Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

From "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Friedman, pages 17-21

	... But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books
	presented problems.  People observed contradictions in the text.  It
	would report events in a particular order, and later it would say that
	those same events happened in a different order.  It would say that
	there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there were
	fourteen of that same thing.  It would say that the Moabites did
	something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who did
	it.  It would describe Moses as going to a Tabernacle in a chapter
	before Moses builds the Tabernacle.

	  People also noticed that the Five Books of Moses included things that
	Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said.  The text,
	after all, gave an account of Moses's death.  It also said that Moses
	was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the
	humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on
	earth....

	... In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court
	physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of
	Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long
	after Moses was dead....

	... He alluded to several biblical passages that appeared not to be
	from Moses's own hand: passages that referred to Moses in the third
	person, used terms that Moses would not have known, described places
	where Moses had never been, and used language that reflected another
	time and locale from those of Moses....

	... Hobbes collected numerous cases of facts and statements through the
	course of the Five Books that were inconsistent with Mosaic authorship.
	For example, the text sometimes states that something is the case "to
	this day".  "To this day" is not the phrase of someone describing a
	contemporary situation.  It is rather the phrase of a later writer who
	is describing something that has endured.

	... That verse says, "These are the words that Moses spoke to the
	children of Israel across the Jordan...."  The problem is with the
	phrase "across the Jordan" is that it refers to someone who is on the
	other side of the Jordan river from the writer.  The verse thus appears
	to be the words of someone in Israel, west of the Jordan, referring to
	what Moses did on the east side of the Jordan.  But Moses himself was
	never supposed to have been in Israel in his life....

	... He also noted that the text says in Deuteronomy 34, "There never
	arose another prophet in Israel like Moses...." Spinoza remarked that
	these sound like the words of someone wholived a long time after Moses
	and had the opportunity to see other prophets and thus make the
	comparison. (They also don't sound like the words of the humblest man
	on earth.) ...

				-- Bob

    I concur, Bob.
    
    But for me, it doesn't take away from the authority or validity of
    the Bible even if Moses wasn't the sole scripter of the Torah.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

     >>The historical evidence for such a theory is zilch.

  >What do you mean by "historical evidence"?

I mean such things as artifacts or historical document or something
from the distant past which indicates this.  For example, there are
those who believe that the Exodus never happened.  Now, I would
say that 

  - the description in the Bible of the Exodus
  - some references to Hebrews in Egyptian archeology
  - the archeological evidence of tribes conquering Canaan
  - the existence of the Passover celebration which is
    ongoing to this day

is all "historical" evidence to one extent or another.  In the
case of the JEDP theory, such evidence is totally lacking.

  - there is no description in ancient literature anywhere (that
    I have heard of) of J, E, D or P.
  - there are no documents containing simply J or simply E or
    simply D or simply P.  They do not exist.
  - there are no references to documents containing simply J or
    simply E or simply D or simply P.  These do not exist either.
  - there is no tradition of seperate authorship.

There is absolutely nothing historical about this theory.  There
is absolutely no reason to believe that this is what happened from
a historical basis.

Collis

Re:  originators of JEDP

There are a large number of people who believe that God doesn't do
prophecy.  *This* is the reason why a JEDP theory evolved in the
first place.  Since there are a number of prophecies in the Old
Testament (a number in the New Testament as well), these prophecies
had to be explained.

The easiest explanation was to simply say that they were never
prophecies at all, rather that the sources were written after
the fact.  The difficulties this presents in terms of having
this literature accepted by not only the populace but by future
prophets (supposedly prophets of God) as accurate and infallible
are glossed over and ignored wherever possible.  When push comes
to shove, they will indeed admit that the prophets of God (if
they really existed at all - some believe that a number of the
prophets were more figment of the imagination than flesh and
blood) were full or errors and therefore, according to the
Biblical test of prophets - not prophets at all.  They were
simply men who claimed to have knowledge of God but God did *not*
speak to them authoritatively.

