Intro to DH Post III of IV

Last time on Intro to DH

Part I it was established that the Torah is composite

Part II it was established that D has a unique color

Part III it was established that D has a unique author

And now the thrilling conclusion (kinda)….

Part IV in which I will establish that P is a unique author.

It was already noted in Part II that D has a different color than the rest of the Bible. Establishing this for P is probably even more trivial than establishing this for D. If we use our same examples of Ani/Anoki and the circular inclusion, we’ll note that that while in the Torah in general Ani has a 56% frequency, the ratio in P is 123 Ani’s to 1 Anoki. If I use the same methodology I used the last time, the chance of this happening by chance is 2 x [.56^123 + 123 x .56^122 x .44] = 2 times 10 to the negative 29, or 2 out of
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

The CI is equally unbelievable, appearing 119 times in P and 3 in all the other sources combined. Of course, there is a slight fallacy here. Since I have already established that D is a separate author, I should really remove all occurrences in D. I don’t do so for if one concedes to DH on D, OJ has already lost.

In any event, what possible counter could OJ have to this strong argument?

One possible answer is the “thematic” answer. This answer was already dealt with in the last post. The issue is essentially the same for P as it was for D, so I see no reason to repeat it here.

But, what about the circular reasoning answer? Is it possible that the reason Anoki never appears in P because every time it should appear, the text is cut out of P and assigned to JE?

In the case of D, I easily dispensed with this possibility, as D is essentially one contiguous block. So, one can not accuse DH of specifically cutting up the Torah to meet it’s needs. I showed this statistically in Part II. But, what about for P? The problem with P is that since P takes sections from here and sections from there, the circular argument becomes more feasible.

For reasons discussed in the comments to earlier posts, I don’t believe it is possible to give a true statistical answer to this question as was possible in the case of D. However, I do believe it is possible to answer the question either intuitively, or quasi – statistically. I will attempt both. Since I don’t want this to post to be too long, I am going to talk about the intuitive answer in this post, and leave the quasi – statistical answer to a future post coming soon.

The intuitive answer:

For this answer, we will ignore the numbers for a moment, and just get a feel for it. Do we feel that certain words tend to cluster together? In order to answer this question, you’d have to be familiar with all of the P words and their distribution in the Torah. Interestingly, most people who are familiar with that distribution seem to think DH is accurate. I am familiar with the distribution of these words and my intuition is that Dh is accurate. It seems that many of DH’s harshest critiques are woefully ignorant of the distribution. I often wonder how these people can offer an opinion on these matters, but certainly they can not offer an intuition if they are not even familiar with the arguments.

Those who are interested in getting all the information themselves, the P list is published in many places, including the works of Driver and Carpenter. I am also going through the P list myself (see the sidebar – P list), but at a very slow pace. Eventually, I hope to include all the P words. I’ll get back to doing that when I am done with this series on intro to DH.

But, if you don’t want to do all the work, there’s a short cut. Instead of looking through the entire Chumash, we can look at a cross section of the Chumash. One good cross section of the Torah to look at is the b’rachot of God to the fathers. At the bottom of this post, I’ve put all the material in the Torah found in these sections. I’ve divided it between P & JE. In the P section, I’ve underlined and bolded the terms that are either unique to P or much more common in P than the other sources. In the JE section, I’ve done the same for the JE terms. Now, essentially, hencoop, and RJM are arguing that I have only put the P sections in the P section rubric because of the P phrases and I’ve put the JE sections as JE because of the JE words. But, there’s a few problems with that:

1. Most of the sections have very many bolded phrases. If these words were truly random, how come I never encountered a section that had some P words and some JE words?

2. In many instances, I did not have freedom of choice regarding how to assign the chapters because some local textual issue was forcing my hand. For example, gen 17 had to be P since it contains a duplicate and contradiction to a JE story (see post). Similarly for the P story in Gen 28 (see post). There are many other examples.

3. Many of these sections are assigned to their authors on the basis of context. For example, the entire Gen 1 is P and so 1:22 is assigned to P because it is in the middle of a P section. There are other grounds on which Gen 1 is assigned to P besides that verse.

4. This is but one example from one cross section. We could do this again and again with various parts of the Torah, and we will always end up finding that the portions divide evenly into 2 parts, and, more importantly, those 2 parts always correspond to each other. In other words, if we were to divide the law section of the Torah into 2 parts, we would likewise come up with 2 separate sections, P & JE, and P would have many similarities with the P I’ve established below.

Some notes about the words:

1. Some words, like Anoki are very clear cut. It basically never appears in P. But, there are some other words that are more border line. In those cases, it’s less clear what to do. Since I can’t half under line something, I had to make a decision, but I conceed that there are some underline words that one could make a case against the underlining. On the other hand, some other words that I haven’t underlined perhaps should be.

2. Some of the words are defined as P or JE words based on the verses below. Others (like holid) might only appear once in the list below, but nonetheless be assigned as P words on the basis of other passages.

3. Note. Not all of these words are exclusive to P. They are either exclusive to P or very common in P and very rare in the other sources.

