parallels are not decisive in pushing for the earlier date. I think you are pushing the value of these parallels too far in your arguments and especially in your accusations that those who date the biblical material later have not paid attention to these parallels. They have, trust me. They discuss them at length. They argue that the Hebrews borrowed a great deal from their surrounding culture and they use these arguments to further substantiate their theories about source criticism and the dating of the biblical material. Not saying I am convinced or that you should be, but you should be aware of the problem you might run into attempting to use these same parallels to argue for an earlier date.
Along similar lines, Im not sure that the existence of common themes is as strong an argument for unity as you want to make it. To give a clear-cut example, there are clearly overlapping themes between John Locke’s Treaties on Civil Government and the American Declaration of Independence. They are also from close to the same time. Yet we would not claim they were written by the same person, even if they were put right next to one another in an anthology. Likewise, you raised the example of the relationship of Exodus to Acts. We wouldn’t claim these were written by the same individual, but they certainly share themes. So if we have what looks like independent books in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, why does shared themes between these books or between other books in Pentateuch necessitate that they be written by the same person at the same time? In other words, is there a way to demonstrate literary unity (not just thematic unity) between these books?
Finally, I want to come back the question of what is lost by giving up Mosaic authorship. You bring this back to the issue of inspiration- the claim in the text that the text was written by Moses is turned upside down, and this threat to inerrancy obviously raises questions about its divine inspiration. What I would like to note is that there is no claim in the Pentateuch itself that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. Deuteronomy claims to record the words Moses spoke to the people, not to be a book written by Moses. No other part of the Pentateuch makes anything close to a claim for Mosaic authorship. All such claims of Mosaic authorship come from other parts of the canon. Could these not reflect an idiom or common understanding that had developed around these books? If that was the case, would there be a threat to inspiration if we claimed Moses did not actually write them?
ReplyDeleteOne final thought that just occurred to me after posting: the question at the end of the second comment is really the crux of the debate. Those scholars who argue for the documentary hypothesis would certainly claim that the Pentateuch reflects a good bit of thematic unity. However, they would also argue that these books do not exhibit literary unity. That is the most basic claim of the documentary hypothesis- how they divide the books into their different "sources" and where they date those sources and what parallels in the ANE and later biblical literature they pair them with are all peripheral issues that are up for debate constantly. But the most basic claim is that the thematic unity is not enough to sustain literary unity in these books. At its most basic level, then, this is the question that has to be dealt with if you want to take on the documentary hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteThank you for included a more detailed discussion on Noth. As all can quite easily notice, doing a history on the hypothesis is no short task. So again I thank you. Yes the huge emphasis placed on oral tradition and/or oral prehistory is characteristic of form criticism. However, his notions can not be proven (as you mentioned). Moreover, if I’m correct about the dating and authorship of the Pentateuch, then there are many passages that suggests that there existed actual writing of a particular book or source during the time that both the author and people mentioned lived (Dt 31:9, 29; Josh 6:25). Furthermore, there are also passages that suggest that the authors had source material, further refuting Noth’s conclusion (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18).
Next, you mention the "fallacy of dating by parallels" and cite a similar example/parallel of its usage against the NPP. First, I think you might have misunderstood parallelomania’s fallacious focus as it relates to something that conservative evangelicals are charging to the NPP. To illustrate, the NT basis for this fallacy is not concerned so much concerned with dating but interpreting relevant words, phrases and themes that parallel between different yet similar sources. So what Samuel Sandmel did in "Parallelomania, " Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1-13 was illustrate the fallacy as one seeks to interpret words, phrases and themes in the same manner as they parallel and thus understood in another source. So let’s apply this to OT parallelomania. The fallacy you alluded to as an example would center upon interpreting the biblical account of the flood in the same manner as the Epic of Gilgamesh. You see how it works? It’s not an issue of dating but an issue of interpretation. This is why your criticism or alleged fallacy is missing the point. Once more, the fallacy is not applied to one drawing upon multiple parallels that exist between the writings of the ANE and our biblical accounts, but interpreting them in the same light. An example germane to our discussion would be Gunkel’s Legends of Genesis, which bleeds the fallacy of parallelamania. As I noted in a pervious comment, Dr. Currid at RTS embraces the parallels, but interprets them in a different manner, and there is nothing fallacious about this approach. Therefore, appealing to such an example as support for what I and many scholars are currently doing holds no water.
However, in light of this misunderstanding I like the overall direction that you go in your second most recent post. For it seems that you conclude or at least reach your main point when you say that while the earliest dating is possible the existence of these parallels are not decisive for supporting such a dating. First of all, well said! It might very well be the case that I am guilty of the criticism you raised against me, so again thank you for doing so. Therefore, allow me to clarify something as a result of seriously taking your claims into consideration. The existence of these parallels are helpful for dating, and while not decisive, it seems to suggest more probability than not. I’ll provide support for this statement in what follows.
.
First, you cite the changes made to the Hittite Suzerain-Vassal treaty form. The pattern that we see paralleled in the creation account is Second Millennium BC, because of its treaty form. Quickly, you mentioned a Third Millennium treaty form, and I was wondering if you could provide me with sources and thus its pattern? Next, you mentioned that we have its First (and much shorter) treaty form paralleled within our biblical writings, and I was also wondering where they can be found? I’m sure they’re out there, just wondering where.
