Documentary Hypothesis Fails - 3 by slaveofone
Summarized arguments against the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch as detailed in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto. (See also argument 2)
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.