Biblical Criticism

  counts against OHA only; it is not relevant to G!

 

  Here’s why. The evidence supports BIBLICAL CRITICISM due to considerations
  of human psychology. Changes of style, contradictions and redundancies are
  things that a normal human author would avoid. If we find them in the text
  AND WE ASSUME HUMAN AUTHORSHIP AT THE OUTSET, then we have reason to assume
  many authors SO THAT THE TEXT WILL AGREE WITH WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE
  PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN AUTHORS. Now this sort of consideration obviously counts
  for BIBLICAL CRITICISM and against OHA. But if we cannot assume anything
  about the psychology of the author, then this evidence is useless. Since we
  don’t know anything about G-d’s “psychology,” it does not count against G.
  The study of BIBLICAL CRITICISM is irrelevant to the question of G-d’s
  authorship of the Torah.

 

  Second - even in the competition with OHA the evidence is very weak. (A) In
  1985 researchers at the Technion programmed a computer to analyze variations
  in literary style in Genesis and compare them with the variations in style
  of works of single authors of the same length. The result was that THERE IS
  LESS VARIATION IN GENESIS THAN IN THE WORKS OF KNOWN SINGLE AUTHORS. (B) We
  have documents from the ancient near east of admittedly single authorship
  with different names for the same god. So variation in G-d’s names is no
  evidence for multiple authorship. (C) The editor is supposed to have
  composed the Torah out of fragmentary documents possessed by a variety of
  different group, each with its own conception of G-d [reflected in its name
  for G-d] and its traditions of history, laws etc. the editor somehow
  convinced all the groups to replace their fragments with his one composite.
  This occurred at a time when there were Jewish communities in Israel,
  Babylon, Alexandria, Egypt and elsewhere. Yet this event – the unification
  of the text – left no historical record at all. No opposition, no hold-outs
  retaining their fragments, no celebration of the editor and the event of
  finally achieving the authentic divine text…. This is historically
  incredible. (D) The editor is supposed to have left different names of G-d,
  contradictions and redundancies because of his piety - he did not want to
  tamper with holy texts. But in some places where the stylistic variations
  are not a as pure as they would like, they suggest the he changed the text.
  Contradiction? No problem: they claim there were TWO EDITORS! The first too
  pious to change anything, the second who made changes. Sounds a bit like a
  game…. (E) They cannot agree how many documents there are and where their
  boundaries are.

 

  Further reading: The Documentary Hypothesis by Umberto Cassutto, is a
  serious detailed consideration of the main evidence for BIBLICAL CRITICISM
  with devastating criticism. Biblical Personalities and Archeology by Leah
  Bronner shows how much of the ancient period described in the Torah is
  verified by archeology. Neither author is familiar with the majority of
  Jewish sources nor is totally reliable in his/her opinions. But their
  criticism of the standard BIBLICAL CRITICISM is devastating. Before Abraham
  Was by Kiawada and Quinn is also very critical of BIBLICAL CRITICISM on
  clear logical grounds, although their positive suggestions concerning the
  Torah are outrageous. Finally, the Technion computer study is found in
  Genesis – An Authorship Study, Yehuda Radday and Haim Shore, Analecta
  Biblica no. 903, Loyola Press, 1985.