Peter,

I agree with your assesment that the JEPD compositional theory is provisional. Even if one leaves elements of this behind, the idea that the pentateuch was put together at a much later date than is “traditionally” assumed, needs to weighed in the balance as carefully as any “traditional” interpretation of the authorship, intent and date.

I’m not sure if we can crystallize the various views into a single hermeneutical presentation, however. I think if we start by discussing the issues you and John have addressed, and including what how these views affect one’s basic hermeneutic (a discussion which has been running in the background of this discussion already), we might be able to proceed into an approach to the text that allows each to give imput from their own perspective. If we try to wear our hermeneutic on our sleaves, we’ll get farther along, I think.

Also agreement that if we talk about a redactive proces, for our purposes we have to primarily deal with the end product, however that came together. Earlier forms of the story/stories are of interest only as we can show a connection between the earlier story and the way the original audience would have heard it, and how that affected any later redactors. Whether any of this is actually possible with the creation stories, is a wild guess to me!

Sorry if I want to jump into exegesis too quickly here. The original discussion was about the nature of “True Myth”. Our hermeneutic (and it’s application) will tell much about how or if we view Genesis as a true myth.

For my part, I want to start an analysis of the creation stories with the question of what this version of the story as it’s penned was meant to communicate to it’s hearers/readers. How the original hearer/readers would have “heard” the story (and with what others stories floating around in their heads) is I think a very important question. But as you pointed out, this too is dependant on who we think that audience is, and what the intent of the author/redactor was.

I don’t yet have a set position on the point of authorship/dating/provenance. Nor do I feel like I’ve got a good grasp of the various possibilities (yet!). Maybe someone can give a sketch of various options to start the discussion moving in that direction. 

Sam, I hope to check out your links tonight. Thanks for sending them through.