The J.E.D.P. theory

[filosofer]

Of course, the question also arises: "which Septuagint is being referred to?"

The priority of the LXX (or more properly OG in scholarly terms) in textual studies is not as solid as you suggest. An excellent overview of the difficulties of textual criticism regarding the LXX and the Masoretic Text can be found in Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva (Baker/Paternoster, 2000), especially in the chapter: "Using the Septuagint for the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible." This chapter is helpful because the authors present the various approaches to textual criticism, including starting with the LXX rather than the MT, and the methodological problems for each approach.

The follow-on chapter is "The Judean Desert Discoveries and Septuagint Studies." And as might be expected, manuscript discoveries are not uniform, so they do not conclusively support the priority of either MT or the LXX.

Interestingly the authors deal with Samuel-Kings relative to LXX and MT, and then also in relationship to the finds at Qumran.

And as a further thought, doublets in stories (common in Gospel criticism as well) do not necessarily imply later redaction by the author. That is an assumption, not a proven fact.

 

[BWSmith]

Unified priority of a textual tradition over another is not something that should be assumed. Each appear to have readings in some areas that are more original than those in the other.

Hence, the David & Goliath problem should not be dismissed on the grounds that "the MT takes priority".

 

[filosofer]

If you note I have not dismissed the problem, and if you read Jobes/Silva, you will see that they take seriously these very issues. Rather, investigating these issues is not a simple matter of claiming that since the MT is longer (or the LXX is longer - doesn't matter which is use), it is a later redaction or conflation. It is much more complicated than that. And to dismiss the MT as the closer to originals because it has doublets is based on assumptions not evidence from the text. And of course, we then have to investigate the underlying texts used by the OG, MT, and Qumran texts.

 

What you have said about the MT applies exactly to my point regarding the LXX. Obviously each investigator must have some starting point for evaluating the evidence. That is the benefit of Jobes/Silva writing in that they examine the problems of all beginning points. Thus, the investigator has at least some eyes open to the pitfalls of presuppositions.

 

See also Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible for a more extended discussion.

 

[BWSmith]

So given all you have said above, which is a more original reading of the David and Goliath story, the shorter LXX or the longer MT?

Does the MT not contain an additional supplemental account that was spliced in, causing apparent contradictions? (Which shows that the process of combining independent documents did occur?)

 

[filosofer]

Does the MT not contain an additional supplemental account that was spliced in, causing apparent contradictions?

By asking the question that way, you have tried to force the answer. Does the presence of both indicate that it was "an additional supplemental account that was spliced in"? Not necessarily. Isn't it equally valid to ask that the MT was original, why did the later LXX try to smooth out the text by removing contraditions? In fact, that is a common characteristic of later textual traditions.

 

[BWSmith]

So which is more likely, that the MT added or the LXX removed?

What are the odds that any text could be removed and one still has a coherent account?

 

[filosofer]

Originally posted by BWSmith
So which is more likely, that the MT added or the LXX removed?

That is part of the investigation. And there more factors than just the presence or absence of the account.

What are the odds that any text could be removed and one still has a coherent account?

"Odds" can be helpful, but several questions arise with that. What is the basis for determining the odds? How much material is available for setting statistical odds. Because the corpus of comparable (Hebrew/north Semitic) material is slim, this is a very real textual and mathematical problem.

And then, even with odds somewhat settled (if that can happen) that still is only one factor in the investigation.

 

[BWSmith]

So your own opinion (I would guess) is that the LXX omitted part of the original account in the MT?

 

[filosofer]

Based on my 20+ years of study I tend to see the Masoretic Text as essentially the base, but the LXX and Qumran offer extensive opportunities for evaluating the text. Just as the eclectic approach of textual criticism is used in NT studies, so that approach can be used in the OT. The issues are somewhat different, but the approach is still valid.

But as I noted above, it is not a clear path, an absolute. And each text has to be evaluated. Unfortunately I do not have the time, and unless someone is a full-time scholar/researcher, no one else has the time to do the entire OT.

And final note: a word of caution about presuppositions as "assured" results can be deterimental to a solid approach to the issues. I say this to myself (often) as much as to anyone else.

