Evidence for the JEDP theory and the late-dating of the Torah

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Quantum Weirdness;10157]Flood traditions are quite old. Some like Atrahasis are are at least 1700B.C.
See here

As for creation see Glenn Miller's articles here

The language that I believe the Torah was written in wasn't Hebrew but transliterated into Hebrew from another (closely-related) language.
From this, I don't think there is archaeological evidence for your position either though.
Can you please clarify what is in bold though? Thanks.

This is as hypothetical as it gets, there is absolutely no evidence of this in archeology.

I as far any evidence for Hebrew texts are the dead sea scrolls and two silver blessing scrolls. ALL after the exile. If you can come up with any more please do.

[Quantum Weirdness]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;10178]

Flood traditions are quite old. Some like Atrahasis are are at least 1700B.C.
See here

As for creation see Glenn Miller's articles here






This is as hypothetical as it gets, there is absolutely no evidence of this in archeology.
I as far any evidence for Hebrew texts are the dead sea scrolls and two silver blessing scrolls. ALL after the exile. If you can come up with any more please do.

Uh huh, it's hypothetical. I infer it from the Torah's universal attribution to Moses by the Jewish people and the internal claims of the Pentateuch.
There is also this regarding the Pentateuch.
We don't have any archaeological data supporting this idea, to be fair. But considering the other evidence, I think it is a good idea not to abandon the traditional idea as yet.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Quantum Weirdness;10200]

Uh huh, it's hypothetical. I infer it from the Torah's universal attribution to Moses by the Jewish people and the internal claims of the Pentateuch.
There is also this regarding the Pentateuch.

This does not offer a coherent convincing argument. It simply says that it is true because large numbers of people believe it true. Argument by popularity is an unconvincing fallacy.

[Quantum Weirdness]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;10266]

This does not offer a coherent convincing argument. It simply says that it is true because large numbers of people believe it true. Argument by popularity is an unconvincing fallacy.

I would say that it is external evidence like this.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Quantum Weirdness;10464]

I would say that it is external evidence like this.

The problem of naming the authors of the gospels runs into similar problems as the origins and authorship of the Pentateuch. They run into an evidence wall where the evidence offered here is much later testimony then the claim of origins and authorship in both cases.

[Quantum Weirdness]

The problem of naming the authors of the gospels runs into similar problems as the origins and authorship of the Pentateuch. They run into an evidence wall where the evidence offered here is much later testimony then the claim of origins and authorship in both cases.

But they can't be discounted. There is nothing improbable with Moses authoring the Pentateuch through someone else (like scribes) and since the traditions say that he did, the burden of proof is on the critic who claims that Moses did not author the Pentateuch. And these traditions also had to come about a certain way, didn't they. They were also fairly universal as well.

[shunyadragon]

But they can't be discounted. There is nothing improbable with Moses authoring the Pentateuch through someone else (like scribes) and since the traditions say that he did, the burden of proof is on the critic who claims that Moses did not author the Pentateuch. And these traditions also had to come about a certain way, didn't they. They were also fairly universal as well.

No, the traditions did not have to come about a certain way. No the burden of proof is not to disprove something that there is no evidence for authorship or text at the time they were claimed to be written.

[Doug Shaver]

There is nothing improbable with Moses authoring the Pentateuch through someone else (like scribes) and since the traditions say that he did, the burden of proof is on the critic who claims that Moses did not author the Pentateuch.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You are claiming, in effect, that the traditions should be assumed reliable until proven otherwise. I don't know any reason I should believe that.

[shunyadragon]

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You are claiming, in effect, that the traditions should be assumed reliable until proven otherwise. I don't know any reason I should believe that.

Better said then my post.

[Outis]

What evidence supports the above viewpoints? I would like to know.

JEDP is largely dead, at least in that form. While there are still some supporters, Whybray's work has largely shown the weaknesses of the hypothesis in favor of either a fragmentary collection (multiple sources) or a supplementary collection (a single document with later additions and deletions). Of the two, the fragmentary hypothesis draws the most support, but there is no consensus, or even a majority viewpoint. The JEDP hypothesis is still fairly popular in the US and in Israel.

The general consensus is that the earlier fragmentary sources were from just before or during the early part of the Babylonian Exile, and the later parts (and final compilation) was near the end or just after the Exile.

If you can find it, you can get more data on the arguments for the date from the Oxford Bible Commentary article "Introduction to the Pentateuch".

[shunyadragon]

JEDP is largely dead, at least in that form. While there are still some supporters, Whybray's work has largely shown the weaknesses of the hypothesis in favor of either a fragmentary collection (multiple sources) or a supplementary collection (a single document with later additions and deletions). Of the two, the fragmentary hypothesis draws the most support, but there is no consensus, or even a majority viewpoint. The JEDP hypothesis is still fairly popular in the US and in Israel.

The general consensus is that the earlier fragmentary sources were from just before or during the early part of the Babylonian Exile, and the later parts (and final compilation) was near the end or just after the Exile.

If you can find it, you can get more data on the arguments for the date from the Oxford Bible Commentary article "Introduction to the Pentateuch".

Interesting, do you have a reference or source.

[Outis]

Interesting, do you have a reference or source.

The paragraphs above are the distillation of the works of others I've gathered from reading journals, textbooks, and other materials. However, some good places to start:

* The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century
* Whybray: The Making of the Pentateuch
** Also see Who Wrote the Bible and The Bible with Sources Revealed for a defense against Whybray.
* The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

It's not an easy subject to wade through.

[shunyadragon]

The paragraphs above are the distillation of the works of others I've gathered from reading journals, textbooks, and other materials. However, some good places to start:

* The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century
* Whybray: The Making of the Pentateuch
** Also see Who Wrote the Bible and The Bible with Sources Revealed for a defense against Whybray.
* The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

It's not an easy subject to wade through.

Thank you! I love to wade, but of course it will take a while.

[Quantum Weirdness]

No, the traditions did not have to come about a certain way. No the burden of proof is not to disprove something that there is no evidence for authorship or text at the time they were claimed to be written.

You're claiming that the traditional position is wrong. Thus you have the burden of proof as to why this is the case. What reasons are there to dismiss the traditons (which seem pretty unanimous)? They don't seem that improbable.

[shunyadragon]

You're claiming that the traditional position is wrong. Thus you have the burden of proof as to why this is the case. What reasons are there to dismiss the traditons (which seem pretty unanimous)? They don't seem that improbable.

I do not have sufficient reason to consider whether traditional positions are right or wrong. One way or another I need to base my view on the evidence and the consensus of scholars. Considering the scholars, tradition does not count much, first because it is biased by a emotional commitment of faith. The traditional view of Genesis is that it a literal history of the world, which by the evidence this is false.