Moses's final act as the leader of the Israelites (other than his long review speeches in Deuteronomuy) is to make an explicit change in halacha, in the name of both God and justice, without consulting God. This is contained in two separate stories involving the Daughters of Zelophechad and inheritance law. (See Num. 27:1-11 and Num. 36:1-12.) The straightforward interpretation of this story (maybe even at the peshat level) is that Jewish law, or halacha, is not a static set of rules, but instead evolves over time, like common law. Laws can change, new laws can be imposed, and old laws can be removed, provided that the demands of justice require this change.
This interpretation runs directly counter to the contemporary Orthodox understanding of halacha, although I have not seen a traditional explanation of these stories that explains them in any other way. It also supports a Conservative understanding of halacha, although I have never seen this story offered as a proof text for modifications of halacha.
The first story is contained in this week's parsha, and I blogged about this last year. This blog has quite a few more readers this year than last year. Rather than repeat the post, I simply link to it here. Take a look. (If you leave a comment, please leave it in last year's post rather than in this post.)
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
A Halachic Argument for Evolving Halacha
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Trader Joe's Boycott - "Raising Awareness" In An Unexpected Way
I really appreciate the anti-Israel group that spearheaded a completely ineffective boycott of Trader Joe's. They "raised awareness" --- at least to me --- of an important issue.
In case you missed it, some newly-minted month-old wacko group, spouting the usual anti-Israel blather of such wacko groups, demanded that Trader Joe's remove all Israeli products from its shelves. As always seems to be the case with such groups, they apparently had no concerns about all the other countries that do far worse things than what they claim Israel does, thereby raising the obvious inference that they are motivated by their own anti-Semitism or anti-Israel sentiments, rather a broader concern for human rights.
Trader Joe's properly refused their demands. "Trader Joe’s will not be used as a political tool, and we will not remove any products under pressure from any group. We believe our customers are smart and capable enough to make their own choices,” Trader Joe's explained. Exactly.
The wackos then decided to launch a boycott, with picketers, leaflets (which the wackos usually refer to as "literature"), and taking Israeli products off shelves. I assume the wackos' best case scenario would involve zillions showing up at my local TJ's shouting "No justice, no falafels." But things did not go as planned. The boycott "fizzled" according to the Jewish Journal and the LA Times blog, with about 20 protesters showing up in Oakland and a few other cities, and not much else.
I am not sure that "fizzled" is the right verb. The protest might not have turned out great numbers of wackos, but it did manage to focus my attention on a critical issue about which I was completely ignorant. I had no idea Trader Joe's actually had Israeli products. But my ignorance is now dispelled, and yours can be too: Trader Joe's apparently has both Israeli couscous and feta cheese. My family shops weekly at Trader Joe's, and we will be sure to pick some up next time we are there.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Mitzvot - Which Are the Low Hanging Fruit?
Until fairly recently, the Conservative and Reform movements were comprised of people who had at least some knowledge of the basics of traditional Judaism. Many had more observant or traditional parents or grandparents, had grown up in more observant homes and in primarily Jewish neighborhoods, and in some way or another were exposed to the basic traditions, rituals, beliefs, and holidays of Judaism. However, many Jews today in these movements have virtually no knowledge of, or experience with, some of the basic ideas and practices in Judaism.
Fifty years ago and earlier, these movements could operate with what I will call subtractive Judaism. They could take the existing set of traditional beliefs and decide what practices to relax, modify, or eliminate. For example, the Reform movement in the 19th century could switch from Hebrew to English (or German) in prayerbooks. The Conservative movement in the 1950s could liberalize some of the stringencies of shabbat and kashrut. But in both cases, they were starting with people who observed, or at least were familiar with, the traditional way of doing things.