These points are not simply a minor nit about the JEDP theory.
They go to the HEART of the theory.  The entire theory exists
today BECAUSE liberals refused to believe that God through the
prophets could and did predict the future (i.e. prophesy).  This
theory exists today BECAUSE liberals refused to accept that God
revealed Himself to the prophets and that this was accurately
recorded.

It is *impossible* to believe the prophets of God AND to believe
the JEDP theory.  One or the other is wrong.

Now, Biblical scholarship today is dominated by liberals who believe
that the prophets were/are wrong.  But to think that the JEDP theory
can be accurate and that the prophets of God (as recorded) can be accurate 
- that involves a major hole in the head.  BTW, I've gone beyond simply the
JEDP (which simply discusses the first 5 books of the Old Testament)
into the theories of all the books of the Old Testament.  I've felt
free to do this since those who hold to one theory logically hold
to the underlying assumptions of that theory which is reflected in
the views of every book in the Bible.

Collis

  >You may *claim* it's a single text...

I wasn't trying to claim anything historically.  I was pointing
out that we have essentially one text of these 5 books.  Indeed,
there are multiple manuscripts for the Torah which have minor
differences (just like there are for the New Testament).  However,
these differences have nothing to do with the JEDP theory.  Therefore,
what we have is essentially one text to deal with.  (In other
words, if there *was* exactly one text with no other manuscripts,
we would *still* have the JEDP theory just as we have it today.)
That was all I was trying to say.  And I think it is a very significant
point.  We analyze the New Testament all the time trying to figure out
what was originally written.  But this analysis is based on textual
criticism and differences between multiple sets of texts.  This is
totally different from JEDP.

Collis

  >Ultimately it's impossible to prove anything about anything.

Indeed, this is not an unusual response when the theory's shortcomings
and assumptions are brought to light.  The probability of this theory
being even somewhat correct boggles my mind.  Just dealing with the
"prophecy doesn't happen" assumption denies so much of the Bible that
it falls under its own weight.  Jesus didn't explain the prophecies on
the road to Emmaeus (sp).  Jesus didn't predict His coming again.  The
Messiah belief is just a perverted distortion of some authors/redactors.
On and on and on.  But you start with a false premise and it's not
surprising that everything will logically collapse around you.  And
admitting that the Bible is indeed accurate throws out any possibility
of JEDP being correct.  For example, Jesus referred to Moses as the
author of the Law.

Collis

Re:  .2

I perfectly accept the fact that, like all manuscripts,
things were added to/changed from the original.  I certainly
don't believe that everything we have today is exactly as
Moses wrote it.  So, pointing out the later references does
not impinge on Mosaic authorship - it simply points to scribes
doing editing (consider that not one of over 5,000 New Testament
manuscripts is exactly the same as another).  Now, the points
about differences in number, location, whatever, need to be
explored more thoroughly.  I am *very* hesitent to take the
objection at face value of one who believes the Bible is filled
with errors.  Time after time I have seen these objections made
with a reasonable explanation available - which is not to say
that there are not some difficult passages to explain.  But I
am willing to say that the vast majority of these objections 
(even like those made in this notes conference :-) ) leave
something to be desired.

Collis

Re: .4 Collis

>  >What do you mean by "historical evidence"?
>
>I mean such things as artifacts or historical document or something
>from the distant past which indicates this.  For example, there are
>those who believe that the Exodus never happened.  Now, I would
>say that 
>
>  - the description in the Bible of the Exodus
>  - some references to Hebrews in Egyptian archeology
>  - the archeological evidence of tribes conquering Canaan
>  - the existence of the Passover celebration which is
>    ongoing to this day
>
>is all "historical" evidence to one extent or another.