4. Some words to look for:

P words common in these sections. Note may of these words are also common in other P sections:

1. Doesn’t use tetragammaton until Ex 6 where that words is announced.
2. Doesn’t use Shakai till Gen 17 when that word is announced. Beginning Gen 17, it’s used many times till Ex 6.
3. פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ is very common
4.the use of the “אִתּוֹ “ to include others in the blessing
5. the use of וַאֲנִי hanging at the beginning of a verse
6. וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי and related phrases
7. אוֹת-הַבְּרִית
8.the idea of the word בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם referring to between God and some other entity
9. לְדֹרֹת, עוֹלָם or לְדֹרֹתָם
10. בְּרִית עוֹלָם generally, olam after anything
11. , בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד
12. וּנְתַתִּיךָ לְגוֹיִם; and similar phrases
13. וּמְלָכִים, מִמְּךָ יֵצֵאוּ and similar phrases
14. אֶרֶץ מְגֻרֶיךָ, referring to Israel
15. אֲחֻזַּת
26. זֹאת בְּרִיתִי
27. Your childrend after you.

Words not common in the following sections but established as P words based on other section in the Torah

1. L’uchlah
2. שִׁרְצוּ
3. הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי
4. The idea of falling on ones face
5. וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ
6. נְשִׂיאִ
7. יוֹלִיד
8. בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה
9. פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם,
10. וַיְכַפֵּר,
11. L'chol.

JE words common in these sections. Note many of these words are also common in other JE sections:

1. tetragammaton before Ex 6
2. וַאֲבָרְכָה, מְבָרְכֶיךָ, וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ, אָאֹר
3. וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ and related phrases
4.comparison to stars or sand
5. אָנֹכִי
6. the concept of an angel


Well, you can decide for yourself!


The P section
Gen 1:22
כב וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, לֵאמֹר: פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ, וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים, וְהָעוֹף, יִרֶב בָּאָרֶץ
Gen 1:28
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְכִבְשֻׁהָ; וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם, וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבְכָל-חַיָּה, הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל-הָאָרֶץ
Gen 9:1-17
א וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-נֹחַ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ, וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ. ב וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם, יִהְיֶה, עַל כָּל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ, וְעַל כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם; בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל-דְּגֵי הַיָּם, בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ. ג כָּל-רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא-חַי, לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה: כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת-כֹּל. ד אַךְ-בָּשָׂר, בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. ה וְאַךְ אֶת-דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ, מִיַּד כָּל-חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ; וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם, מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו--אֶדְרֹשׁ, אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם. ו שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם, בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ: כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם. ז וְאַתֶּם, פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ; שִׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ, וּרְבוּ-בָהּ. {ס}

ח וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-נֹחַ, וְאֶל-בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ לֵאמֹר. ט וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי מֵקִים אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אִתְּכֶם, וְאֶת-זַרְעֲכֶם, אַחֲרֵיכֶם. י וְאֵת כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר אִתְּכֶם, בָּעוֹף בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ אִתְּכֶם; מִכֹּל יֹצְאֵי הַתֵּבָה, לְכֹל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ. יא וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אִתְּכֶם, וְלֹא-יִכָּרֵת כָּל-בָּשָׂר עוֹד מִמֵּי הַמַּבּוּל; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה עוֹד מַבּוּל, לְשַׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ. יב וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, זֹאת אוֹת-הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי נֹתֵן בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֲשֶׁר אִתְּכֶם--לְדֹרֹת, עוֹלָם. יג אֶת-קַשְׁתִּי, נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנָן; וְהָיְתָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵין הָאָרֶץ. יד וְהָיָה, בְּעַנְנִי עָנָן עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְנִרְאֲתָה הַקֶּשֶׁת, בֶּעָנָן. טו וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אֲשֶׁר בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, בְּכָל-בָּשָׂר; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה עוֹד הַמַּיִם לְמַבּוּל, לְשַׁחֵת כָּל-בָּשָׂר. טז וְהָיְתָה הַקֶּשֶׁת, בֶּעָנָן; וּרְאִיתִיהָ, לִזְכֹּר בְּרִית עוֹלָם, בֵּין אֱלֹהִים, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה בְּכָל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֶץ. יז וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, אֶל-נֹחַ: זֹאת אוֹת-הַבְּרִית, אֲשֶׁר לֹהִיםהֲקִמֹתִי, בֵּינִי, וּבֵין כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֶץ.
Gen 17
א וַיְהִי אַבְרָם, בֶּן-תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וְתֵשַׁע שָׁנִים; וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי-אֵל שַׁדַּי--הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי, וֶהְיֵה תָמִים. ב וְאֶתְּנָה בְרִיתִי, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ; וְאַרְבֶּה אוֹתְךָ, בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד. ג וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָם, עַל-פָּנָיו; וַיְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ אֱלֹהִים, לֵאמֹר. ד אֲנִי, הִנֵּה בְרִיתִי אִתָּךְ; וְהָיִיתָ, לְאַב הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם. ה וְלֹא-יִקָּרֵא עוֹד אֶת-שִׁמְךָ, אַבְרָם; וְהָיָה שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָהָם, כִּי אַב-הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם נְתַתִּיךָ. ו וְהִפְרֵתִי אֹתְךָ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד, וּנְתַתִּיךָ לְגוֹיִם; וּמְלָכִים, מִמְּךָ יֵצֵאוּ. ז וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ לְדֹרֹתָם--לִבְרִית עוֹלָם: לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים, וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ. ח וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ אֵת אֶרֶץ מְגֻרֶיךָ, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, לַאֲחֻזַּת, עוֹלָם; וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם, לֵאלֹהִים. ט וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-אַבְרָהָם, וְאַתָּה אֶת-בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר--אַתָּה וְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ, לְדֹרֹתָם. י זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, אַחֲרֶיךָ: הִמּוֹל לָכֶם, כָּל-זָכָר. יא וּנְמַלְתֶּם, אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם; וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם. יב וּבֶן-שְׁמֹנַת יָמִים, יִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל-זָכָר--לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם: יְלִיד בָּיִת--וּמִקְנַת-כֶּסֶף מִכֹּל בֶּן-נֵכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִזַּרְעֲךָ הוּא. יג הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ, וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ; וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, לִבְרִית עוֹלָם. יד וְעָרֵל זָכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִמּוֹל אֶת-בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, הֵפַר. {ס}