That is no longer true. A substantial percentage of people in Conservative and Reform synagogues simply do not have any substantial knowledge of Judaism. They have not read the Torah, have no idea what it says, have not read other traditional texts, do not daven, do not attend services, do not keep any level of kashrut, do not know about most rituals, and do not know about, let alone observe, most holidays other than Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Chanukah, and Passover. The challenge facing the Conservative and Reform movement is not what to subtract from traditional Jewish practices. It is what to add to no traditional Jewish practices. In many ways, this is the same issue that Orthodox kiruv groups face.
Given that, what are the low-hanging fruits in Judaism? That is, what are some mitzvot, holidays, rituals, or types of learning that interested but not very knowledgeable Jews might do at relatively low cost and obtain relatively large benefits. Where do you get the biggest Jewish bang for the buck. This is really a very practical question.
For example, Chabad started a campaign 50 years ago or so to get less observant Jews to wear tefillin. My (no doubt ill-informed) opinion is that this is a really odd mitzvah to start with. Non-observant Jews often view tefillin as strange and meaningless, and it reinforces the idea that traditional Judaism is full of bizarre arcane rituals. But Chabad has had some success with this, so what do I know?
I have a few other ideas, and I would be interested in other people's thoughts.
Shabbat evening. It is simply nice to be with family and friends, to light candles, for husbands to say something nice about or to their wives and kids, to drink wine, and to eat challah. And maybe even talk about something important and meaningful.
Shabbat day. More of a challenge, given the rest of life. But carving out time to be with family and friends, not to answer phones or e-mail, not to be distracted by video games or television, and not to worry about work or chores is a good thing.
Sukkot. A really nice holiday. I have no idea why it has fallen out of favor with many Reform and Conservative Jews. It might have something to do with Jewish men and their inability to use tools, but now there are lots of nice kits around. (I like building my own sukkah, but I may be exceptional here. I think I am the only Jewish man on the planet with a tablesaw and several routers.)
Counting the Omer. My kids and I think it is cool, but my wife thinks it a bit silly. There's all sorts of interesting interpretations and things to think about while counting the omer, and it all makes you better and wiser. And I told the kids that if we make it through all 49 days withing skipping a day, we'll go out for ice cream after Shavuot. So far, we are on track.
Reading the Torah. No substitute for that. And lots of good English translations available.
A Really Interactive Seder. Seders do not have to be boring exercises where people take turns reading paragraphs from the Maxwell House haggadah. A little reading and planning ahead of time (and some willing participants), and it can turn into a pretty meaningful performance art, a fun time for the kids, and a great intellectual discussion on the ideas of freedom.
Any other thoughts?
UPDATE: (here's more)
The Rules of L'shon Hara. Judaism takes a very strong position against truthful gossip. One is forbidding to say something negative about someone, even if it is true, with some limited exceptions. (Saying something false and negative falls into a different and worse category.) American culture does not place much value on this idea. People gossip, and much popular entertainment is devoted to this. Judaism is refreshing counter-cultural here.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Will Your Grandchilden Be Commited Jews (Regardless of Denomination)?
The well-known article "Will Your Grandchildren Be Jews?" claims that only Orthodoxy can save American Judaism from extinction caused by high intermarriage rates and lower birthrates among non-Orthodox Jews. This article addresses a real problem, but in a slipshod way. In Will Your Grandchildren Be Reform?, I have criticized this article for ignoring the relatively high Orthodox interdenominational switching rates. As noted there, a much higher percentage of Jews raised Orthodox switch to other denominations than Jews raised in other denominations. In the comments section, commentators have criticized my critique for not distinguishing between the more nominal Orthodoxy of 50 to 100 years ago (with a presumably higher switching rate) and the deeper Orthodoxy of today (with a presumably lower rate). I think that critique is correct as far as it goes, but the original article is still deficient for failing to include any adjustment for interdenominational switching.
In A Tale of Two Jewries: the “Inconvenient Truth” for American Jews Sociologist Steven M. Cohen has examined the data and reached a a much more nuanced conclusion: the overall denominational averages masks the presence of "two Jewries". And this conclusion has startling implications.
