7.13.2013 J.E.D.P. theory

taken from 'biblical christianity', a book of letters, written to questioners, by professor allen macrae, phd who ended his ministry as president of biblical seminary in hatfield, pa.

the first is written to explain facts about the theory...

'during the past 2000 years many a theory that was not founded on fact has gained wide acceptance,
but has later been shown to be without foundation and has completely disappeared.
one instance of a theory that is being widely publicized today,
even though it lacks any factual support,
is the claim that the first five books of the bible,
instead of being originally written as units in substantially the form in which we have them today,
came into existence through a process of interweaving and combining sources that had previously circulated separately.
according to this theory the so called J document was written many centuries after the events that it describes.
a century of so later another document, more or less parallel to the J document, was written.
after each had circulated separately for a time someone combined them,
inserting portions of the newer E document into the J document,
purporting to contain moses' farewell addresses, was composed.
eventually this was inserted into the latter part of the combined JE document.
about the time of the exile a group of priests composed still another document,
the so called P document,
paralleling much of the ground already covered by the J and E documents.
eventually this was cut into large and small sections,
between which similar sections of the other documents were inserted.
as a result, it is said that the pentateuch as we know it today
is composed of intertwined parts of all these documents,
so that we often read a section of one document, followed by a section of another,
then perhaps half a verse of the first again, then a portion of the third,
then more of the second, and so on in a complicated patchwork arrangement.
according to many critics the literary mosaic thus produced
included not only the books we know today as
genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, but also the book of joshua.

such is the theory that is held and propagated today in
practically the same form as when it was first presented, a century ago.
in the intervening time no new facts have been discovered in its favor,
and many of the theoretical grounds on which it was originally advanced
have been now almost completely abandoned.
yet the theory continues to be presented as established history,
and is even taught in high schools of some of our states.

since this is the case, it is important for every churchgoer and every bible student
to know just what the facts are about this theory,
which has been variously called
'source theory'
'the multidocumentary theory' or
'the Graf-Wellhousen theory'
in order to see how slim a foundation the theory rests upon, let us note certain vital facts.

we have hundreds of manuscript copies of the first five books of the bible,
all of which present them in the form in which we have them today.
not even one ancient copy of J, E,D or P  as a separate and continuous
has ever been found.

no record that has come down to us from ancient times contains any mention of these documents.
there is no ancient reference to the writing of any such document
or to such a process of combining them as the theory assumes.
there is no evidence that any such process actually occurred.

the theory is almost the lone survivor of a method of 19th century literary study
that has otherwise been almost completely discarded,
except in the field of biblical criticism.
a century ago it was a common practice to develop theories of this type
regarding almost any ancient or medieval document.
most such theories have today been abandoned
and are viewed merely as literary curiosities.
it is only in the field of biblical study that this 19th century attitude has been retained.

during the 19th century various german scholars presented widely differing theories
regarding the origins of the first five books of the bible.
not one of these theories gained complete ascendancy until 1878,
when a particular theory, strikingly different from most of the views previously held,
as advanced by julius wellhausen.
this new theory was publicized throughout the english speaking world
by a.r. driver and other followers of wellhausen.
even though a century has passed, in the course of which no new evidence for the theory has been discovered,
it is today being widely taught in almost the identical form in which it was then presented.

a great part of the reason for the acceptance of the multidocment theory
advanced by professor wellhausen in 1878 was the fact that
he based it upon his skillful presentation of a particular idea of the development of israelite religion.
this idea, however, has now been almost universally discarded.
few scholars today hold to a theory of hebrew religious development
that is even approximately similar to that which wellhausen based his idea of the sources of the pentateuch;
and yet wellhausen's method of dividing these alleged sources
and his view of the order of their composition
(although based upon a theory of development no longer held)
are still being presented as established fact.

an essential feature of the theory as taught by professor wellhausen,
was his claim that the various documents
-all of them written, according to the theory, long after the time of the patriarchs
-present only the thought patterns and ideas of the various periods in which they are alleged to have been written,
and tell us nothing about the actual time of the patriarchs.
in the light of archaeological discoveries it is now recognized that this attitude is no longer tenable.
therefore most of the recent presentations of the theory assert that a great part of the material
in each of the documents was transmitted orally for many centuries before being incorporated into written form,
and that even the latest of the documents contain much material that is really early.
thus an important basis of the wellhousen idea has really been abandoned by its present promoters.

its protagonists assert that the theory can be demonstrated
by pointing out differences of style between the documents.
yet these alleged differences in style mostly settle down to the fact that
certain pars of the pentateuch are statistical or enumerative,
while other pars have more of a running narrative style
and the greater part of the book of deuteronomy consist of exhortation.
there is no reason why the same writer should not use any one of these three styles,
depending on the nature of the particular subject matter.
thus we have an enumerative style in genesis 1 where the formation of the material universe
is set forth in definite stages.
for the subject matter of genesis 2,
which describes in more detail the creation of man and the formation of a proper habitat for his life,
the narrative style is more fitting.
in addresses of warning and admonition, the style of exhortation is natural.
similar instances of the use of styles at least as different as these
could be found in the works of almost any extensive writer of recent days.

it is frequently said that the names given to two of these documents
are based upon the allegation that the so called J document uses the name JHWH
('Lord' in the KJV).
yet actually each of these alleged sources uses both divine names in the pentateuch
and in all the alleged sources the name JHWH is far more common than the name Elohim.
in explanation the supporters of the theory assert that ,
according to the E and P documents,
the name JHWH was not revealed until the early chapters of exodus.
the theory is thus not that each document preferred a certain name,
but that each introduced and deliberately avoided it before that point in the account.
since all the documents are alleged to have been written many centuries after the time of the exodus,
a procedure such as the theory assumes would be artificial and rather unlikely to have occurred.
furthermore, its foundation in biblical statements is extremely weak.
moreover, the use of varying names in different connections is not at all unusual,
and can be easily explained on other grounds than that of a patchwork origin.

the claim that there is constant duplication of material in the various alleged sources is
grossly exaggerated. some of these so called duplicates are really different events that are somewhat similar,
but actually no more so than is often the case in ordinary life,
as can be demonstrated fairly easily.
in other cases an alleged repetition is merely a summary given at the beginning
or end of an account, a helpful recapitulation or a literary device
to make an account more vivid.
most of the alleged repetitions or duplications,
if examined without prejudice,
can  be shown to have a natural purpose in the narrative.

most of the alleged contradictions between the
so called sources disappear on careful examination.
thus it is alleged that the j and P documents
exhibit rebecca as influenced by different motives in suggesting jacob's departure from canaan:
the motive being in one case to enable him to escape his brother's anger;
and in the other case to induce him to procure a wife agreeable to his parents' wishes.
actually there is no contradiction whatever in supposing
that rebecca was influenced by both motives
and that, in dealing with the two men whom she wished to influence,
she used in each case the argument that she knew would appeal to him,
rather than the one that would be apt to antagonize him.

these facts indicate the existence of logical reasons for the phenomena in the pentateuch,
all of them consistent with the idea of a unified authorship,
and not requiring the adoption of an ungrounded theory that is a survival from the 19th century,
and that is quite inconsistent with present methods of literary study.

the overwhelming majority of people who accept the Multidocumentary Theory,
including most of those who teach it,
do so because of confidence in the men by whom it is advanced,
rather than on the basis of any thorough investigation.
the interest of Truth demand that the facts be examined objectively and with prejudice.
when this is done it becomes apparent that the theory lacks
both factual evidence and sound logical basis.