Arguments against the JEPD Hypothesis?

[farpinho]

The documentary hypothesis, holds that the Torah was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of authors, from 950 B.C. to about 450 B.C.
It was generally agreed that there were four main sources, combined into their final form by a series of redactors. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D’s contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P., the P source being probably Ezdra.
While accepting the hypothesis that Moses alone couldn’t have written all the Torah alone, I don’t particularly like this hypothesis because, after all, Jesus Himself said “Moses wrote about me” (John 5:46), so I strongly believe Moses wrote (if not most of, a good part of the Torah).
I have been trying to make a compilation of arguments against the JEDP hypothesis, and I ask for opinions Any feedback (positive or negative) will be greatly welcome

• The Samaritans didn’t share a common tradition with the Jews after the death of King Solomon (who reigned from 970 to 931 BC? - date to be verified), when the Kingdom of Israel was divided. From the Book of Ezra (especially Ezra 4) and other external sources, we know that the Samaritans were bitter enemies of the Jews in the time of Ezra.

"In the year 586 B.C.E. the destruction of the kingdom of Judah took place.The Temple erected by Solomon was razed and thousands of Judeans were exiled to Babylonia.Fifty years later, after Cyrus the Persian had destroyed the Babylonian empire, he issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to the Holy Land and rebuild their sanctuary.When the building of the Second Temple began, the Samaritans, who considered themselves Jews, stepped forward to offer their assistance in this holiest of enterprises.But they were repulsed by the leadership of the Jewish people with the words: "You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God.“It was because they were known to be unreliable in their devotion to God that the Samaritans were repulsed.Incensed at this rebuff, the Samaritans spread the slander that the Jews were rebuilding the Temple in order to create a center from which they could rebel against the Persian emperor.So effective was this slander that construction of the Temple was suspended for twenty years.”

Hence, the Samaritans wouldn’t have accepted a book composed by Ezra (or another Jewish Priest), so the study of the Samaritan Torah and the points where they converge/diverge with the Jewish Torah would be essential.

• the Torah doesn’t mention the city of Jerusalem, which was the center of Judaism from the time of King David up to now (if we think of this hypothesis alone, the latest the Torah could have been written would have been the time of Samuel (400 years after the Exodus).-
• the Torah does mention that Abraham came from the “Ur of the Chaldeans”, but the Chaldeans didn’t exist until 850 B.C., even though the city of Ur existed long before that (moreover I read somewhere that a Babylonian contract, dated from 2000-1800 B.C. in the name of Abraham is, at least for now, our best “evidence” that a person named Abraham could have existed from that time - to be confirmed, though), but again, I don’t see any problem about the fact that the “of the Chaldeans” could be a later interpolation!
• no copies of the alleged pre-Ezra documents have ever been discovered anywhere, nor are they ever mentioned in any ancient literature. If they had been regarded as sacred for centuries, it is implausable that they quickly and entirely disappeared.
• one would argue that the Exodus narration could only have been written by an eyewitness who knew well the territory, the fauna of Egypt, the flora, and all the places.
• some secular scholars seem to accept the Talmudic statement that there existed in ancient Israel a priesthood descended from Moses, claiming these priests wrote the E document. phoenixandturtle.net/excerptmill/friedman.htm (p. 48 and p. 79)
• Advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis point out that different parts of the Torah are written in different styles. Some would argue that the Talmud many times mentions God’s two character traits - the trait of mercy (YHWH) and the trait of justice (Elohim).

 

[RPRPsych]

Very interesting post, thanks for sharing. The “Samaritan argument” isn’t one I’d come across earlier, but it certainly makes sense!

You might also want to have a look at the following link. (It’s by a Protestant author, but the arguments he make do not clash doctrinally with Catholic principles, at least here.)

tektonics.org/TK-J.html

Finally, there’s the “argument from common sense”; all of us write differently depending on what we are trying to convey. My style when writing a journal article, a letter, a Facebook status update, and a post here are generally quite different - but that doesn’t mean there are four of me!

 

[farpinho]

Very interesting post, thanks for sharing. The “Samaritan argument” isn’t one I’d come across earlier, but it certainly makes sense!