Cohen notes that American Jews tend to fall into two broad categories:
In short, there is a Jewishly committed group, and a Jewishly uncommitted group. Or perhaps a core and a periphery. (Cohen refers to them an the in-married and the inter-married, although the groups seem to me to capture much more than simply choice of spouse.)
What is largely missing in a middle, or a moderately committed group. In the past, this group may have been by less observant people with a strong ethnic sense of Judaism. But in the past several decades, ethnicity as a force in Judaism has strongly declined. Cohen notes that we have experienced "ethnic decline but religious stability."
Cohen found that the committed group tends to raise children who are themselves committed, and the uncommitted group tends to raise children who are themselves uncommitted. But his most interesting conclusion is that the committed group is dispersed throughout the denominations in approximately equal numbers. That is, in absolute numbers, there is about the same number of committed Jews who are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. But since the Reform movement is the largest, followed by Conservative Judaism, followed by Orthodoxy, the percentage of "committed" Jews is very high in Orthodoxy, smaller in Conservativism, and smaller still in Reform.
Because of this, the overall averages for the denominations picks up and masks the averages of two very different sub-populations within that denomination. So a much smaller percentage of Reform Jews (say) attend a passover seder than Orthodox Jews, but that is because Reform Jews have a relatively low number of "committed" Jews (who do attend seders in high numbers) and a relatively high number of uncommitted Jews (who do not).
The implications of this are striking. Contrary to the Orthodox claims, the "solution" to the "problem" of Jewish continuity is not for Jews to become Orthodox; it is for Jews to become religiously knowledgeable, committed, and involved. That is, if a Reform of Conservative Jew really takes Judaism seriously --- that is, has a high level of Jewish knowledge, observance, and belief, affiliates with a synagogue, marries another Jew (by birth or conversion), and sends his or her children to Jewish institutions --- that Jew has a relatively high chance of that Jew's children doing the same.
An important warning: this is not grounds for complacency. Reform and Conservative Jews cannot simply join a synagogue and send their kids to camp and think that they have ensured Jewish continuity. They need to strive for a serious and deep understanding of Judaism, actually practice it, and teach this diligently to their children. The v'ahavta has it right, and v'shenantam l'vanecha is at the core. The challenge for Conservative and especially Reform Jews is to be able to do this in a synagogue where only some of the members have similar beliefs and practices.
What does this involve? More in future posts.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Little Foxling and the Documentary Hypothesis
Da'as Hedyot has republished a five-part autobiographical post from blogger Little Foxling about his path away from Orthodoxy and the Documentary Hypothesis. The personal and intellectual story is fascinating.
Before I started this blog, I was hunting around the web for info on the DH. I came across LF's comments on someone else's blog. Someone had made a silly point, and LF responded by presenting the DH. He was immediately attacked by pretty much every other commentator. He then took on the whole room, point-by-point: LF vs. 15 other people. His arguments were precise, on point, and solid. It was clear he had a deep knowledge of both traditional sources and the documentary hypothesis and had really thought through these issues. I was quite impressed and started reading his blog regularly.
Unfortunately, LF stopped blogging and moved on to other things. He and I still occasionally e-mail each other.
Among other things, LF notes that Orthodox Jews have not effectively responded to the Documentary Hypothesis. They either ignore it, mischaracterize it and mock it, or (falsely) claim that scholars no longer belief in it. This neglect is quite dangerous. Sooner or later (and probably sooner, given the internet), it will lead more and more Orthodox Jews to doubt and eventually disbelieve the central factual tenet of Orthodox Judaism, namely a literal "Torah from Heaven" or Torah min Hashamayim. They will leave Orthodoxy, and the people who do so (like LF) will disproportionately be the brighter ones. When you are in a Galilelo vs. the Pope type of argument, you simply do not want to be taking the Pope side. It might work in the short run, but you end up losing very badly, and looking very foolish, in the long run.
