You are right, of course, I cannot identify sources in the D & C from the text itself, with a high enough confidence level to make the endeavor useful. I think you are probably right that were I to run across an apparent seam in the D & C wording, looking for a deliberate move by one source rather assuming more than one source would be more useful. But I think jc has a good point, that reading the OT is different. I have a much higher confidence level in the results of source criticism. Your most essential question is, “is one better served by lookiing first for a literary rationale?” As to the D & C, I think the answer is yes, laying emphasis on the word “first”. As to the OT, I think the answer is, one should certainly look for a literary rationale and use the results of that consideration for all the usefulness one can get out of the results. But I don’t think one should assume that the results of the the search for a literary rationale are necessarily better than the results of the methods of source critics. Both can be useful. I suspect this attitude is not really much different than your own. As an example of the usefulness of the search for a literary rationale, my favorite example is the one pointed out by Robert Alter, the story of Judah and Tamar. The insertion of the story does indeed indicate to me a “seam”. But if I just assume its just a patch up job, and because of that assumption I neglect to consider the wonderful commentary the story makes on what has gone on before and on Judah himself, I certainly will have lost out. If the juxtaposition is the result of a masterful redactor, I say, he is indeed masterful. But then I take the two versions of creation. I again see a seam between the story of the seven days of creation and story of the man in the garden. The results of source criticism tell me that the first is from the priestly tradent and the second is from the Yahwist. But the tools of source criticism have allowed further suggestions, as to the identity and date of the priestly tradent and the Yahwist. The suggestion is made that the Yahwist may have written from Solomon’s court, but in any case wrote from the Kingdom of Judah at that time or a little later. I consider the highly symbolic story of the Garden of God, with the river Gihon flowing out of it, with its tree of life and its cherubim guarding the way to God’s presence. The insight due to the results of source criticism — that the Yahwist, in light of who he was and where he wrote, may have been concerned in legitimizing the new temple with its Garden of God setting, its tree of life carving on its interior walls, its cherubim carving on the barrier to the holy of holies, and the Gihon stream flowing out from under the hill on which it was built– aids me in understanding the story. It helps me avoid the imbecility of Isaac Asimov, who in his “Guide to the Bible” made the asinine suggestion that the story was merely an etiological folktale explaining why snakes have no legs.

Similar insights are possible considering the date and identity of the priestly tradent. If I read without the background of source criticism, which after all, begins with those “seams”, I miss much.

I think it not profitable to assume any of the tools that might help me understand scripture should be primary in all circumstances. Sometimes looking for a literary rationale will yield better results. But only sometimes.

The question as far as pertains to the OT becomes whether this D&C evidence is of comparative or analogical value. Analogy would involve drawing structural correspondences between the D&C process you outlined and the Pentateuchal process, and comparison would not need such correspondences but would, rather, provide a counterpoint from which to view the object of inquiry. I believe your evidence to be, as you correctly show, of considerable comparative value when talking about the Pentateuch.

I disagree with what I hear Julie saying about the literary seams in this text, because she seems to be setting up an analogy. If we were to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was just asking comparative questions and not implying analogy, the answer to those questions would have to be thus: We might not be at all confident in assigning multiple sources to the D&C, for many reasons. Why? Because it’s fundamentally different literature. D&C 130 does not form part of a larger narrative that exhibits the characteristics of the Pentateuch. The time spans are vastly different. And the list goes on. When one comes across a literary difficulty (seam is not the right word, because seam implies stitching together of sources), there are many ways to posit a solution, and the best solution will be the one that takes into account the evidence available for that text.

The idea that because we can’t find sources in other corpora, we should not look for them in the Pentateuch is one of the naive assumptions made often by people who don’t have training in source criticism and who are looking to discredit it. They take a given text that has a known quantity of sources and show that literary incongruities don’t match the sources, and therefore that such must be the case for the Pentateuch. This is also a problem of comparison vs. analogy. The theory has to fit the text one is working with. The type of literature and its own history of development allows us to look for sources in the Pentateuch. There is, for example, a fundamentally different theory for the compilation and composition of the Deuteronomistic History (1 Sam-2 Kings). And there is a different theory of the composition of the D&C.

Thanks for your comment. However, I don’t think anyone here thinks it impossible that there are multiple sources in any OT text. The only issue is whether, when faced with an apparent discrepancy in the text, one is better served by looking first for a literary rationale or using the DH and, if we do use the DH, how much confidence we can have in its results given its methodology. The difference between the OT and the D & C is the paper trail and I ask you: How confident would you be in figuring out which parts of 130 were from which source if you had nothing in front of you but D & C 130 itself? And: If you come up against any apparent seam anywhere in the D & C, would you first wonder whether it was a deliberate move from one source or would you assume it was evidence of multiple sources?