You might also want to have a look at the following link. (It’s by a Protestant author, but the arguments he make do not clash doctrinally with Catholic principles, at least here.)

tektonics.org/TK-J.html

Finally, there’s the “argument from common sense”; all of us write differently depending on what we are trying to convey. My style when writing a journal article, a letter, a Facebook status update, and a post here are generally quite different - but that doesn’t mean there are four of me!

Thank you for the link it has some really interesting points there
I also agree with the “argument from common sense”, however some parts like the death of Moses couldn’t have been written by him (but, he IS a Prophet, who knows? )

 

[RPRPsych]

I also agree with the “argument from common sense”, however some parts like the death of Moses couldn’t have been written by him (but, he IS a Prophet, who knows? )

A good possibility is that those portions were written by Joshua, or another of Moses’ loyal followers - perhaps Caleb the son of Jephunneh, Phineas the priest, or even one of Moses’ sons.

The Haydock Commentary, which is as orthodox as you can get, considers this possibility:

*“There can be no doubt but that Moses was the author of this book, as well as of the four preceding ones; though the last chapter may, perhaps, form a part of the Book of Josue, which formerly was written immediately after the works of Moses, without any such marks of distinction as we find at present.”
*

but also adds:

Such an insertion cannot hurt the general claim of Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch; or, if it should be thought to do so, no absolute proof can be brought to shew that he did not write this chapter also, by the spirit of prophecy.

Either possibility is consistent with inspiration as Catholics understand it. JEDP is largely the work of liberal / humanist Protestant critics, whose work (unfortunately) is very influential in Biblical scholarship even today.

On a lighter note, I never understood why J and E should be considered separate simply because they use different titles for God: after all, I may refer to my mother as “Mom” in conversation with her, and as “Mother” when writing about her formally, but that doesn’t mean I have a split personality!

 

[Joe_5859]

For me, I have difficulty buying into JEDP because a) it is relatively novel in terms of the history of biblical criticism and b) it seems highly speculative. As RPRPsych noted, people write differently for different audiences and at different times in their life. So to say that two passages “must have” been written by different people based on a few cues of tone and vocabulary is not very convincing to me.

I’m sure the JEDP arguments are a bit more sophisticated than that in some instances, but that seems to be what it boils down to.

In the end, though, I’m far more concerned with why the Scripture is as it is now. Whether the Pentateuch was written by one person or a million people and cobbled together by some divinely inspired redactor, it is what we have right now that is the “Word of God.”

I think that’s what really rubs me the wrong way about JEDP (and other forms of source criticism). Some scholars get so wrapped up in trying to parse out the sources that they ignore the plain reason why two passages are put next to each other in the first place. For example, I’ve seen some JEDP proponents take the two creation accounts in Genesis and simply explain it as the products of two different groups and whatever random guy was piecemealing the Pentateuch together decided to put them both in because he couldn’t decide which one he liked better. What a lost opportunity! We would do far better to reflect on why both passages are there than to simply use JEDP as a crutch to remove the necessity of reflection on the content and unity of Scripture.

So I wouldn’t go so far as to say JEDP is useless bunk. I’d have to study more to make that assertion. But I do think it needs to be used cautiously.

What further gets under my skin (okay, I’m hopping back up on the soapbox…sorry ) is there are so many high school theology books that start with JEDP (because, of course, you start at the beginning with Genesis). I cannot think of anything to be gained from introducing high school kids to speculative biblical source criticism, especially as a starting point. Perhaps I’m just thinking of my own experience, but I think this really has the potential to sow seeds of doubt.

Okay, I’m done.

 

[wiggbuggie]

Nehemiah 8 and 2 Kings 22 makes mention of the “book of the law” being found and read to the congregation. King Josiah rules around 650 BC? so there already was some type of law book wether this is the torah that it is being reffered to who knows. Maybe Moses wrote most of the torah and parts were added later on? remember that the sanhendrin sit on the seat of moses like our current pope is on the seat and authority of peter.

