Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Documentary Hypothesis Contest extended Message-ID: Date: 12 Mar 91 09:17:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 27 Approved: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu I've been the most active recently in the "liberal" camp, so I thought you might be expecting a response from me. If you read my posting over the weekend, I think you'll realize that I'm substantially more conservative than the typical scholars that work with the documentary hypothesis. Certainly I don't claim it is possible to unscramble arbitrary texts based on stylistic differences. In fact I find the typical commentaries that assign alternate half-verses to various sources ludicrous, and have said that a number of times in the past. I do see signs of multiple viewpoints in some places, e.g. in Gen. 1 and 2. However I have great scepticism about the detailed reconstructions some scholars have proposed. My understanding is that you need much larger samples of text than we normally have in order to make serious stylistic analyses. As far as I can tell, if you wanted to make a separation of sources in the flood account the primary basis for doing so would be differing chronologies. The normal claim from the documentary hypothesis is that one source assumed 40 days for the flood and the other assumed 150 days. Based on this, you could make at least a rough cut at a separation. I'm sceptical about claims to be able to do better than this, or to be able to separate sources everywhere in Gen. At least in English translation I don't see enough difference in style in the flood account that I'd try to make a separation on that basis, nor do I believe I can separate your sources based on style. I don't offhand see any equivalent in your text of the chronological difference in Gen.