Fact-Checking the Torah -- parallel doublet

I showed that Olrik recognized several strictly defined types of repetitions with different effects, and I ended with the parallel doublet.

The key about parallel doublets is that they originate as two stories, transmitted orally independent of each other, in a single culture. Both achieve the same result, such as placing somebody on the throne.

One may have the motive of punishing a bad king; the other may have the motive of comforting the king and queen who thought their son was dead.

In both cases extraordinary assistance may be involved, but in one narrative several unusual assistants might play separate roles, and in the other a single magical person might work several miracles.

At some point in the lives of the two narratives, they begin to be told as two separate parts of one narrative, and at that point they become a parallel doublet.

The combined narrative has clues of its origin as two separate narratives. One is a large number of characters. One of the Epic Laws is Two to a Scene. Oral narratives rarely deal with more than two characters at a time. They may convert a multitude of characters into a body and have the main character address that group, such as Yosef speaking and the group of his brothers listening. But a parallel doublet will have a number of characters playing independent roles or serving different motives, instead of melting into a group. This is because the parallel doublet will retain both casts of characters from its precursor narratives.

Another clue is a shift in location without an interim journey. The idea that the Israelites were at Sinai and also at Horeb suggests a parallel doublet in the story of bringing the tablets down the mountain, but I’ll discuss this in more detail later. The fact that the jumping off point for the Exodus was named Sukkot, and the name of Deir ‘Alla was also Sukkot at one time, does not define a parallel doublet for two reasons. The most important is that there’s no sign of a single goal to both stories. The other is the series of migrations discussed between Yaaqov’s name-giving and the Exodus from Egypt.

A third clue to a real parallel doublet, is a confusion in motives. When the first part of the story describes the main character’s determination to replace a bad king, and the latter part describes him comforting the sorrowing king and queen whose baby prince supposedly died (plus a recognition scene with a talisman), you can see a possible clue for a parallel doublet combining the two stories with different motives.

The combined narrative will tell one of the precursors up to the point where the goal ought to be achieved. Then it will stop, tell the other precursor, and then finish with the goal achieved. This is another point which argues against the two Sukkots as part of a parallel doublet. Yaaqov achieves his goal, arriving safely at his father’s home despite the threat from Esav.

Olrik specifically states one requirement for claiming identification of a parallel doublet. The claimant must be able to point to an independent source which contains one of the narratives in its full form, told or recorded independently of the other. Without this, the conflation of the parallel narratives is only conjectural.

DH claims a conflation for which it has no external evidence. But that could be a false argument from silence. It’s a good thing there are so many other problems with DH; I would never hang my hat on this one alone.