I realize that this is just an example of what you mean by "historical
evidence".  As I understand it, though, the references to Hebrews in
Egyptian archeology are debatable, i.e. many or most scholars deny that
the words used refer to the Hebrews.  The evidence of tribes conquering
Canaan doesn't tell us where the tribes came from before conquering
Canaan.  The existence of the Passover celebration and the descriptions in
the Bible of the Exodus both come from the early traditions of the
Israelites.  So all we can really say is that the early Israelites had a
tradition of having been slaves in Egypt.

There is also negative historical evidence: if the Israelites had been
slaves in Egypt one would have expected them to have left evidence of this,
and the evidence just isn't there (except for one? brief, disputed
reference to Israelites/Hebrews).

>In the case of the JEDP theory, such evidence is totally lacking.
>
>  - there is no description in ancient literature anywhere (that
>    I have heard of) of J, E, D or P.

The main evidence for J, E, D and P is in the Bible itself.
Contradictions, duplicate accounts of the same event, differences in style
all point to the existence of separate source documents.

>  - there are no documents containing simply J or simply E or
>    simply D or simply P.  They do not exist.

All we have from the distant past is scroll fragments, so there is no
intact Torah from that time either.  Too much time has passed for this
evidence to exist.

>  - there are no references to documents containing simply J or
>    simply E or simply D or simply P.  These do not exist either.

We don't have much information at all about the early Israelites except
from the Bible, and the Bible that was ultimately preserved included a
unified Torah.  However, we do have a reference to at least one source
document, D, in 2 Kings 22:8 and 2 Chronicles 34:14-15.

>  - there is no tradition of seperate authorship.

Right, because when the source documents were combined into a single
Torah they became the basis for a unified religion.  The unified religion
was based on the idea that the entire Torah was the word of God.  There
was no reason for the priests of this religion to preserve the memory of
how the Torah was created from source documents, because the source
documents represented the older, fragmented religious traditions.

>There is absolutely nothing historical about this theory.

It's based on a study of the Bible, which is an historical document.  It's
based on a study of ancient languages.  It's consistent with the limited
archeological evidence that is available.

>There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is what happened from
>a historical basis.

I disagree.

				-- Bob

Re: .4 Collis

I have one more comment about your .4 before moving on to your other
replies.  In your example of historical evidence for the Exodus you cited
the biblical account.  Why does the biblical account of the Exodus count
as historical evidence while, according to you, the biblical evidence for
J, E, D and P does not count as historical evidence?

				-- Bob

    .5 seems to imply that prophesy means speaking some God-given
    foreknowledge of the future.  I believe Collis knows better than
    this.
    
    Richard
    

It's interesting that the only thing "historical" about the JEDP
theory that you can come up with is:

  >It's based on a study of the Bible, which is an historical document.

You ignore the fact the this document, far from supporting the JEDP
theory, implicitly and explicitly exclude this theory from
possibility.  The "historical evidence" is not historical
evidence at all - it is current theory, no more and no less.

Indeed, it is easy to claim that the lack of support for the JEDP
theory is due to the passage of time.  This reasoning, however,
can be used to support practically any theory and is, at best,
a weak defense.  

Collis

Re:  .10

It is quite true that the Bible is an historical document and
this has some value as "historical evidence".  The difference
between what you claim to be historical evidence and what I
clain to be historical evidence as that I am taking the account
of what happened as recorded in the Bible and saying that this
is historical evidence.  In other words, I'm using what the
Bible actually is saying.  You, on the other hand, are using
what scholars are claiming about the Bible and saying that this
is historical evidence.  In other words, if the Bible recorded
that J and E were seperate people and that J lived in Jerusalem
while E lived in Jericho, this would have some relevance as
historical evidence since it was contained in a historical
document.  But the Bible makes no such claim - in fact the
Biblical historical evidence is just the opposite.  Scholars
300 years ago didn't see this "historical evidence" for the
JEDP theory.  Why?  Because it is not historical evidence that
requires a simple reading to understand; it is a current theory
*about* the Bible, not *from* the Bible (which is not to say
that scholars don't use the Bible in arriving at their theory).
Does this make sense?