טו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם, שָׂרַי אִשְׁתְּךָ, לֹא-תִקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמָהּ שָׂרָי: כִּי שָׂרָה, שְׁמָהּ. טז וּבֵרַכְתִּי אֹתָהּ, וְגַם נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנָּה לְךָ בֵּן; וּבֵרַכְתִּיהָ וְהָיְתָה לְגוֹיִם, מַלְכֵי עַמִּים מִמֶּנָּה יִהְיוּ. יז וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָהָם עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּצְחָק; וַיֹּאמֶר בְּלִבּוֹ, הַלְּבֶן מֵאָה-שָׁנָה יִוָּלֵד, וְאִם-שָׂרָה, הֲבַת-תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה תֵּלֵד. יח וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים: לוּ יִשְׁמָעֵאל, יִחְיֶה לְפָנֶיךָ. יט וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, אֲבָל שָׂרָה אִשְׁתְּךָ יֹלֶדֶת לְךָ בֵּן, וְקָרָאתָ אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, יִצְחָק; וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אִתּוֹ לִבְרִית עוֹלָם, לְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו. כ וּלְיִשְׁמָעֵאל, שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ--הִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתִּי אֹתוֹ וְהִפְרֵיתִי אֹתוֹ וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֹתוֹ, בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד: שְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר נְשִׂיאִם יוֹלִיד, וּנְתַתִּיו לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל. כא וְאֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אָקִים אֶת-יִצְחָק, אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד לְךָ שָׂרָה לַמּוֹעֵד הַזֶּה, בַּשָּׁנָה הָאַחֶרֶת. כב וַיְכַל, לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ; וַיַּעַל אֱלֹהִים, מֵעַל אַבְרָהָם. כג וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָהָם אֶת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ, וְאֵת כָּל-יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ וְאֵת כָּל-מִקְנַת כַּסְפּוֹ--כָּל-זָכָר, בְּאַנְשֵׁי בֵּית אַבְרָהָם; וַיָּמָל אֶת-בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתָם, בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אִתּוֹ, אֱלֹהִים. כד וְאַבְרָהָם--בֶּן-תִּשְׁעִים וָתֵשַׁע, שָׁנָה: בְּהִמֹּלוֹ, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. כה וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ, בֶּן-שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה: בְּהִמֹּלוֹ--אֵת, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. כו בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, נִמּוֹל אַבְרָהָם, וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל, בְּנוֹ. כז וְכָל-אַנְשֵׁי בֵיתוֹ יְלִיד בָּיִת, וּמִקְנַת-כֶּסֶף מֵאֵת בֶּן-נֵכָר--נִמֹּלוּ, אִתּוֹ. {פ}

