“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”  Emerson The question of textual consistency is a fundamental issue in the Documentary Hypothesis.  The essential argument is that doublets (two similar stories) and inconsistencies in names or details in a text point to multiple authorship or sources.  For example the use of the name Yahweh (the LORD) or Elohim for God may reflect two different texts—the Yahwist and Elohist.  Was the mountain of Yahweh’s revelation Sinai (Leviticus) or Horeb (Deuteronomy)? ... Read more

Over on the anonymous “Faith Promoting Rumor” David Bokovoy claimed the following: “There is a consensus in biblical scholarship that the Pentateuch is an amalgamation of separate documentary sources that cannot be attributed to a single author.” Have I EVER denied that?  Please cite my specific language where I have argued for single authorship?  I agree that the Pentateuch is composed of multiple sources. I’ve explained this several times. Why do you keep bringing it up? Consensus on multiple sources... Read more

In a comment on DH 21, David Bokovoy made the following statement. By what criteria are LDS apologists using biblical scholarship? I believe accepting or rejecting biblical scholarship on the basis of how well it accords with one’s own religious assumptions is a problematic academic approach. This statement raises all sorts of hidden implications which are rather unclear to me.  David, could you answer the following questions to help me understand what you mean/ – Is biblical scholarship a set... Read more

Jupiter’s Child is much exercised about my discussion of authorship and the DH. The purpose of the DH is not to make claims about authors. Its purpose is to make sense of problems in straightforward readings of texts. Claims about authors only follow the separation of texts,  … At this point I’m not sure whether he has read actual “documentarian” analysis, because this is not assumed by any source critic I am aware of, living or dead. Again with the authorship!... Read more

The anonymous folks over at Patheos’ “Faith Promoting Rumor” have sponsored a critique of my critique of the DH by “Jupiter’s Child.” Unfortunately, as is often the case in such matters, we seem to be talking past each other.  Here–as is generally the case–Jupiter’s Child completely misunderstands my position.  He claims: Hamblin does not seem to be familiar with the basic definition of the DH nor with the practice of source criticism given his preoccupation with authorship and empirical validation.... Read more

Despite a bit of rhetorical posturing by some of the supporters of the JEDP-Documentary Hypothesis, there are serious and legitimate academic differences on the matter.  One can reject the JEDP-Hypothesis without being an ignorant fundamentalist, whose opinions are purely ideologically driven. Or do the Documentarians really want to claim that it is impossible for intelligent and informed people of good will who have seriously studied the matter to come to different conclusions about the validity of the JEDP-DH, and the... Read more