Blue Cord

Having taken some time out to get the blog carnival in order, I wanted to return to the critiques raised by Kevin Edgecomb.¹ I also note that Joe Cathey dislikes source criticism, and I would love to have him jump in on the conversation as well.

Kevin’s first critique is that source criticism was problematic in its beginnings and that the excesses of the early 20th century we not an aberration but the logical conclusion of the method. This is hardly the case, but even if it were it would not count as evidence against source criticism. Astronomy began with the ancients thinking that the earth was at the center of the universe, but that mistake hardly means that we should ignore all modern astronomy. Even Kevin’s particular field of textual criticism was guilty of problems in its early days. Witness the attempts to reconstruct “the original manuscripts.” While we would reject such an approach these days, that does not mean we should give up on textual criticism. He notes that people have backed off from dividing verses into small chunks, but it is quite a jump from saying that to saying that sources are unknowable.

Kevin then turns to Assyrian royal inscriptions, pointing out that those reliefs often switch between the proper name of the god and the title “my lord.” This is of course true. But it has nothing to do with source criticism.² In the Assyrian inscriptions, we simply have an author choosing to use one at one time and one at another. The biblical authors also do this. But if an Assyrian relief used only Assur in the first part of the inscription and “my lord” in the second, we would immediately wonder why. In source criticism, we are not simply looking at the different names in one passage. Instead, we are asking why in one chapter the divine name appears exclusively and in the next it is not used at all. The simplest answer is that we are looking at the work of two different hands.

His next criticism is that finding different theologies in the text is subjective, and that some of the theologies were around in many different periods in the ancient Near East. He says he assumes I am talking about Deuteronomy and its centralization. In actuality, I had in mind the difference between the theologies of the P and H tradents. But since he mentioned Deuteronomy, I will address that. He points to centralization in Deuteronomy and notes that most other civilizations in the ANE also had centralized worship. This is true, but it is hardly the point. The specific theology of Deuteronomy is of importance not because it did or did not reflect Babylonian practices, but because of its contrast with the theology of P. D fosters centralization. P does not. D allowed the non-sacrificial killing of animals in villages, while P required all slaughter to be ritual. D says that sacrifices may only be offered in Jerusalem, while P allows for then throughout Israel. This difference in theology needs to be explained, and division of these passages into sources is the most likely explanation.

Kevin also makes a rather simplistic assumption that source critics divide sources based on one criterium. He says that if you divide texts this way, then you automatically get texts with only the particular characteristic on which you are basing your division. But source critics do not divide on the basis of one source. Instead, multiple criteria are employed. And if you notice that the Bible has texts with characteristics A-F, it is an indication of sources if all the texts with characteristic A also have B and C but not D-F, while all of the texts with characteristic D also have E and F but not A-C. This could not be simply a coincidence.

One of the dichotomies that Kevin proposes is that textual criticism is based on data while source criticism is based on theory. He says, “Data speaks [sic]. Theory only suggests.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Data do not speak. They only lie there, waiting to be interpreted. And the interpretation of data is done by theories. A theory explains data. Without the theory, data is meaningless. ³

Nor is his field of textual criticism any less dependent on theory. Whenever one encounters textual varients, one seeks to explain the varients and determine which one is prior. Your explanation is a theory. For instance, the idea that the LXX of Jeremiah is based on a shorter Hebrew text instead of being an abbreviation of the MT is a theory. It happens to be a good theory, but a theory nontheless. Just because something is a theory does not make it unconnected with data. And source critics work just as closely with data as textual critics do. Kevin says that source criticism is built on imagination instead of data, which makes me wonder what studies of source criticism he has read. I encourage him to take a look at Milgrom’s second volume of his Leviticus commentary. There he will find source critical data beyond his wildest dreams.
In one of his follow-up comments, Kevin says,

“It’s ludicrous. It is not logical, when the text is better explained another way, and I’ll keep saying it until it sinks into all the bright and learning heads such as your own!”

He can keep saying it all he wants, but that will not make it so. The simplistic criticisms he has leveled against source criticism simply do not make a dent in it. Keep in mind that I am not against criticism of the Documentary Hypothesis. But not all criticism of it is valid. Before we start throwing out the theories of our academic ancestors, we better make sure our reasons for doing so are valid.

As a final note, I want to say that I would love to hear how Kevin Edgecomb (and Joe Cathey) explain the seams and uneveness that is found within the Pentateuch. If they reject source criticism, how do they account for this data?

1. We could do Old Kevin and Young Kevin, but since I am only two years younger I don’t think he would appreciate that. [back]
2. Assyrian inscriptions and biblical texts are not truly comparable in this way, as the inscriptions were written at one time while the biblical text came into existence over centuries. [back]
3. I am reminded of the joke that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. [back]