Collis

Re:  .14

Thank you, Richard, for clarifying that.  I was definately using
the sense of prophecy in terms of predicting the future.  That
is what the originators of the JEDP theory totally denied.  That
is what the JEDP theory continues to deny (despite the illogical
position of some who believe in prophecy and accept the JEDP
theory as valid).

Collis

    I accept the JEDP theory as valid and I believe in prophesy.
    However, I do not accept that the prophets were some kind of
    fortunetellers, as I take it Collis does, based on the remarks
    in .14.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

 Fortunetellers?

    >However, I do not accept that the prophets were some kind of
    >fortunetellers, as I take it Collis does, based on the remarks
    >in .14.

Huh???

Note 740.14

> I was definately using
> the sense of prophecy in terms of predicting the future.

Note 740.15

>    However, I do not accept that the prophets were some kind of
>    fortunetellers,...

Is not a fortuneteller someone who can predict the future?  If not,
I've got another bad dictionary.

Richard

Re: .12 Collis

>Indeed, it is easy to claim that the lack of support for the JEDP
>theory is due to the passage of time.  This reasoning, however,
>can be used to support practically any theory and is, at best,
>a weak defense.  

I wouldn't say that there is a lack of support for the JEDP theory; it's
well supported by analysis of the Bible itself.  However, the passage of
time does explain why we don't have separate intact documents for J, E, D
and P.

Re: .13 Collis

>The difference between what you claim to be historical evidence and what
>I clain to be historical evidence as that I am taking the account of what
>happened as recorded in the Bible and saying that this is historical
>evidence.  In other words, I'm using what the Bible actually is saying.
>You, on the other hand, are using what scholars are claiming about the
>Bible and saying that this is historical evidence.

The Bible itself is the historical evidence; the scholars' claims about the
Bible are based on analysis of that evidence.  Historical documents don't
have to be taken at face value, although they should generally be given the
benefit of reasonable doubt.  In the Bible's case the face value,
traditional interpretation that Moses wrote the Books of Moses just
doesn't work, for the reasons I gave earlier: contradictions, statements
which would not have been made by Moses (e.g. that he was both the humblest
man and the greatest prophet, and expressions like "to this day"),
multiple accounts of the same events but with varying details.

>Scholars
>300 years ago didn't see this "historical evidence" for the
>JEDP theory. Why?

Some scholars even 300 years ago pointed out problems with the traditional
theory that Moses wrote the Books of Moses, but they were silenced or were
afraid to speak because of the power held by religious leaders, who
needless to say were resistant to unorthodox interpretations of the Bible.
There are some interesting quotes from Friedman which I'll post in my
next reply which go into this in more detail.  The JEDP theory itself is
complex and took time to develop.  Maybe if the Church hadn't resisted
such study so fiercly the theory would have been developed earlier.

				-- Bob

re Note 740.13 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> It is quite true that the Bible is an historical document and
> this has some value as "historical evidence".  The difference
> between what you claim to be historical evidence and what I
> clain to be historical evidence as that I am taking the account
> of what happened as recorded in the Bible and saying that this
> is historical evidence.  In other words, I'm using what the
> Bible actually is saying.  You, on the other hand, are using
> what scholars are claiming about the Bible and saying that this
> is historical evidence.  

        Supposing we had an original manuscript written in four
        different hands which claimed to be written by one person's
        hand -- which is the document actually saying?

        Textual criticism is very much like handwriting analysis,
        except it examines the accidents of the individual author's
        style of thinking rather than the accidents of the individual
        author's hand.

        (Collis, where do you think that the Bible claims Moses'
        personal authorship of the entire first five books?)

        Bob

Re: .5 Collis

>There are a large number of people who believe that God doesn't do
>prophecy.  *This* is the reason why a JEDP theory evolved in the
>first place.  Since there are a number of prophecies in the Old
>Testament (a number in the New Testament as well), these prophecies
>had to be explained.