Gen 28
א וַיִּקְרָא יִצְחָק אֶל-יַעֲקֹב, וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ; וַיְצַוֵּהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, לֹא-תִקַּח אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן. ב קוּם לֵךְ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם, בֵּיתָה בְתוּאֵל אֲבִי אִמֶּךָ; וְקַח-לְךָ מִשָּׁם אִשָּׁה, מִבְּנוֹת לָבָן אֲחִי אִמֶּךָ. ג וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יְבָרֵךְ אֹתְךָ, וְיַפְרְךָ וְיַרְבֶּךָ; וְהָיִיתָ, לִקְהַל עַמִּים. ד וְיִתֶּן-לְךָ אֶת-בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם, לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אִתָּךְ--לְרִשְׁתְּךָ אֶת-אֶרֶץ מְגֻרֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן אֱלֹהִים לְאַבְרָהָם.
Gen 35
ט וַיֵּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶל-יַעֲקֹב עוֹד, בְּבֹאוֹ מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ, אֹתוֹ. י וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ אֱלֹהִים, שִׁמְךָ יַעֲקֹב: לֹא-יִקָּרֵא שִׁמְךָ עוֹד יַעֲקֹב, כִּי אִם-יִשְׂרָאֵל יִהְיֶה שְׁמֶךָ, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, יִשְׂרָאֵל. יא וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי, פְּרֵה וּרְבֵה--גּוֹי וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם, יִהְיֶה מִמֶּךָּ; וּמְלָכִים, מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ יֵצֵאוּ. יב וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם וּלְיִצְחָק--לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה; וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ, אֶתֵּן אֶת-הָאָרֶץ
Gen 48
ג וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל-יוֹסֵף, אֵל שַׁדַּי נִרְאָה-אֵלַי בְּלוּז בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וַיְבָרֶךְ, אֹתִי. ד וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי, הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ, וּנְתַתִּיךָ, לִקְהַל עַמִּים; וְנָתַתִּי אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, לְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ--אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם
Ex 6
ב וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אֲנִי יְהוָה. ג וָאֵרָא, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם אֶל-יִצְחָק וְאֶל-יַעֲקֹב--בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי; וּשְׁמִי יְהוָה, לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם. ד וְגַם הֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אִתָּם, לָתֵת לָהֶם אֶת-אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן--אֵת אֶרֶץ מְגֻרֵיהֶם, אֲשֶׁר-גָּרוּ בָהּ.
Ex 31
יג וְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, אַךְ אֶת-שַׁבְּתֹתַי, תִּשְׁמֹרוּ: כִּי אוֹת הִוא בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם--לָדַעַת, כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם. יד וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-הַשַּׁבָּת, כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא, לָכֶם; מְחַלְלֶיהָ, מוֹת יוּמָת--כִּי כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ. טו שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן קֹדֶשׁ, לַיהוָה; כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, מוֹת יוּמָת. טז וְשָׁמְרוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-הַשַּׁבָּת, לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת-הַשַּׁבָּת לְדֹרֹתָם, בְּרִית עוֹלָם. יז בֵּינִי, וּבֵין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--אוֹת הִוא, לְעֹלָם: כִּי-שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, שָׁבַת וַיִּנָּפַשׁ.
Lev 26
ט וּפָנִיתִי אֲלֵיכֶם--וְהִפְרֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם, וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶתְכֶם; וַהֲקִימֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אִתְּכֶם.
Nu 25
יא פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, הֵשִׁיב אֶת-חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת-קִנְאָתִי, בְּתוֹכָם; וְלֹא-כִלִּיתִי אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקִנְאָתִי. יב לָכֵן, אֱמֹר: הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, שָׁלוֹם. יג וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו, בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם--תַּחַת, אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו, וַיְכַפֵּר, עַל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל


Here are the JE sections
Gen 12:
א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, לֶךְ-לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ. ב וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ, לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל, וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ, וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ; וֶהְיֵה, בְּרָכָה. ג וַאֲבָרְכָה, מְבָרְכֶיךָ, וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ, אָאֹר; וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ, כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה.
Gen 13:
יד וַיהוָה אָמַר אֶל-אַבְרָם, אַחֲרֵי הִפָּרֶד-לוֹט מֵעִמּוֹ, שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה, מִן-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה שָׁם--צָפֹנָה וָנֶגְבָּה, וָקֵדְמָה וָיָמָּה. טו כִּי אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה רֹאֶה, לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה, וּלְזַרְעֲךָ, עַד-עוֹלָם. טז וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ, כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ: אֲשֶׁר אִם-יוּכַל אִישׁ, לִמְנוֹת אֶת-עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ--גַּם-זַרְעֲךָ, יִמָּנֶה. יז קוּם הִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּאָרֶץ, לְאָרְכָּהּ וּלְרָחְבָּהּ: כִּי לְךָ, אֶתְּנֶנָּה
Gen 15:
א אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, בַּמַּחֲזֶה, לֵאמֹר: אַל-תִּירָא אַבְרָם, אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ--שְׂכָרְךָ, הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד. ב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה מַה-תִּתֶּן-לִי, וְאָנֹכִי, הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי; וּבֶן-מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי, הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר. ג וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם--הֵן לִי, לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע; וְהִנֵּה בֶן-בֵּיתִי, יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי. ד וְהִנֵּה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר, לֹא יִירָשְׁךָ זֶה: כִּי-אִם אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ, הוּא יִירָשֶׁךָ. ה וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה, וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט-נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים--אִם-תּוּכַל, לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם; וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ. ו וְהֶאֱמִן, בַּיהוָה; וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ, צְדָקָה.
Gen 16:
ט וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, שׁוּבִי אֶל-גְּבִרְתֵּךְ, וְהִתְעַנִּי, תַּחַת יָדֶיהָ. י וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֵךְ, וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר, מֵרֹב.
Gen 22:
טו וַיִּקְרָא מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם, שֵׁנִית, מִן-הַשָּׁמָיִם. טז וַיֹּאמֶר, בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נְאֻם-יְהוָה: כִּי, יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ, אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידֶךָ. יז כִּי-בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ, וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְכַחוֹל, אֲשֶׁר עַל-שְׂפַת הַיָּם; וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ, אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו. יח וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ, עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלִי. יט וַיָּשָׁב אַבְרָהָם אֶל-נְעָרָיו, וַיָּקֻמוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ יַחְדָּו אֶל-בְּאֵר שָׁבַע; וַיֵּשֶׁב אַבְרָהָם, בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע
Gen 26:
ב וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה, וַיֹּאמֶר אַל-תֵּרֵד מִצְרָיְמָה: שְׁכֹן בָּאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ. ג גּוּר בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, וְאֶהְיֶה עִמְּךָ וַאֲבָרְכֶךָּ: כִּי-לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ, אֶתֵּן אֶת-כָּל-הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל, וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-הַשְּׁבֻעָה, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ. ד וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ, כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְנָתַתִּי לְזַרְעֲךָ, אֵת כָּל-הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל; וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ
Gen 27:
כח וְיִתֶּן-לְךָ, הָאֱלֹהִים, מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ--וְרֹב דָּגָן, וְתִירֹשׁ. כט יַעַבְדוּךָ עַמִּים, וישתחו (וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ) לְךָ לְאֻמִּים--הֱוֵה גְבִיר לְאַחֶיךָ, וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְךָ בְּנֵי אִמֶּךָ; אֹרְרֶיךָ אָרוּר, וּמְבָרְכֶיךָ בָּרוּךְ
Gen 28:
יג וְהִנֵּה יְהוָה נִצָּב עָלָיו, וַיֹּאמַר, אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ, וֵאלֹהֵי יִצְחָק; הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה שֹׁכֵב עָלֶיהָ--לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה, וּלְזַרְעֶךָ. יד וְהָיָה זַרְעֲךָ כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ, וּפָרַצְתָּ יָמָּה וָקֵדְמָה וְצָפֹנָה וָנֶגְבָּה; וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ כָּל-מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה, וּבְזַרְעֶךָ. טו וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ, וּשְׁמַרְתִּיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-תֵּלֵךְ, וַהֲשִׁבֹתִיךָ, אֶל-הָאֲדָמָה הַזֹּאת: כִּי, לֹא אֶעֱזָבְךָ, עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם-עָשִׂיתִי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ
Gen 46:
א וַיִּסַּע יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ, וַיָּבֹא בְּאֵרָה שָּׁבַע; וַיִּזְבַּח זְבָחִים, לֵאלֹהֵי אָבִיו יִצְחָק. ב וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַרְאֹת הַלַּיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב יַעֲקֹב; וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּנִי. ג וַיֹּאמֶר, אָנֹכִי הָאֵל אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ; אַל-תִּירָא מֵרְדָה מִצְרַיְמָה, כִּי-לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשִׂימְךָ שָׁם. ד אָנֹכִי, אֵרֵד עִמְּךָ מִצְרַיְמָה, וְאָנֹכִי, אַעַלְךָ גַם-עָלֹה; וְיוֹסֵף, יָשִׁית יָדוֹ עַל-עֵינֶיךָ

Parsha Insights - Yisro 2007

I’m taking a break from my intro to DH series to do a parsha post. Intro to DH will resume shortly.

A few posts back, Sara said she was less interested in disproving OJ and more interested in trying to figure out how OJ developed. I happen to disagree. I don’t care how OJ came to be. I just want to know if it’s true. But, as I try to accommodate reader requests, I figured I’d devote this week’s parsha insights to that question.

The foremost figure in this field who ever lived may very well have been Martin Noth. Noth put forward an elaborate explanation of how Judaism developed. Unlike DH, there is not much evidence to support his theory. But, it is a fascinating one. It is not something we can prove scientifically, but it’s more like an exercise in imagination. How did this tradition come to be? In this vort, I’m going to share one of Noth’s many insights in to the way tradition developed.

I’ve noted recently that Ex 20 (the dibros) belongs (in my opinion) to D. This verse, however,

כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת-יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֶת-הַיָּם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-בָּם, וַיָּנַח, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי; עַל-
כֵּן, בֵּרַךְ יְהוָה אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת--וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ.

is likely an exception and belongs to P.

One of the reasons for assigning Ex 20 to D is that it is repeated in Deut 5. However, in Deut 5 we see a different reason for shabbos.

וְזָכַרְתָּ, כִּי עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וַיֹּצִאֲךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִשָּׁם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה; עַל-כֵּן, צִוְּךָ
יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת. {ס}

We can further bolster the case for assigning Ex 20:10 to P on the grounds that is essentially a repeat of Ex 31:17

כִּי-שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, שָׁבַת וַיִּנָּפַשׁ

And Gen 2:3

וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ

So the theory goes that Ex 20:10 was not originally part of the dibros (in Deut 5) but was added later by another editor who cut and pasted from various other P sections.

OK, where am I going with this?

