JEDP theory

The main problem I have the Historical-Critical Method is the unreasonable confidence that the proponents of it have in their conclusion. That is to say the assurance not only that, say, the Pentateuch was written by exactly four authors (who we will call J, E, P, and D) but being able to exactly divide verses into one author or the other. Forgive me for raising an eyebrow or two when I see it argued that one verse in a book is obviously written by J, but the next two are written by E followed by a verse by P and then back to J.

Jonah is pretty funny, though.

MoreCoffee said:

MoonlessNight, JEPD is a working hypothesis and nobody thinks that there were exactly 4 people (Mr J, Mr P, Mr E, and Mr D) who did all of the editing of the pentateuch.

Click to expand...

Well I am not exactly a Biblical scholar.

I am reacting to how I had it presented to me in my Theology courses and how I have seen it argued.

But if the experts are vaguer about it than the people who taught me about the method, I'm glad to hear it.

AMDG said:

Maybe if they are Protestant, but with Catholics, their religion is to be thoroughly integrated throughout their being. It's who they are. It cannot be "compartmentalized".

Click to expand...

A scientist writing a scientific paper for Nature doesn't bring God into what he is writing, Catholic or not. Likewise is legitimate for an historian for precisely the same reasons.

Daniel25 said:

Jonah is pretty funny, though.

Click to expand...

I find Jonah to be one of the more troubling readings actually.
If it is read as a children's story, it is indeed sort of like the story of Pinocchio, but hopefully that is something that can be surpassed as the book is ventured into.
This Boadst that is being discussed wanted Catholics to see these Hebrew writings from the Jewish perspective too. There really is a undiscovered depth to these stories when they are seen from that kind of perspective too.

It is not as if all the prophets and writings and Torah does not point to Christ, not as if three days in the belly of the whale foretold of Jesus' entombment, but the story of Jonah really brings out the struggle between mercy and justice. without justice life becomes a farce, not really worth living, but without mercy, life is really unliveable too.
As a response to hyper-critical biblical criticism of the German schools, many fundamentalists insisted on the bible as literal history.

But this is not how the books were written.

MoonlessNight said:

The main problem I have the Historical-Critical Method is the unreasonable confidence that the proponents of it have in their conclusion. That is to say the assurance not only that, say, the Pentateuch was written by exactly four authors (who we will call J, E, P, and D) but being able to exactly divide verses into one author or the other. Forgive me for raising an eyebrow or two when I see it argued that one verse in a book is obviously written by J, but the next two are written by E followed by a verse by P and then back to J.

Click to expand...

The one big lesson that any scientific study ought to teach is humility. the best that can be hoped for through science is never the truth, but merely to be less wrong than the last scientific theory.

Scientist often forget just that.

SolomonVII said:

The one big lesson that any scientific study ought to teach is humility. the best that can be hoped for through science is never the truth, but merely to be less wrong than the last scientific theory.

Scientist often forget just that.

Click to expand...

StThomasMore said:

the books themselves say "the author of Moses"

Click to expand...

And if the Church (and all those closer to the "targeted" incident) say one thing, and Boadt (lacking in authority and years removed from the facts) says another, who are you going to believe?

StThomasMore said:

What do you guys think of the JEPD theory of the study of the OT? I just got the book "Reading the Old testament: An Introduction" by Lawrence boadt. And some of the historical-critical areas can border on the line of heterodox teachings at times. Such as the parts that Genesis was almost "copied" from other cultures and Noah's ark. Boadt bases his discussions of the Torah on the theories of Julius Wellhausen, a 19th century German rationalist who doubted the "authenticity" of the Torah

Does anyone think the historical critical approach is going a little to far in some seminary books and readings? At times it seemed like Father Lawrence boadt didn't even think the OT was inspired and that the book of Jonah was in a category of "Hebrew comedy". Or maybe I'm just too used to TAN and Ignatius's publications writing style and am being too sensitive?

Click to expand...

I think they have it backwards... I think the teaching of the great deluge was universal because it happened and people again scattered the earth after Noah to fill up the voids.
And taking with them to their cultures they learned when born the tradition of what happened.

Their was a problem with carbon testing i read recently - of a known ancient artifact - and the time period, the carbon testing was off like 1500 years so i dont believe the human tests can stand up and i think the deluge with salt water aged much of the writings... er i mean - clay.
Moses wrote the deluge in clay, and they didnt have paper.

If the deluge was written on walls of the dead in other countries i am certain it was because
1) it happened
2) it was passed on from the time of Noah.

Also i was recently challenged to explain why there were other languages before the tower of Babel - but researching it, no there wasnt.
Heirogliphics dont present any language - just symbols.
Second only one ancient language existed prior to the time of Babel.
It was after or immediately i should say after the tower that other languages began to pop up.
This is gained from archeology.

Any writing of any language in any nation - comes after the flood no matter what the 'scholars' say.

Noah chapter 6 - Babel ch 11.