 

[RPRPsych]

What further gets under my skin (okay, I’m hopping back up on the soapbox…sorry ) is there are so many high school theology books that start with JEDP (because, of course, you start at the beginning with Genesis). I cannot think of anything to be gained from introducing high school kids to speculative biblical source criticism, especially as a starting point. Perhaps I’m just thinking of my own experience, but I think this really has the potential to sow seeds of doubt.

Okay, I’m done.

Fully agreed with you on this.

It’s legitimate to discuss scholarly theories, as long as this is done in the context of Faith, and keeping in mind the student’s current level of understanding and spiritual development. “Advanced” topics such as JEDP are probably best left for advanced students, who are already well-grounded in basic doctrine. Otherwise, the possibility of doubt or even a frank loss of faith remains.

 

[lao_tzu]

While accepting the hypothesis that Moses alone couldn’t have written all the Torah alone, I don’t particularly like this hypothesis because, after all, Jesus Himself said “Moses wrote about me” (John 5:46), so I strongly believe Moses wrote (if not most of, a good part of the Torah).

By common contemporary convention in the ANE, some of which survives today, anything written in the tradition of a founding tradent is cited as written by that founding tradent, even if written hundreds of years later by followers of his followers of his followers. To do otherwise would be seen as diminishing the authority of the founder, and hubristic to boot.

In context then, there is no contradiction between Mosaic authorship and the JEDP hypothesis, or any of its refinements.

As ever, Jesse

 

[lao_tzu]

Thank you for the link it has some really interesting points there

I also agree with the “argument from common sense”, however some parts like the death of Moses couldn’t have been written by him (but, he IS a Prophet, who knows? )

Stick with the links that are not authored by Holding, who simply botches any arguments he introduces himself. His six-week certification program in apologetics does not make him an apologist any more than his use of translation software makes him an authority on Biblical languages.

As ever, Jesse

 

[farpinho]

I think that’s what really rubs me the wrong way about JEDP (and other forms of source criticism). Some scholars get so wrapped up in trying to parse out the sources that they ignore the plain reason why two passages are put next to each other in the first place. For example, I’ve seen some JEDP proponents take the two creation accounts in Genesis and simply explain it as the products of two different groups and whatever random guy was piecemealing the Pentateuch together decided to put them both in because he couldn’t decide which one he liked better. What a lost opportunity! We would do far better to reflect on why both passages are there than to simply use JEDP as a crutch to remove the necessity of reflection on the content and unity of Scripture.

So… don’t you think that’s actually an argument FOR the integrity of the Bible? They could have just removed one of the stories, or condensed them into only one, but instead they just put both of them together! I think the same for the Gospels. Skeptics would claim the Gospels were modified, etc etc etc yadda yadda yadda but no! We have FOUR gospels, and there are parts of them that could have easily been maliciously edited and they are there If the Bible was indeed a corrupt document, we wouldn’t have records that apparently “contradict” each other (if the Church Fathers or whoever else the conspiracy theory advocates would assign this evil task were in business of lie and malicious deception they wouldn’t be “idiots” to keep apparently contradicting material together), we would have just one history summarizing it all that’s the theological importance/gain of joining all the pieces together, even if they apparently don’t fit together…

 

[farpinho]

Fully agreed with you on this.

It’s legitimate to discuss scholarly theories, as long as this is done in the context of Faith, and keeping in mind the student’s current level of understanding and spiritual development. “Advanced” topics such as JEDP are probably best left for advanced students, who are already well-grounded in basic doctrine. Otherwise, the possibility of doubt or even a frank loss of faith remains.

I’m actually worried about the younger generations… they are so much directly introduced to the secularized views/theories that they aren’t given the proper chance to reason theologically about all the possibilities and choose the one that makes the most sense to them… They are just being taught to reject religion by default that they won’t have what it needs to think mode deeply about the subject…

 

[Crumpy]

The controversy about the documentary hypothesis is unresolved, period. We should be clear about that.

I think it gets mentioned so much because it does seem plausible, for the reasons stated above.

I skimmed the preceding posts and maybe this has been said already. One argument againsts Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah is that Exodus and Deuteronomy disagree so much. It’s not just a matter of language, but conceptually things are noticeably different in Deuteronomy compared to Exodus.

But, this shift is natural, you might conclude, since Exodus is talking about a wilderness Temple, and Deuteronomy is talking about a Jerusalem temple (as I recall the situation).