Orthodoxy needs to effectively respond to the discoveries of modern Bible scholarship or come up with a better theory of revelation. The failure to do so risks seriously undermining Orthodoxy.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Research Question - Traditional Sources
I have now blogged about the Horeb / Sinai issue from the DH perspective. I am now looking at traditional explanations for the use of these two names, and I have a general methodological question: how do I research this in particular, and similar issues in general?
I have a few approaches:
1. Look at a Torah with commentary. (Rashi, etc.) The problem here is that this requires looking at each of the 40 or so instances of Sinai and Horeb to see if there is comment.
2. Poke around the web. I've found some general sources that reference other things. Like a short Talmudic discussion in Shabbat 89a-89b.
3. Check sources that argue against the DH. I've found a brief passage discussing this issue in Eisenstein's Commentary on the Torah. Nothing in R. Etshalom's book or Cassuto's book.
But other than these three approaches (Torah w/ commentary, web, traditional sources on DH), can someone think of a good way of researching this textual issue in particular, and similar textual issues in general?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Problems with E and J
There is a potential problem with separating out J and E that needs to be discussed. According to the DH, J and E were edited together into one text (appropriately called JE), and it is often hard to separate the strands. There are some stories or passages where characteristics indicating J are found right next to other characteristics indicating E. For example, the burning bush story in Exodus 3, and the revelation at Sinai in Exodus 19 both have combined sections from J and E. This problem is resolved by splitting the passage sentence by sentence, or sometimes even clause by clause.
In general, there are two possibilities here. It might be the case that the DH is correct and J and E were edited together this way. Alternatively, it might be the case that the DH is wrong and this is in fact a single text. If the former, it is quite difficult to show that this is the case. After all, one of the stronger arguments for the DH is that some passages are complete by themselves, show an internal consistency in style, wording, and content, but show an inconsistency with other passages. However, if a passage has elements of both J and E thoroughly mixed throughout, then it is much more difficult to show that they were originally separate texts. One would have to show that particular sentences or clauses show multiple characteristics of one source but not the other, and this gets difficult to show this persuasively at the sentence level.
One way of handling this problem is to treat J and E as a single combined source called JE, and contrast that with the other sources P and D. After all, most scholars believe that it is fairly easy, at least in most passages, to separate between P, D, and the combined JE.
That approach is fine as far as it goes. But the problem is that sometimes J shares characteristics with one of the other sources and E with another source. For example, J and P both refer to the mountain where God appears as "Sinai" and D and E both refer to it as "Horeb", and noted here and here. But if J and E are combined together, then that means that the combined document JE sometimes uses "Sinai" and sometimes uses "Horeb". That is obviously a less persuasive argument than if J and E were cleanly separable.
This is less persuasive, but not unpersuasive. After all, P uses only Sinai, and D uses only Horeb. That's a pretty compelling distinction by itself. And if we have multiple reasons to think that particular sentences or verses in JE are actually J or E, then that separation, although not as clean as the separation between P and D, is still somewhat persuasive.
Like always, this argument cannot be resolved in the abstract. The details are important. But it is something to watch carefully as we work through the text.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Horeb or The Moutain of God - E and D
The word "Horeb" or the phrase "the mountain of God" ("har Elohim") appears 6 times in E, 9 times in D, and never in P or J. The complete list is set forth below.
(E) Exod. 3:1: Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. (Note: E and J are both present in the burning bush story. Separating them is complex. However, Friedman makes a reasonable case in his footnote. I will discuss how reasonable or unreasonable this is when we discuss that particular story. At that time, we will assume the various characteristics of each source and see how well that explains the divisions. But for now we are doing the opposite; we are assuming the divisions into sources and seeing how well that explains the characteristics of each source.)
(E) Exod. 4:27: The LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the desert to meet Moses." So he met Moses at the mountain of God and kissed him.
(E) Exod. 17:6: "...I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink."
(E) Exod. 18:5: Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, together with Moses' sons and wife, came to him in the desert, where he was camped near the mountain of God.
(E) Exod. 24:13: Then Moses set out with Joshua his aide, and Moses went up on the mountain of God.