BWS, I appreciate the dialog and the questions. It has been good for me. Blessings

 

[filosofer]

Here is a link to many studies on the Septuagint (some scholarly, some less so).

http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/index.htm

 

[Thunderchild]

Oh good - I am glad that the theory I have held actually has a name.

Yes - the accounts of the Pentateuch do appear to have different authors (I am assuming that they are attributed to Moses (except for the last bit written after he wasn't there any more) on the same basis that the building of the temple was attributed to Solomon. That is, neither actually took part in the construction, but made sure the job got done.

However: The apparent conflicts of Genesis 1 and 2 can be resolved by simply assuming that Eden is not on Earth. There are enough pointers in various passages of the Bible referring to Eden to show a high probability that the Garden was/is in heaven (assuming Heaven and Paradise to be the same place) - not on Earth. Two different sequences arise from the order of events in two different locations.

 

[BWSmith]

Hi Thunderchild!

Actually, Moses didn't write anything but the law itself and a few other things specifically attributed to him, according to the theory.

In response to your "Eden not on earth" theory, that would be possible if the Hebrew stuck to the word "ground" (dama) throughout the second creation account. As it stands, the first few verses refer specifically to the earth (erets):

4b In the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. (Gen 2:4b-6)

Every instance of "earth" comes from erets, which is distinguished from heaven in the opening verse.

 

[Thunderchild]

Actually, Moses didn't write anything but the law itself and a few other things specifically attributed to him, according to the theory.

Yes, that is my understanding of how it went. But I don't have any letters to put after my name, so I have to go just on conclusions drawn from reading the Bible.

Now as to "erets" - A check of Strong's shows the word to have the same meaning in Hebrew as Earth does in English - that is, it may refer to the planet or to soil. (Oddly, that seems to hold in most languages). For instance, "he called the dry land erets" in the first chapter of Genesis.

Ah, I see - .... gathered the dry land into one place hmmmmm. OK, hadn't noticed that bit before now, but on first assessment, it doesn't seem to create a problem. .... I'll put forward the idea that has formed, and see if it floats. If someone finds a valid way to blow it out of the water, feel free, I haven't any objections to having theories ruined by solid argument (though I don't count ..."It is incorrect because Thunderchild is a naughty person" to be solid argument.)

1/ It seems that Eden can only be approached from one direction (or how would angels being stationed on only one side prevent access?)
2/ Revelation records the Tree of Life to be still in Eden. (Eden still exists?)
3/ The garden is in only a corner of Eden (or maybe my interpretation is faulty)
Now to the actual statements of the passages in question:
Genesis 1 records that the plants and birds were created before man. Genesis 2 records that man was created before there were plants in the ground (questionable when taking particulars into account) but there is no question that man was created before the birds.

Now a synopsis of the accounts in sentence form: "First God created the plants and animals, then he created man. Man existed before there were plants and animals in the Earth."

I can't see that there is necessarily a contradiction. Following the same sentence constructions - "First Henry created the assembly line, then he created the Model T. The model T existed before there were assembly lines in Canada."

 

[BWSmith]

Are you assuming that Gen 1-3 and Revelation contain historically true details?

Revelation is apocalyptic literature that describes the end in symbolic terms based on the beginning. However, the beginning in the Bible (Gen 1-11) is described in mythical terms. (The first real candidates for historical information are the patriarchs.)

 

[Thunderchild]

Ummm... If you had said mystical rather than mythical, I would have been able to accept that as a possibility too. I haven't come to any firm viewpoint on the matter.

 

[filosofer]

What, you explained ERETZ rather than GHN (from LXX)? LOL

However, the beginning in the Bible (Gen 1-11) is described in mythical terms. (The first real candidates for historical information are the patriarchs.)

Perhaps.

 

[judge]

At the moment I tend towards a view that I think is called the archeological.

That being that Genesis is a compilation of many "toledoths' or family histories and that these were similar to the form found in various clay tablets that have been discovered.

Each family history would end (rather than begin) with these phrase "these are the generations of such and such".

This view is sumarised here.

http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp

or here.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/subtheo.html