Overall, the redactionist influence cannot be overlooked. One overwhelming feature is the chiastic structure of the Torah. When you see this explained, you have to be impressed by it. The Torah did not result from an explosion in the print shop. The hand of the redactionist is there.

But, having said that, the inconsistencies in the Torah are retained (rather than eliminated) for all their value. A big feature in this regard are all the names for God, earlier names (used once in Genesis and never again) and other older language preserved there, with a glaring comparison and contrast to later names used consistently at least around the time of the first temple (generally, as I recall).

The Jewish Publication Society Commentaries on the Torah (5-volume) bring out these points in very great detail.

( A chiastic literary structure is one wherein there is the general pattern of the sort illustrated here in a trivial example: ABCDEXE’D’C’B’A’.

“X” is the idea highlighted by the structure. A and A’ are verses that are nearly identical in wording or idea. There are many examples in the Torah, and the Torah itself overall has a chiastic structure, where X is the revelation of the covenant at Sinai (in Exodus).

I think the “point” is not to worry about accepting or rejecting the idea of Mosaic authorship. It is generally accepted because of some internal evidence. It’s probably the most important that Jesus attributed “the law” to Moses, and leave it at that.

The Jewish commentaries have long reached peace with the Torah, as it is written. They observe that it’s hard to delimit the contributions of the postulated sources. In some places, things are simply all mixed up – it’s easy to see that different names for God are used in successive verses, suggesting a blending of sources. I think it’s easy to accepting that such blending has occurred.

There’s more information and insight that comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I will leave it to someone more energetic than I to explain those complications. Yet, the matter is still unresolved.

 

[Gorgias]

The documentary hypothesis, holds that the Torah was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of authors, from 950 B.C. to about 450 B.C.

Four complete sources? I don’t think that’s what the D.H. contends, does it? There are older traditions (J, E) whose earlier narratives are combined with later traditions (D, P).

after all, Jesus Himself said “Moses wrote about me” (John 5:46), so I strongly believe Moses wrote (if not most of, a good part of the Torah).

Yet, pragmatism would dictate that Jesus put it this way: after all, Moses is emblematic of the Law, so saying “Moses wrote” is equivalent to saying “the Torah”; moreover, to confuse His message with a lesson on Torah sources would hopelessly muddle the issue, wouldn’t it? Pragmatically, “Moses wrote” seems the wiser approach, without the implication of actual authorship, doesn’t it?

The Samaritans didn’t share a common tradition with the Jews after the death of King Solomon (who reigned from 970 to 931 BC? - date to be verified), when the Kingdom of Israel was divided. From the Book of Ezra (especially Ezra 4) and other external sources, we know that the Samaritans were bitter enemies of the Jews in the time of Ezra.

Hence, the Samaritans wouldn’t have accepted a book composed by Ezra (or another Jewish Priest), so the study of the Samaritan Torah and the points where they converge/diverge with the Jewish Torah would be essential.

I’m confused about this assertion – could you explain it a bit further? Who are you describing as ‘Samaritans’ – (a portion of the) Jews of the Northern Kingdom (who became refugees in Jerusalem following the fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Assyrians), or the non-Jewish nations that were transplanted into Samaria following the exile?

Also, to the best of my knowledge, I haven’t run across descriptions of a ‘Samaritan Torah’. Could you give a bit more detail about what this is?

 

[Khalid]

The Samaritan Pentateuch (or Samaritan Torah) is the version of the Torah used by the Samaritans (which claims that God’s holy place is Mt Gerizim), and is often consulted as part of an eclectic text in modern translations of the OT.

secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch

 

[farpinho]

Four complete sources? I don’t think that’s what the D.H. contends, does it? There are older traditions (J, E) whose earlier narratives are combined with later traditions (D, P).

There might be another possibility, which I haven’t thought before… I strongly believe that Moses (and the Israelites, as a consequence) used another alphabet to write their scriptures (they didn’t always use the current alphabet)… maybe the Torah as we know today was indeed composed based on genuine Mosaic sources (this is highly speculative, though…).

