The J.E.D.P. theory

Yes, I accept the JEDP idea, as well as most of the Biblical criticism. It's a credible idea to me for several reasons, and it has stood for several hundred years now. I think there are some contradictions in the Torah that are most easily explained by multiple sources (and I have read a lot of commentary that attempts to reconcile the contradictions in other ways, that's not what this thread is about).

Some people have said that the theory is simply guesswork because the sources cannot be found independently. This is too dismissive, though, the idea is based on a lot more than just "Uhhh...there's some contradictions here, I guess it was multiple sources!" Dismissing the theory solely on the grounds that you cannot produce each individual source is like setting up a justice system where a person can only receive a punishment if they are videotaped in the act or if they confess.

-Chris

The Documentary hyopthesis for the Torah does INDEED explain several otherwise glaring inconsistencies. Anything which helps us understand God's word to us is great! IMO

Kiwimac

I kind of had the crash course in JEPD and the class offered no other viewpoint. I agree with it.

To me, it just makes sense.  I don't see anything heretical about it. 

tell me what it is.....then i can give my vote...

JEDP - the theory is challenges the position that Moses is the author of the first five books of the OT. JEDP asserts that there are four major strands that have been woven into the text of the Pentateuch (Five books of Moses). Usually the origins of this approach are granted to Jean Astruc (ca. 1750). Noth modified this to claim a Tetrateuch (the first four books) with Deuteronomy as the head of the following Deuteronomist school. And early critical scholars posited a Hexateuch to include the first five books and Joshua as a literary unit.

J - the material that primarily includes the name for God as Yahweh (Jehovah)

E - the material that includes the title for God - Elohim

D - the Deuteronomist, a later work that is primarily seen in Deuteronomy, but with some remarks that appear throughout the Pentateuch.

P - the priestly sections of the Pentateuch

The basic premise is that because there seem to be parallel accounts, they had to come from different “sources.” Three main arguments are given to support this source theory:

1. Variations in vocabulary and style: Astruc pointed to what is often considered the premier example, the use of different designations for God in Genesis 1 (Elohim) and Genesis 2 (Yahweh-Jehovah). While this seems both obvious and consistent, outside of Genesis, this particular argument carries far less weight.

A reasonable response to this is that any good writer would use alternative divine designations (so in the NT, “Jesus” “Christ” “Lord” “Lord Jesus” etc.). To use variety does not necessarily indicate different authors.

2. Doublets/Triplets: Here evidence is presented to show that two accounts of the same story are given (with contradictory material), but by different sources, and the final redactor (editor) just included both accounts. For instance, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are considered the classic example, each having its own sequence. Other examples are: two accounts of the flood (Genesis 6-9) - duration, number of animals on the ark, etc., Exodus 3 (E) and Exodus 6 (P) supposedly give “different” accounts of the divine name, the patriarchs saving themselves by claiming that their wives were their sisters (Abraham twice and Isaac once).

A reasonable response to this claim is that archaeological discoveries have demonstrated that repetition really is charcteristic of ancient writing, not different sources and authors. The finds at Ebla in northern Syria establish the interplay of Yahweh and El (shortened version of Elohim), which contradicts the JEDP position.

3. Passages that seem to imply a much later date: Some examples include: Genesis 12:6 “the Canaanites were then in the land” - suggesting that the composition took place when the Canaanites were not longer in the land; Genesis 14 which refers to the Danites’ homeland in the far north, which they did not acquire until much later (Judges 17); Deuteronomy 34:10 no other prophet has arisen “since”; and several others.

It is noted that this last category indicates post-Mosaic touch-up. But this is not as strong support for JEDP as first appears. Usually these items involve adjustments on the periphery, made for the sake of communicating better to later audiences.

Another support for JEDP given under # 3 is that Moses is referred to in the third person, and so “cannot be autobiographical.” However, the third person (and also first person plural “we”) is very common among ancient and modern writers, especially where the intent is not to provide an autobiography.

Note that while the initial blush at JEDP seems convincing, further inspection of the text and historical study and archaeological evidence offer alternative explanations that coincide with Mosiac authorship.

And it should be noted that there are problems with the JEDP approach. First, there is NOT ONE bit of manuscript evidence to support the JEDP theory. Second, there is the matter of chronology of the supposed sources. Third, why stop at just four sources? Why not one with the “law codes”? And there are other problems, but at least, it can be shown that JEDP is not the consensus of Biblical scholarship.

JEDP - the theory is challenges the position that Moses is the author of the first five books of the OT. JEDP asserts that there are four major strands that have been woven into the text of the Pentateuch (Five books of Moses). Usually the origins of this approach are granted to Jean Astruc (ca. 1750). Noth modified this to claim a Tetrateuch (the first four books) with Deuteronomy as the head of the following Deuteronomist school. And early critical scholars posited a Hexateuch to include the first five books and Joshua as a literary unit.

J - the material that primarily includes the name for God as Yahweh (Jehovah)

E - the material that includes the title for God - Elohim

D - the Deuteronomist, a later work that is primarily seen in Deuteronomy, but with some remarks that appear throughout the Pentateuch.

P - the priestly sections of the Pentateuch

The basic premise is that because there seem to be parallel accounts, they had to come from different "sources." Three main arguments are given to support this source theory:

1. Variations in vocabulary and style: Astruc pointed to what is often considered the premier example, the use of different designations for God in Genesis 1 (Elohim) and Genesis 2 (Yahweh-Jehovah). While this seems both obvious and consistent, outside of Genesis, this particular argument carries far less weight.