We tend to view Shabbos as commemorating creation. However, many verses that speak of shabbos don’t speak of creation at all. In fact, in Deut 5 another explanation is given. If we accept the above assignment of Ex 20:10 to P, it will mean that actually the story of creation in 6 days appears nowhere in the Torah outside of P. And yet, shabbos appears in all the sources. However, P, is one of the later sources. This would mean that shabbos actually came before the story of the 6 days creation. But, how could that be? Doesn’t shabbos commemorate that? Noth suggests that actually the story of creation came to explain shabbos. In other words. First, the tradition of shabbos developed. No one really knew why. It just developed. Then, there came a desire to explain that tradition. One attempt by the D school was to say that it was a zecher to YT”M. But, that is not very satisfying. What does shabbos have to do with YT”M?! So, then, the P school actually came up with a creation story to explain shabbos. The original creation story in J says nothing about 6 days!

But, Noth takes this a step further. Noth attempts to show that actually, the entire creation story, and the one involving Noah (actually, all of Gen 1 -11) is of a pretty late origin. Here is the evidence Noth presents to this thesis.

1. Noth assumes that earlier elements of the tradition tended to get quoted a lot because there was much time for them to sink in to the tradition. Newer traditions are rarely quoted. Thus, YT”M is mentioned very frequently in Tanach, implying it was an early tradition. Interestingly, creation and the story of Noah are rarely mentioned. True, Noah is mentioned sometimes, like Isaiah 54:9, perhaps Ezekiel 14:14 and I Chronicles 1:4. But, the references are rare, and all of these examples are from very late books. The earlier books contain none (that I am aware of). Similarly, creation is rarely mentioned. Shabbos is an exception, but as I noted, the creation-shabbos connection is only mentioned in P which is a later book. Of course, the idea of creation itself may be independently mentioned in other sources, since creation is a basic theological idea, but you won’t find to many verses referencing the actually story presented in Gen 1-2. Sometimes, they may even refer to other creation traditions. That’s how some understand Isaiah 51:9 for example. This is especially striking since one would have thought creation would be a major theme. Yet, it takes a back seat. Noth sees this as indication of late origin.

2. Noth was a complete believer in DH. But, it rarely helped him. He was interested in knowing what elements of the tradition came before which ones. But, the earliest sources according to DH, J & E, already contain essentially the entire tradition. How then, can one find what came before what if J & E, are earliest sources already contain the entire developed tradition?

Noth believed in a 5th source (Noth was unsure if was written or oral) called G, for Grundlage. I won’t go into the evidence Noth had to support this theory, but his idea was that G contained the basic seed of the tradition. Both J & E based themselves off of G when they composed their books, but the original G is now lost. So, according to Noth, anything that is not found in G must be of a later origin.

How do we know if something was in G, given that we don’t have it? Well, since both J & E based themselves off of G, if something is in both J & E, it was likely in G as well. Now, E first begins in Gen 15. Why does E not have the story of creation and Noah? Aren’t those pretty basic stories? Of course, we can’t be sure that it didn’t. It is possible that E had these stories but they editor of JE removed them. However, Noth assumes that E never had these stories. The question, is, why? Since creation is such a basic story, one would not have expected E to cut it out of G. Thus, Noth concludes that the original G story began with Avraham. This establishes a very late date for the creation story. Remember, G already represents the basic story of the Torah. It has Avraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moshe, YT”M, etc.

3. Noth had a particular view about how traditions developed. First, there was something that needed explaining. It could have been the name of a place. It could be why a temple, alter, or burial ground was in a certain place. It could be the need to explain a treaty, or a custom. At first, a very basic skeleton of a tradition would develop to explain the phenomenon. There was a holy man who prayed here. That’s why there’s a temple. Then, it would develop further. More details would be filled in about the holy man etc. Then, various traditions would merge to form further complex traditions. And, more and more complex traditions would evolve.

When we look at Gen 1-11 very little is really explained. Shabbos is explained, but that explanation is not germane to the original creation story (the J version) which does not have the 6 day cycle. This suggests a later date. Further, the whole Gen 1 -11 is very far removed. It has little to do with the real life of the Israelite. As such, according to Noth, it shows a level of abstraction suggesting a later date of theological development. Further, Gen 1 – 11 contains very involved drawn out narrative. This, for Noth, suggests a late date. The early stories, were simple and to the point. This place has this name cause of so and so. Period.

Getting back to the issue I raised at the beginning of the post, these issues don’t really interest me so much. Firstly, I have to wonder how sure we are that this post isn’t total BS. When it comes to DH, everything I say is supported by much evidence. I have much confidence in it. But, this, really has very little evidence to support it. It’s nice theory, but much of the arguments are actually quite weak.

And, my other issue is that I just don’t care. I care very much if OJ is right. That has huge impacts on my life. But, if indeed OJ is wrong (a supposition on which this post is based, and which this post doesn’t further at all), then it’s just some ancient culture. Probably not worth my time.

But, Noth does have much more to say. If you agree with Sarah, let me know, and I’ll try to fit Noth in more often.

A gut shabbos to all

Intro to DH Post II of III

Intro to DH part III

(Part IV will come in another post. I had intended to get III and IV into one post, but III ended up being longer than I thought)

Last time on Intro to DH…..

