DH 16: Circular Reasoning

Last updated on: April 19, 2014 at 8:03 am by William Hamblin

DH 16: Circular Reasoning 2014-04-19T08:03:56-07:00 William Hamblin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Another methodological problem with the Documentary Hypothesis, which many scholars have noted, is that it is a massive exercise in circular reasoning. How do we know if a passage belongs to J, E, D, P, or other proposed authors? The answer is: it’s complicated; very complicated. And, unfortunately, different scholars see different characteristics for the various purported authors. The more you dig into the details of the various claimed characteristics, the more complex and often seemingly haphazard the system becomes.

For example, take P, the “Priestly” author. Certain portions of the Pentateuch contain detailed description of priestly regulations and purity laws which are of interest largely to priests. The Documentarians propose that these passages were therefore written by a priest for priests. Fair enough. But why should we assume that priests don’t have interest in non-priestly matters? Or why should we assume that the Yahwist (J) author wasn’t a priest himself? Can’t a priest be interested in the history of Abraham? Can’t a priest call God by the name Yahweh? Indeed, given the sociology of scribal culture in ancient Israel, it’s quite possible that all the proposed authors of the Pentateuch were actually priests.

If the Yahwist was a priest, why couldn’t the Yahwist also be the author the P/priestly material in the Pentateuch? If the Yahwist was a priest, what criteria do we have left for distinguishing J/Yahwist from P/Priestly texts in the Pentateuch? Indeed, some Documentarians now claim that the Pentateuch should be divided into only two categories P and non-P. Others, quite the opposite, think P is merely a redactional layer, with no independent text at its foundation. Furthermore, if priests were interested in non-priestly matters—which they most certainly were—then non-P could have actually been written by a priest as well. The grounds for this division become increasingly problematic, and increasingly circular.

The argument basically devolves into this: P was a priest, and was therefore interested in genealogy, law, ritual, and tabernacle, all legitimate priestly concerns. Therefore, any passage in the Pentateuch that deals with genealogy, law, ritual or tabernacle must have been written by P.

Now the actual form of the Documentarian arguments is obviously more nuanced than this, but the fundamental problem cannot be ignored. You define the P author by his priestly interests, and therefore any passage of interest to priests must have been written by P. Which is an obviously circular argument. The reality in ancient Israel is that priests were interested in non-priestly matters, and non-priests were interested in priestly matters. Priests were interested in genealogy to establish their Aaronic lineage. But everyone else in ancient Near Eastern societies was also interested in genealogy. A wide range of fundamental ethnic and social relations were defined by genealogy for many different groups, not just priests. Priests were interested in food legislation. True enough. By nearly all ancient Near Eastern nations had food taboos, that applied to everyone, not just priests.

The claim that only a priest would write about priesthood, tabernacle and ritual also ignores the possibility that non-priests might be interested in these matters. This is certainly the case texts written in later Jewish history, which often show intense interest in such matters. Jesus himself, from the tribe of Judah, was quite interested in the temple and its priests. Should we take all the portions of the New Testament that discuss priesthood and temple and assume they must have been written by a priest?

Bible

Documentary Hypothesis

Previous Post

April 18, 2014

No Anonymity

Next Post

April 19, 2014 Mike Ash's Book

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ancient Studies Atheism Bible bibliography Book of Abraham Book of Mormon Book of Moses Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deseret News Column Doctrine and Covenants Documentary Hypothesis Genesis Haram al-Sharif Historicity History Islam Israelite Religion Judaism LDS Mormon Studies Mormonism Mormons Movies Noah Penteteuch Photography Religion Temple Temple Mount Temples Third Temple Movements Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Zion" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Fortress Promised Land Holy Place City of God