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.