Part I

It was successfully established that the Torah is composite. I gave a few examples that established this. Most of them were not even addressed by the maaminim. Those that were answered, were answered with very weak answers. And, the man point is that I gave a few examples out of hundreds extant

Part II

The section D is marked by hundreds of phenomenon, ranging from historical fact, legal views, words and more. In the last post, I picked just two examples. Yet, even only looking at two examples, I was able to successfully statistically establish a uniqueness to the section of D. With just 2 examples! Out of hundreds out there. In the comments, several objections were raised:

1. There is a flaw in my statistical analysis. Anonymous suggested this, and to his credit, he came up with another method which is more elegant. But, he agreed exactly with my conclusion, that the chance of these events happening by chance is in the order of one in hundred septillion. Just he arrived there with a more elegant method.

2. Others simply stated that my analysis was flawed, but did not explain why.

3. Others accused me of bias. But, no one actually offered an alternative to explain my analysis. No one even tried. And, I only used around 1% of the evidence at my disposal! As Rush Limbaugh would say, I beat them with one hand tied behind my back just to make it fair.

4. The only relevant point that was put forward was that the existence of different colors to the text does not imply a different author. It could be due to thematic reasons. I will address this in this post.

And now....
Part III in which I will show that D is a different author

The distinct color of D has now been firmly established. There are 3 possible suggestions put forward to explain this:

1. It is a different author.
2. D is Moses and the rest is God.
3. D has a different theme.

All of these 3 are possible. None can be refuted. However, I will attempt to show that based on the evidence, (1) is much more likely than the other 2. Let us consider each possibility by itself.

Possibility 1 - DH:

This possibility is plausible. It certainly explains the special color of D. Moreover, contrary to the opinion of the maaminim, it is not an imposition on the text at all. And, for the following reasons:

1. It has already been established in Part I that the text is composite. So, the idea that D is a separate author fits in well.

2. A while ago, the blogosphere engaged in a heated debate about Deutero-Isaiah. I was the one who started that debate and my point was to show that often even maaminim accept the composite nature of the text. Yet, when it comes to the Torah, they say that saying a text is composite is an imposition on the text. Even if you hold Isaiah was one text, there are certain examples no one can deny. Shmuel makes no sense when you read it as one book and the Talmud itself admits it had three authors. One maamin once admitted to me he might believe in DH in Joshua where we have a manuscript that supports it. The point is, there’s no reason to believe a text wouldn’t be edited and there’s plenty of reasons to assume it would be. Even Judiasm allows for editing of the text to some degree by Ezrah and Anshei Kneses Hadedolah and Gemorah’s speak of this explicitly. As to some p’sukim if IIRC.

So, possibility (1) has a lot going for it and nothing going against it.

Possibility 2 Moses vs. God :

I can’t refute this possibility. But, I can state is very unlikely. And, for the following reasons:

1. Firstly, just a note. It’s only an answer for maaminim. It won’t help for skeptics who don’t believe in God.

2. The borders of D are not precisely those of Moshe’s speech. For example, as I noted, Exodus 20 is D. Deut 32-34 is not all D. For example, Shiras Haazenu uses Ani 5 times and could not possibly be from the same hand as the rest of D. Perhaps it is different because it is poetic. But still. My point stands. If D was different cause it was Moshe, you’d expect it’s borders to be precisely those of the speech.

3. Moses is not talking for all of Deut. For example, Deut 31 is D but Moses is not speaking. It’s narrative in between the speech. Yet, it still bares many of the markers of D. Two examples that appear in that chapter are:
כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל
הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי,

4. Moses speaks many times in the Torah, not just in Divorim. Outside of the D, we don’t see the D characteristics. One would have to say that those are not quotes of Moshe verbatim but D is. But, there is no reason to assume that.

5. Scholars have found various sections of Nach that seemed to be influenced by D. I am not particularly knowledgeable in Nach, since most of my knowledge of DH actually comes from being a baal koreh and thinking about what I am laining. But, from what I have seen, it is pretty compelling there too. There are various sections of Nach that seemed to be particularly influenced by D. This is illogical if D was never separate.

6. This explanation does not account for the contradictions between D and the other books.

7. Many of the nomenclature distinctions are not distinctions between people but between sects. Actually, many scholars believe that several people conspired to write D. The point is not that it had to be one guy. The point is they were from the same sect. Presumably, God and Moses were from the same sect. So, this answer does not help. As an example, one difference is that P uses the word Korban 235 times to refer to a sacrifice whilst D does not use it even once. And, there are many similar words, regarding the sacrificial cult used by P but not D. Attempting to answer this by stating that D does not talk about sacrifices is simply false (some examples - Deut 12:2, 6, 11, 13, 14, 17, 26, 27, 14:23, 15:19, 16:1, 5, 10, 18:3. There are more.) Now, this is readably understandable if D & P represent different sects. In P’s sect, Korban was used to describe sacrifice. In D’s sect it was not. But, presumably, God and Moses were from the same sect. Why would Moses not use the word Korban if God did.

Possibility 3 – thematic explanation

The idea here is to suggest that one author wrote the entire Torah. But, D has a different theme than the other books. That theme triggers certain phenomenon. Let me state that if DH is wrong, I am 100% confident that this would have to be the answer. No other answer stands a chance. Moreover, I would like to note that this answer need not stand alone. If, for example, it can explain some of the Anoki’s, the rest could be picked up by chance. It can be used in conjunction with the other answers. But, it is a necessary component.