Following your “fallacy of dating by parallels” you then state that “just because something uses a pattern doesn’t mean it was written while that pattern was “in vogue,”” which is based upon “hyper-sensitivity to changes in a form.” I found this section most intriguing and I must say that you may be right. “Who is to say that an author didn’t intentionally choose to revert to an older style? Who is to say that an author didn’t feel the ability to creatively adapt a popular cultural formula? We do both of these things all the time, why can’t an ancient author do either?” These are excellent questions; however, there are many examples of changes to a form over time in order to make something easier for the audience or reader to follow and thus recognize its form and importance. For example, over time in Koine Greek there was a shift within the pattern/form of the Aorist verbs (which communicated a past/undefined action). The change was from the more difficult and harder to recognize Second Aorist verb patterns/forms (which consisted of a stem change) to a First Aorist verb pattern (which used a sa tense formative), because (as you can guess) it would have made this part of the language easier to learn with the First Aorist sa construction than the Second Aorist stem change. Examples) Instead of eijdon (the Second Aorist form of oÓraw-I see) you’ll sometimes see eijdan; Instead of eijpon (the Second Aorist form of legw- I say/speak) you’ll sometimes see eijpan. Instead of hjlqon (the Second Aorist form of ejrcomai- I come or I go) you’ll sometimes see hjlqan. Yes, the second aorist form would still have been in use, but dating can be highly influenced when one sees an existence of a later change being applied and implemented into their writing. Therefore, the “hyper-sensitivity to changes in a form” is noteworthy and I think very probable, but at the same time it is not that far fetched to conclude that in light of the existence of multiple patterns, if the creation was to date as late as the hypothesis suggests, then why did the author use the oldest and most difficult Hittite Suzerain-Vassal treaty form when they could have used the newer easier one? Therefore, when accessing the variables it seems to also be probable that the author didn’t use the earlier form because it did not exist yet. Also, another illustration may be of some help here. When doing textual criticism the hardest or roughest reading is the preferred reading because it is more than likely that a Scribe would have changed the reading a more smooth one rather than the other way around (There are so many texts that provide grounds for such a claim that I won’t mention one here in fear of leaving another out. But if you would like a good bibliography then I’d be happy to send one your way.). Therefore, the older, longer and in a sense the hardest and roughest treaty seems to suggest a later dating because it would have made more sense for the author to adopt a more fluid, shorter and in a sense smoother treaty form if it were in existence.
ReplyDeleteNext, I would like to respond a few more of the questions you list in this section. “How do we know that the Ancient Hebrews didn’t only have access to older documents when they encountered this pattern?” Well, it seems that this presupposes the validity of the documentary hypothesis thus it’s guilty of question begging. How do we know that the Hebrews didn’t only have access to older documents? Because they were the only documents that existed when Moses wrote the Pentateuch. See how it works? “Or that they didn’t intentionally modify the way the formula worked in their own writing and that their modification turned out to be closer to how the pattern worked at another time in another culture?” Perhaps they could have, but it seems that there is probability that could go in the opposite direction. Do you see the importance of Dr. Stuart’s statement? In other words, it’s a matter of starting points and there seems to be just as much if not more probability for the more conservative approach.
Next, you stated “Im not sure that the existence of common themes is as strong an argument for unity as you want to make it. To give a clear-cut example, there are clearly overlapping themes between John Locke’s Treaties on Civil Government and the American Declaration of Independence. They are also from close to the same time. Yet we would not claim they were written by the same person, even if they were put right next to one another in an anthology.” Ok, but I’ve provide you with multiple reasons why the existence of common themes are a strong argument for unity. Also, of course I’m going to claim that John Locke wrote the Declaration of Independence, because we know for a fact that he didn’t, despite the similarities between it and his Treaties of Civil Government. This seemed like the rather silly and most obvious objection. Now if we didn’t know for a fact that he didn’t write it, then what’s to stop us from claiming probability that he did, on account of the reasons you listed above? Following this logic of probability, given the time, theme and literary similarities, why can we not claim Mosaic authorship? You see how it is again a matter of starting points?
ReplyDeleteAlso you have misunderstood my somewhat joke and illustration of the Acts 8 passage and what you may find in Ex. In fact, this was not meant to prove authorship at all, just a lead in for critiquing the hypothesis’ claim that there is borrowing going on as a result of shared themes. You then ask “So if we have what looks like independent books in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, why does shared themes between these books or between other books in Pentateuch necessitate that they be written by the same person at the same time?” If this question is not evidence of starting points then I don’t know what is. The relationship, or perhaps strained relationship as you put it, between Lev and Deut does have independent themes running through it, but that does not mean that the existence of diversity accounts for a later dating and different authorship. What the diversity more probably speaks to is the author’s purposes for writing. There are many scholars out there proving this to be the case and you would do well to understand this literary stylist point as it relates to the diversity found among the gospels and Pauline literature.
Lastly, I’ve provided multiple passages within the Pentateuch that ascribe authorship to Moses and I’m not going to repeat them here. If you’re interested or not convinced then refer back to them and let’s discuss them. But your claim, similar to Baden’s, that the Pentateuch never claim’s Mosaic authorship is a farce! For if Baden had taken into account how certain people in the ANE wrote, namely that the first person would have written in the third person (e.g. Ugaritic and Assyrian royal annals), then he would have no grounds of making such a claim! Note, I need to clarify and I did this already, but this does not mean that they don’t know about them and talk about them in their scholarship, but only wishes to point out that it seems that they don’t seriously take the ANE parallels seriously.
Also, I answered your question concerning the NT references to Mosaic authorship as idiomatic, and I for time and space I won’t repeat them again here. But to answer it quickly, no it is not idiomatic. Go figure right?!