(E) Exod. 33:6: So the Israelites stripped off their ornaments at Mount Horeb.
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:2: It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:6: The LORD our God said to us at Horeb, "You have stayed long enough at this mountain. . . ."
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:19: "Then, as the LORD our God commanded us, we set out from Horeb . . . ."
(Dtr1) Deut. 4:10: Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, "Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children."
(Dtr1) Deut. 4:15: You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire.
(Dtr1) Deut. 5:2: The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
(Dtr1) Deut. 9:8: At Horeb you aroused the LORD's wrath so that he was angry enough to destroy you.
(Dtn) Deut. 18:16: For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
(Dtr1) Deut. 29:1: These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.
* * *
Sinai and Horeb are both names of the mountain where God appeared to Moses and the Hebrews. Yes Sinai is used exclusively by P and J, while Horeb is used exclusively by E and D. Standing alone, that strongly supports the DH. In a separate post, I will examine the traditional Jewish understanding of why this mountain has two names.
* * *
As an aside, the only other place in the Tanach where "mountain of God" is used is in 1st Kings, and it is equated with Horeb: "So he [Elijah] got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God." (1 Kings 19:8.) First Kings is part of the Deuteronomist history, and it is noteworthy that it uses Horeb, not Sinai, like the rest of D.
In Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, the only place where Sinai appears in in the Song of Deborah, in Judges 5: "The mountains quaked before the LORD, the One of Sinai, before the LORD, the God of Israel." (Judges 5:5.) Scholars believe this song was from an independent very early source, and was inserted into Judges by D.
* * *
Update: see here for a particular problem with J and E.
.
Sinai - P and J
One commonly cited difference between the sources is the J and P use the term "Sinai" while E and D use "Horeb". Each will be examined in a separate post, as well as traditional explanations for the difference.
"Sinai" appears 18 times in P, 6 times in J, 4 times in R, and 2 times in Other sources. It appears no times in E or D.
The following are all the references to Sinai in the Torah:
(R) Exod. 16:1: The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt.
(P, R) Exod. 19:1-2: In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt — on the very day — they came to the Desert of Sinai. 2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.
(J) Exod. 19:11: And the LORD said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes 11 and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
(J) Exod. 19:18: Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire.
(J) Exod. 19:20: The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain.
(J) Exod. 19:23: Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai . . . ."
Note: Exodus 19 (the revelation at Sinai) has both E and J interspersed. We will see how persuasive the divisions are when we examine this chapter as a whole. But for now, we are assuming that the source divisions are correct and determining how well that explains the different characteristics of each source.
(P) Exod 24:16: . . . and the glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai.
(P) Exod. 31:18: When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets . . . .
(J) Exod. 34:2: Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai.
(J) Exod. 34:4: So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning . . . .
(P) Exod. 34:29: When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets
(P) Exod. 34:32: Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the LORD had given him on Mount Sinai.
(P) Lev. 7:38: These, then, are the regulations for the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the ordination offering and the fellowship offering, 38 which the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai on the day he commanded the Israelites to bring their offerings to the LORD, in the Desert of Sinai.
(P) Lev. 25:1 (-2): The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD.
(P) Lev. 26:46: These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the LORD established on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.
(P) Lev. 27:34: These are the commands the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai for the Israelites.
(P) Num. 1:1: The LORD spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt.
(P) Num. 1:19: And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai
(R) Num. 3:1: This is the account of the family of Aaron and Moses at the time the LORD talked with Moses on Mount Sinai.
(P) Num. 3:4: Nadab and Abihu, however, fell dead before the LORD when they made an offering with unauthorized fire before him in the Desert of Sinai.
(P) Num. 3:14 (-15): The LORD said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, "Count the Levites by their families and clans.
(P) Num. 9:1 (-2): The LORD spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, "Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover
(P) Num. 9:5: and they did so in the Desert of Sinai
(P) Num. 10:12: Then the Israelites set out from the Desert of Sinai and traveled from place to place until the cloud came to rest in the Desert of Paran.