Once again, this possibility can not be refuted, but I can state that it is unlikely.

Now, I am at a slight disadvantage here. I am claiming that all the thematic interpretations are bad. In order to do that, I’d need to refute every single one. I obviously can’t do that in 1 post since there are infinity many. So, what I am going to do is pick the best explanation I am aware of for the phenomenon I discussed in my last post and refute them. I am being honest here. These is the best I know of. And, I’ve read lots of anti – DH apologetics.

I’ve read Radatz, Cassuto, Breuer, Dovid Dovid Gotlieb. I’ve heard Menachem Lieptag. I’ve read Alter & Noth, (who both, btw, were/are firm believers in DH, although their work is often quoted by the anti – DH camp). In short, I’ve seen a lot of attempts to explain the phenomenon of DH. I might very well have read more anti - DH stuff than pro-DH stuff. Yet, not one has offered a thematic interpretation that is any good.

So, what is the best thematic explanation for the phenomenon I described in my last post? In the last post, I discussed two phenomenon. The circular inclusio and the word Anoki. I am not aware of any thematic interpretation for CI that even comes close to be anything but laughable. I have never heard anyone in the anti-DH camp even attempt to refute that proof, nor as has anyone on this blog ever even attempt to explain it, though I speak about it often. I’ve thought of a few responses myself, but they are all laughable. With Ani/Anoki, you do see some anti – DH apologists attempt to answer it. But, everything they ever say on the topic is laughable. The following answer is one I came up with on my own actually. But, it is far better than the stuff in the anti – DH literature. I wouldn't call it laugable. Just less likely than DH.

Here goes:

If we look at the distributions of Anoki’s in D, we find the Anoki is commonly used in various phrases. Here are approximations of phrases that commonly use Anoki and their frequency:
אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם
1
אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם
13
אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם
2
אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי דֹּבֵר בְּאָזְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם
1
אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לָהֶם לְרִשְׁתָּהּ
1
אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָ
19
רְאֵה, אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם—הַיּוֹם
1
אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָ
5
Other
10

It is clear that not only are certain of these phrases common, but they are similar to each other. אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם And אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם and אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי דֹּבֵר בְּאָזְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם and אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָ and רְאֵה, אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם--הַיּוֹם and אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָ
are all very similar and account for all but 11 of the Anoki’s. So, perhaps, these phrases, for whatever grammatical reason always use Anoki. And, they are common in D for whatever thematic reason. That would explain why D is always using Anoki.

So, what’s the problem? There are several problems with this answer.

1. The whole premise of the explanation is false. The premise is that אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם must always use Anoki. Now, there are two ways to justify that:
a. some grammatical reason.
b. perhaps, a priori it does not, but it must always be used in the same way, so once the first time Anoki is used, Anoki must always be used.

In order for (a) to stand, one must give some explanation. I can think of none, nor have I seen any in the literature. If someone has one, please share. (b )just seems false. And, for 2 reasons:
אֶ. There are many phrases in the Torah that come with both Ani or Anoki, so there’s no reason to assume consistency.
בְּ. is unlikely because this phrase does not appear again and again in the exact same manner. As evidence from the data, the Torah is constantly changing the structure of the phrase. The only thing that remains constant is Anoki.

2. This answer only reformulates the question. The question now becomes why does D always say אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם when it appears no where else. One may be tempted to say that it has something to do with the fact that it is a mussur schmooze. But, that is patently false. There are such shmozen throughout the Torah. And, much of D is history or law. There’s no reason to assume this phrase would appear only in D.

3. This rule only holds in D. Outside of D, similar phrases do use Ani. For example,

Gen 9:12 אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי נֹתֵן בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם
Gen 27:8 לַאֲשֶׁר אֲנִי, מְצַוָּה אֹתָךְ
Lev 14:34, 25:2 אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם

And others.

4. This explanation does not explain contradictions. Thematic explanations can never explain contradictions.

5. This particular explanation does not explain all the Anoki’s. There’s 11 that are not explained. But, that’s really 12 given that the fact that the phrase "Asher Anoki mitzavecha hayom" is also a data point. Now, P uses Ani 123 and Anoki only once. So, we’ve still got D with 2 - 12 and P with 123- 1.

6. What does this answer do for us? It explains part of 1 issue raised by DH. DH raises hundreds of issues that distinguish D from the other four books. All of them must be explained. If each and every phenomenon is to be explained on the basis of thematic explanations, we will need hundreds of answers, each with multiple parts and suppositions (as this one has). DH is one answer that explains everything at once. Moreover, it is substantiated by the fact that we already established in part I that the Torah is composite.

In summary

There are 3 possible ways to explain the different color of D as compared to the other sources.

1. different author
2. Moses
3. different theme.

1. makes a lot of sense since we already know there are multiple authors.
2. doesn’t really fit in at all with the actually specifics of the arguments of DH
3. Makes sense. But we need to posit many unlikely baseless assumptions in order to explain just one phenomenon when there are hundreds that need explaining.

I’m not saying 2 & 3 are impossible. I’m saying if we have to pick one of the three, one makes the most sense.

In part IV, I will establish P as a separate author. Coming soon to a blog near you.