Yet, pragmatism would dictate that Jesus put it this way: after all, Moses is emblematic of the Law, so saying “Moses wrote” is equivalent to saying “the Torah”; moreover, to confuse His message with a lesson on Torah sources would hopelessly muddle the issue, wouldn’t it? Pragmatically, “Moses wrote” seems the wiser approach, without the implication of actual authorship, doesn’t it?

That might be the case, too. Considering He was talking to a Jewish audience, He would indeed speak in accordance to their beliefs. Still Moses might have written the original source, even if the final text wasn’t of his full authorship.

I’m confused about this assertion – could you explain it a bit further? Who are you describing as ‘Samaritans’ – (a portion of the) Jews of the Northern Kingdom (who became refugees in Jerusalem following the fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Assyrians), or the non-Jewish nations that were transplanted into Samaria following the exile?

I’m talking about the Samaritans that were transplanted into Samaria following the exile. There are several versions to this story, of course, but here I’m sticking to the Biblical (Jewish) point of view:

*When the Samaritans saw themselves equated with the other idol-worshippers at the time that the Temple was being rebuilt they took the schismatic step of setting up their own sanctuary with its own priesthood.Outside the city of Shechem there are two mounts, Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim.Sanballat led the activity to set up a temple on Mount Gerizim, whose sanctity from that time ti this very day is one of the basic tenets of the Samaritan creed.There also began the process of legitimization of the origins of the Samaritan sect, similar to that which we met in the case of the Karaites.First of all, the Samaritans began to claim that they were descended from the tribe of Manasseh.Secondly, they altered the wording of the Torah in order to make it appear that the commandments were intended for them and not for the others who called themseves Jews.Thus in the Book of Deuteronomy 27:4 we have the verse: "And it shall be when you have passed over the Jordan, that you shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in Mount Ebal."The Samaritan version of the Torah, which together with the book of Joshua, comprises their Bible, has changed the name Ebal to Gerizim.Furthermore, the Ten Commandments appear twice in the Torah; once in Exodus, chapter 20 and again in Deuteronomy, chapter 5.In both places the Samaritans have added a verse at the end of the commandments in which they are commanded to build an altar and make sacrifices on Mount Gerizim.The Samaritans also rejected the name of Shomronim, as they are known in Hebrew, and changed the name to Shomrim, which means watchers or guards - testifying to their close observance of the Jewish heritage.Another name they use for themselves is Bnei Israel.The Jews, in retaliation, have insisted, especially in Talmudic literature, upon reminding the Samaritans of their non-Jewish origin by calling them Kutim, from the name of the region from which the largest number were brought by the Assyrian emperor.This name is considered an insult by the Samaritans.

At this point it would be adviseble to examine the nature of the Jewishness of the Samaritan sect.Like the Karaites, they observe the laws of the Torah literally.The meticulousness of their observance won them the praise of the rabbis who said of them: “Whatever precept the Kutim have adopted, they are very strict in the observance thereof, more so than Israelites.”(Hullin,4a)However, Purim and Tisha B’Av, being post-Pentateuch, are not observed by them.Hanukah, which is post-Biblical, does not exist for them.Their version of the Torah has about 6000 variations from the Jewish version, with most of these changes being of not great significance.Their Torahs and holy books are written in the ancient Hebrew script which was discarded some 2500 years ago.The Samaritan language was a dialect of Aramaic, which by the middle of the seventh century of the present era had ceased to exist.Since that time the Samaritans speak Arabic.The most interesting aspect of the Samaritan ritual is their Passover sacrifice.Since, however, one of their basic points of difference with the Jewish people is their rejection of the Jewish calendar, their observance of the Passover comes about one month later than the traditional holiday.*

Also, to the best of my knowledge, I haven’t run across descriptions of a ‘Samaritan Torah’. Could you give a bit more detail about what this is?

That’s what Khalid said.

 

[tabycat]

Moses was raised as a prince of Egypt; as such, he probable had the best education that Egypt could give. He could have had sources that where in Egyptian libraries when wrote the first Five Books of the Bible. There are some places that point to a second (or maybe more) writers (like the death of Moses). As writer/editor of these sources may give a less then smooth lincing in some spots.