(P) Num. 26:64: Not one of them was among those counted by Moses and Aaron the priest when they counted the Israelites in the Desert of Sinai.
(R) Num. 28:6: This is the regular burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai as a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire.
(Other) Num. 33:15: They left Rephidim and camped in the Desert of Sinai.
(Other) Num. 33:16: They left the Desert of Sinai and camped at Kibroth Hattaavah.
(P) Deut. 33:2: his is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death. He said: "The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; . . . ."
* * *
Sinai and Horeb are both names of the mountain where God appeared to Moses and the Hebrews. Yes Sinai is used exclusively by P and J, while Horeb is used exclusively by E and D. Standing alone, that strongly supports the DH. In a separate post, I will examine the traditional Jewish understanding of why this mountain has two names.
* * *
Update: see here for a particular problem with J and E.
.
The Documentary Hypothesis - Characteristics of Each Source
I have now prepared five chart showing which verses of the Torah belong to which sources, at least according to Richard E. Friedman and Samuel Driver. I am going to start a (long) series of posts about the particular characteristics of each source. For example, a common argument is that "Sinai" was used by P and J, and "Horeb" was used by E and D. I will start with this example, list each time that Sinai and Horeb are used, and then see how they line up with the different sources. I will have one post on Sinai, one on Horeb, and at least one post on the traditional Jewish explanations for the use of each name.
Remember the Bayes-theorem methodology: I will assume the documentary hypothesis is correct and then see how well it explains the actual occurrences of these words. If it does easily and naturally, it will weigh in favor of the DH being correct. If it appears forced, with ad hoc justifications and explanations, then it will not weigh in favor of the DH being correct. Similarly, for the traditional explanations, I will assume that TMS is correct and then see how well it explains the actual occurrences of these words. If it does easily and naturally, it will weigh in favor of TMS being correct. If it appears forced, with ad hoc justifications and explanations, then it will not weigh in favor of TMS being correct.
The purpose of this introductory post is to think about what specifically I will be looking for when examining the sources. I can think of several particular "issues", and I will update this list as I go. Please feel free to add additional criteria in the comments.
For these purposes, I will assume that the division of the Torah into sources is correct and fixed. The specific issue is given this division of the Torah into sources, how well does it explain the occurrence of the words in the places that they occur.Criteria Pertaining to Words
1. Obviously, the central issue is how many times does the word appear in its supposed source and how many times in other sources. If the word appears many times in one source, and few or no times in other sources, it is strong supporting evidence for the DH.
2. If the word has a synonym, does a different source use the synonym instead? If one source uses one word, and another source uses the synonym, it is strong supporting evidence for the DH.
3. Is the appearance of the word in a source explained by its meaning? A brief note is in order here. If the presence of a word in a source is explained by its meaning, it is weaker evidence (or perhaps no evidence) of the distinctiveness of the source. For example, P is the "priestly" author. If the P verses were selected because their content involved things that the priests were concerned with --- priests, sacrifices, ritual purity, and so on --- then it would not be surprising to find that the words pertaining to these matters are contained in P. The argument --- at least in this simplistic formulation --- is circular.
In contrast, the disproportionate use of particular words in a source that are not explained by their simple meaning (such as Sinai and Horeb) is stronger evidence of different sources.
In actuality, P is concerned with more than priestly matters, the P verses were chosen on numerous grounds, and other sources (especially D) are also concerned with priestly matters. So a word whose location is explained by its meaning is not irrelevant, but instead is weaker evidence for the DH. The analogous situation in statistics is correlation among the independent variables. Where such correlation exists, more data from correlated variables provides some explanatory power, but not as much as similar data from uncorrelated variables. (There are many limitations and qualifications that I am skipping over.)
4. Is the appearance of the word in a source explained by related words? This is similar to the last point. If two words are frequently used together, the presence of one word is largely explained by the presence of the other word. In such cases, it might be more helpful to thing of the two words together as forming one phrase.
Posts
