Here is a refutation of the theory based on those categories.
The Absence of External EvidenceThe most glaring weakness of the JEDP theory is that it is entirely hypothetical.
No Manuscripts: Not a single fragment of a "J," "E," or "P" document has ever been discovered. Every ancient manuscript of the Pentateuch (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) exists only as a unified whole.
No Historical Reference: No ancient Jewish or secular writer ever refers to these alleged sources. The theory requires us to believe that four major literary works existed for centuries, were widely known enough to be compiled, and then vanished without leaving a trace or a mention in history.
The theory relies heavily on dividing the text based on the names of God (Yahweh vs. Elohim) and perceived changes in style. This method is often criticized as subjective and artificial.
The Divine Names Argument: The theory assumes one author would only use one name for God. However, in other ancient Near Eastern literature (and modern writing), authors frequently change titles for stylistic or theological reasons (e.g., using "The President" in a formal context vs. "Mr. Biden" in a personal one). In the Torah,
Elohimis often used for God's cosmic power (Creation), whileYahwehis used for His personal covenant with Israel. This reflects a change in context, not author.Circular Reasoning: Critics argue the theory frequently employs circular logic. For example, it might declare that "Priestly" writing is dry and ritualistic. When it encounters a lively narrative that mentions a ritual, it splits the verse in half, assigning the ritual word to P and the narrative to J, simply to preserve the theory.
The JEDP theory dates the writing of the Pentateuch to the time of the divided Monarchy (approx. 900–500 BC), centuries after Moses. However, the text contains internal evidence that fits the 2nd Millennium BC (Moses' time) far better than the 1st Millennium BC.
- Hittite Suzerainty Treaties
One of the strongest arguments for an early date (Mosaic era) for Deuteronomy is its legal structure. In the ancient Near East, when a Great King (Suzerain) made a covenant with a lesser king (Vassal), they used a specific legal template.
This template changed drastically over the centuries. We have discovered treaties from the Hittite Empire (2nd Millennium BC) and the Assyrian Empire (1st Millennium BC).
The Structure: The Hittite treaties (1400–1200 BC) consistently followed a 6-part structure.
The Match: The Book of Deuteronomy follows this 2nd Millennium structure perfectly, not the later 1st Millennium structure.
Price of Slaves: Economic data from ancient Near Eastern records allows us to track the price of slaves over centuries. This provides a "carbon dating" method for the text.
21st Century BC (Ur III): ~10 shekels.
18th Century BC (Hammurabi/Mari): ~20 shekels.
14th Century BC (Nuzi/Ugarit): ~30 shekels.
8th–7th Century BC (Assyrian/Kings of Israel): 50–60 shekels.
5th Century BC (Persian Empire): 90–120 shekels.
Biblical Accuracy:
Genesis 37:28: Joseph is sold for 20 shekels. This perfectly matches the price in the 18th Century BC (Middle Bronze Age).
Exodus 21:32: The compensation for a slave killed by an ox is 30 shekels. This matches the price in the 14th Century BC (Late Bronze Age), the time of Moses.
2 Kings 15:20: King Menahem pays Assyria 50 shekels per head (likely for slave/conscript labor), matching the inflation of the 8th Century BC.
If Genesis were written by a "J" or "P" author living in the 6th Century BC (Babylonian Exile), the going rate for a slave was nearly 100 shekels. A writer inventing a story would likely use the current market price or guess incorrectly. The fact that the Torah cites the exact inflation-adjusted price for the correct centuries suggests it was written near the events, not 1,000 years later.
Egyptian Loanwords: If the Pentateuch were written by scribes in Babylon (as JEDP suggests), we would expect Babylonian loanwords. Instead, the text is saturated with Egyptian loanwords, fitting a Mosaic authorship (educated in Egypt).
Specific Loanwords: The Pentateuch contains more Egyptian words than any other part of the Bible.
"Ark" (Tebah): The word used for Noah's Ark and Moses' basket is not Hebrew, but the Egyptian word db't (box/coffer).
"Nile" (Ye'or): The Hebrew uses the Egyptian word iotr (river) rather than the standard Semitic word nahar.
"Reed" (Suf): As in Yam Suf (Sea of Reeds), from the Egyptian twf (papyrus).
Names:
Moses: Derived from the Egyptian ms (meaning "born of" or "child"), common in Pharaoh names like Thut-mose or Ra-messes.
Phinehas, Hophni, Merari: These are Egyptian names found in the Levitical genealogies, consistent with a group that just left Egypt.
Cultural Details: The Tabernacle: The specific dimensions and construction of the Tabernacle closely resemble the portable war-tent of Ramesses II (c. 1270 BC), used during military campaigns. A scribe in 500 BC Babylon would have modeled a temple after Babylonian ziggurats or Solomon's Temple, not a Bronze Age Egyptian war tent.
Modern literary scholars (such as Robert Alter) have moved away from dissecting the text to analyzing it as a unified literary masterpiece.
Intricate Design: The text often utilizes complex literary structures (like chiasmus) that span across the alleged "source" boundaries. If the text were a cut-and-paste job by a clumsy editor, these delicate, overarching symmetrical patterns would likely be destroyed.
Theological Coherence: The supposed "contradictions" (like the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2) are viewed by literary critics not as conflicting sources, but as complementary perspectives common in ancient Hebrew storytelling: the first account is cosmic and universal, the second is local and relational.
The JEDP theory requires the text to be a late compilation (800–400 BC). However, the legal structure (Treaties), economic data (Slave Prices), and linguistic markers (Egyptian loanwords) all point firmly to the 2nd Millennium BC (1500–1200 BC).
No comments:
Post a Comment