A reasonable response to this is that any good writer would use alternative divine designations (so in the NT, "Jesus" "Christ" "Lord" "Lord Jesus" etc.). To use variety does not necessarily indicate different authors.

2. Doublets/Triplets: Here evidence is presented to show that two accounts of the same story are given (with contradictory material), but by different sources, and the final redactor (editor) just included both accounts. For instance, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are considered the classic example, each having its own sequence. Other examples are: two accounts of the flood (Genesis 6-9) - duration, number of animals on the ark, etc., Exodus 3 (E) and Exodus 6 (P) supposedly give "different" accounts of the divine name, the patriarchs saving themselves by claiming that their wives were their sisters (Abraham twice and Isaac once).

A reasonable response to this claim is that archaeological discoveries have demonstrated that repetition really is charcteristic of ancient writing, not different sources and authors. The finds at Ebla in northern Syria establish the interplay of Yahweh and El (shortened version of Elohim), which contradicts the JEDP position.

3. Passages that seem to imply a much later date: Some examples include: Genesis 12:6 "the Canaanites were then in the land" - suggesting that the composition took place when the Canaanites were not longer in the land; Genesis 14 which refers to the Danites' homeland in the far north, which they did not acquire until much later (Judges 17); Deuteronomy 34:10 no other prophet has arisen "since"; and several others.

It is noted that this last category indicates post-Mosaic touch-up. But this is not as strong support for JEDP as first appears. Usually these items involve adjustments on the periphery, made for the sake of communicating better to later audiences.

Another support for JEDP given under # 3 is that Moses is referred to in the third person, and so "cannot be autobiographical." However, the third person (and also first person plural "we") is very common among ancient and modern writers, especially where the intent is not to provide an autobiography.

Note that while the initial blush at JEDP seems convincing, further inspection of the text and historical study and archaeological evidence offer alternative explanations that coincide with Mosiac authorship.

And it should be noted that there are problems with the JEDP approach. First, there is NOT ONE bit of manuscript evidence to support the JEDP theory. Second, there is the matter of chronology of the supposed sources. Third, why stop at just four sources? Why not one with the "law codes"? And there are other problems, but at least, it can be shown that JEDP is not the consensus of Biblical scholarship.

(couldn't post all of this in the same portion)

eeek! i thought it was gonna be something simple.

So, I have just been brainwashed by fundamentalists? I guess that comes from being in the dark and being fed..., oh wait that's mushrooms. LOL

You don't know too much about me. I'm hardly in the funadmentalist camp. Guess all of my study of Hebrew and Greek the past 20+ years is for naught. I could have saved myself thousands of hours and just accepted the "standard, mainstream" position. No, I have studied the texts, side-by-side, and many other ways. I don't accept anything because someone claims something about the text.

Now, back to my post... If you note, I was trying to demonstrate that it is possible to examine the evidence and come up with an entirely different conclusion, a conclusion as solidly scholarly as the JEDP theory.

More and more_(including myself) in modern scholarship...

Click to expand...

Well, as an old timer I encourage you to continue studying, as I myself am doing. I have read and continue to read much of what has been written regarding the text of Scriptures, including one part of "modern scholarship." I have learned much from all sides in the discussions. I had the privilege of studying at seminary (20 years ago) with some of the world's best conservative and liberal scholars. I respect them because of the work they do. I don't always agree with everything that a conservative writes, nor a liberal, nor a moderate. But don't assume that because someone rejects JEDP as a theory, that the person is ignorant, stupid, or misled. You might be surprised to learn that there are many world-class Biblical scholars who reject JEDP.

It's too bad there aren't some in the category who can interact scholarly with JEDP (and other theories in Biblical/textual studies) and remain faithful orthodox, evangelical scholars. We don't have to turn in our minds to be conservative.

I appreciate where you are coming from - I was and am blessed to have received the education I did. The seminary (Concordia, St. Louis) where I received an MDiv (~20 years ago) and have completed more than half the work toward a doctorate had (and has) a great Exegetical department. Every OT and NT professor not only permitted but encouraged serious reflective study of the text. They were also secure enough in the theological position to encounter any type of alternative view and evaluate accordingly.

Thus, while none of the OT professors accepted the JEDP theory, they were conversant with it and scholarly enough to deal with the right issues in the right way. And much valuable research has been done by those who do accept JEDP, which they (and I) readily use.

Just as one example: Walter Brueggemann, formerly of Eden Seminary (UCC), now in Georgia, would be firmly in line with the more liberal elements of Christianity. Yet some of his insights into OT texts (his speciality) are truly beneficial. Thus, I have taught the Psalms in college, using some of his valauble work - but I reject the underlying hypothesis. (I had the privilege of interviewing him and reviewing all of his books for a graduate class, and he fully understood where I was coming from. And would use insights from very conservative scholars.)

I guess the bottom line is that we can make use of the insights of whoever studies the text, even though we may disagree with their foundation or theological perspective.

when i first started reading about the JEDP theory i was agahst... i was convinced that those who accepted this idea dismissed the divine inspiration of the scriptures... but as i read more and contemplated it for awhile i came to realize that God could inspire editors and redactors as well as authors.

this made the scriptures even more accesible for me.

My class on the pentateuch introduced me to JEDP. Unfortunately, that's the only view we heard. We also used the Mercer one volume commentary. I don't like that commentary. It seems too liberal for my personal taste.
JEDP doesn't sound bogus to me, but I also would like to see another side of the argument. Or at least know some books that handle it well.

What's it like being a religion professor. I'm thinking about doing it.