As an example of the compilation process, we may take D & C Section 130. This section was not part of the D & C until the 1876 edition, and accordingly was not canonized until then. It was never published during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and accordingly was never reviewed by him with a view to publication. Though the way the section is written makes it sound as if Joseph Smith originally wrote or spoke the words in the section, the actual process is as follows. On 4-1-1843 Joseph went to Ramus Illinois. With him were Orson Hyde and William Clayton. On 4-2 (Sunday) Orson Hyde preached at the meeting in Ramus on John 14:23. and 1 John 3:2. After the morning meeting the brethren went to dinner at the house of Joseph’s sister, Sophronia and Joseph remarked that he would offer some corrections to Orson’s sermon. Our knowledge of these affairs can be traced entirely to William Clayton’s diary, which survives. William wrote his diary entries in the evening after the events of the day were over. Accordingly the “items of instruction” contained in section 130 were certainly not written by Joseph Smith. The record that survives was first written down in the evening of the day. Whether William wrote his diary entries from memory or from notes made at the time Joseph was speaking at the dinner table is not known. How close the wording follows words actually uttered by Joseph is not known. How fully Clayton’s diary entry conveys what Joseph actually understood is not known. My impression of William from close study of his diaries is that he was a literal-minded man, and I am unconvinced that his diary entries always convey the extent to which Joseph meant things figuratively, or in some degree symbolically. It would be possible, given the process outlined above, that William did not entirely understand nor entirely set down the correct meaning of what Joseph said. In any event Joseph was reacting apparently to false doctrine preached by Orson, a matter not disclosed in the scripture. After the brethren returned to Nauvoo, a diary entry was made in the prophet’s own diary of the transaction. But Joseph seldom wrote his own diary entries. During this period Joseph’s diary entries were made by Willard Richards. It is evident from comparison with the Clayton diary that Richards, in writing the Joseph Smith diary entry used the Clayton diary as a source. The Smith diary entry, which survives, is in the handwriting of Richards. Richards did not go on the Ramus trip. But Richards’s version is not exactly the same as Clayton’s. There are expansions and format changes. We do not know whether Richards made these changes under the direction of Joseph or not. Given that we have almost no entries made by the various scribes of occasions when Joseph personally reviewed or directed diary entries or other records, it is unlikely that Joseph ever heard or saw the account of his “items of instruction”. Many years after the transaction, the History of the Church by Joseph Smith was compiled by yet other hands, none of which were Joseph’s. As to the portion related to Section 130, the brethren used both the Clayton and Richards entries. The History was published in installments in the Deseret News. The first time what became section 130 was ever published was on July 9, 1856, in Utah. When the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published the entry from the History of the Church was included as section 130.

Accordingly we have two written sources setting down what was previously an oral discourse, the written sources being the work of at least two different people (Clayton and Richards) and being combined to arrive at a single scripture which is falsely presented as being the actual direct words of a third person, Joseph Smith, the authority, on a certain date. One of the sources is based on the other, and both are traceable to an event which we have no reason to doubt actually occurred. But the possibilities of variance between the event and the final scripture are present. Moreover there is variance between the sources. There are various levels of redaction. The final redaction differs from both sources. Verse 1-2 follows the Richards version. Verse 3 is a combination of Richards and Clayton. Verse 22 in the scripture should be compared with the Clayton entry and the Joseph Smith diary entry. The sources exclude all mention of the Father and Son. The draft manuscript of the History of the Church follows the Clayton diary, but in the 1850s the brethren from the church historian’s office reworded it and the eventual publication of the canonized version it had changed. Accordingly Smith, Clayton, Richards and brethren from the church historian’s office were all involved in the process of arriving at compilation of the final scripture, which almost certainly differs substantially from Joseph’s words on April 3, 1843. It is possible that when the canonization took place, those on the publication committee of the 1876 edition of the D & C were unaware of the identity of all those involved in producing the published version of the History of the Church, or that substantive additions were made by people other than Joseph.

I am untroubled by this process. The men involved were good men who I believe sought the inspiration of the Lord in the work. Though it seems possible to me that certain parts are misleading depending on what one looks for ( ie, is section 130 really”items of instruction given by Joseph” as the published scripture maintains?) the worth of the Doctrine and Covenants is tremendous and is guaranteed by God. It is the word of God in all senses which have meaning to me.

In view of the fact that published monographs by the church’s own scholars since 1970 (the information in this comment is based on Lyndon Cook’s The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith), have shown that virtually every book of modern scripture has undergone similar processes, I am somewhat surprised when I encounter reluctance of Latter-day Saints to entertain suggestions made by the source critics of the OT. My own analysis of the Old Testament as compared to modern revelation leads me to believe that accepting conclusions of the source critics can help us understand the Old Testament and modern revelation.

I’m done. D-O-N-E. You may attribute my unwillingness to continue to conversation to anything you’d like, but the comment record stands on its own. Have a nice day.

[Brodie is front-and-center a Catholic. He calls his commentary theological. And he wants to see unity in the text and disregard the DH. How is he an example?]

At this point, I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Everything you ask me to do, I’ve done. If you didn’t believe it then, you won’t believe it if I waste another half-hour typing it up again. I’ve enjoyed the conversation, but if you don’t have anything new, then we’re done.

Having just finished reading Brodie last week, I wonder if you have actually read his book because your description does not ring familiar to me. But that’s neither here nor there–I wasn’t entirely persuaded by Brodie either but just mentioned his name to refute your contention that only traditionalists objected to the DH.

I’m familiar with Brodie and especially Alter. I thought you were talking about a new movement. I’ve responded to Alter-type claims above. As for Brodie, his agenda is visible in the subtitle of the book: A literary, historical, and theological commentary. In place of sources he has the totally improbable theory that Genesis was composed as a unity of 26 dyptichs. His proof of this? Chiasm, which is as circular and speculative as they come, especially over long narratives, and is inadmissible as evidence. Chiasm can be and has been “shown” to exist in sources after they’re separated. In place of a post Exilic compilation, he has a Hellenistic production. His proof of this? The P material seems to correlate with the Jerusalem priesthood of the Hellenistic period. So he’s both a minimalist and a conservative.

Elegance may not equal truth, but this type of reasoning gets us further away from it.

I don’t see you bringing up anything in #77 that I haven’t already answered. If you didn’t believe me the first time, you won’t buy it the second. If you have anything new to say, say it and I’ll respond. Otherwise, I’m done here.

The Brodie book should be easy enough to find at Amazon. You can’t spit without hitting Alter. You know where to find it if you want it.