What evidence do you have to support this statement, Collis?  The motive
I've seen for the development of JEDP is contradictions and discrepencies
in the theory that Moses wrote the Torah.

>These points are not simply a minor nit about the JEDP theory.
>They go to the HEART of the theory.  The entire theory exists
>today BECAUSE liberals refused to believe that God through the
>prophets could and did predict the future (i.e. prophesy).  This
>theory exists today BECAUSE liberals refused to accept that God
>revealed Himself to the prophets and that this was accurately
>recorded.

So you think that scholars who reject the theory that Moses wrote the
Books of Moses are biased by their liberal religious beliefs, and are
advocating a false interpretation of the Bible because of their refusal
to accept the traditional interpretation?  I think you have it backwards.
The conservatives who cling to the traditional interpretation of the Bible
are blinded by their religious beliefs.  They are unable to see that their
interpretation of the Bible is wrong, that the theory that Moses wrote the
books of Moses is not supported by the evidence.

>It is *impossible* to believe the prophets of God AND to believe
>the JEDP theory.  One or the other is wrong.

I agree with you that if the JEDP theory is correct, some of the
statements made by the prophets are wrong.  You can't believe in the
inerrency of the Bible and also believe in the JEDP theory.  However, the
contradictions in the Bible show that it is not inerrent, whether or not
the JEDP theory is correct.

I'll leave it to others to reconcile their Christian faith with a belief
that the prophets of God have been wrong on at least some occasions.

				-- Bob

    We sat at sermon last Sunday and the one quote I wrote down for future
    use was: "The bible is the goldmine but not the gold".
    
    This was given in a sermon "Christianity in a secular world" and was in
    a part where different sects within Protestantism and and statements
    made by the Pope were claiming "true" knowledge rights they knew which
    were to be adopted by their constituents.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

 Psalm 19:7-10 seems to disagree with that, or at least says that the
 statutes and laws are even better than gold.




 Jim

Note 740.24

> Psalm 19:7-10 seems to disagree with that, or at least says that the
> statutes and laws are even better than gold.

Indeed they are, Jim.  But then, this is not what Ron's metaphor claims.

We digress.  This string is about Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch,
in which I, for one, am interested.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  740.22

     >>There are a large number of people who believe that God doesn't do
     >>prophecy.  *This* is the reason why a JEDP theory evolved in the
     >>first place.  

  >What evidence do you have to support this statement, Collis?  

I wish I had more time, but I simply don't.  The vast majority of my knowledge
of this subject comes from Josh McDowell's reference work "MORE evidence
that demands a verdict" which presents relevant references from all sorts
of books and documents.

  >So you think that scholars who reject the theory that Moses wrote the
  >Books of Moses are biased by their liberal religious beliefs...

The did indeed come up with a theory that 

  >The conservatives who cling to the traditional interpretation of the Bible
  >are blinded by their religious beliefs.  They are unable to see that their
  >interpretation of the Bible is wrong, that the theory that Moses wrote the
  >books of Moses is not supported by the evidence.

But it is.  We certainly disagree.  I choose to believe the prophets over
the "contradictions" that people like to claim.  Even when I didn't believe
the Bible to be inerrant, I recognized that the so-called contradictions
in the Bible were not provable contradictions at all.  They are sufficient
reason to attack the credibility of the Bible - but they are not sufficient
to withstand the defense of logic (as we have seen again and again in this
notesfile - but I expect there is disagreement about that :-) ).

     >>It is *impossible* to believe the prophets of God AND to believe
     >>the JEDP theory.  One or the other is wrong.

  >I agree with you that if the JEDP theory is correct, some of the
  >statements made by the prophets are wrong.  

Not simply some of the statements.  The integrity of the office of prophet
is fundamental to the Bible and our acceptance of it having any value
whatsoever.  If God did not say what the prophet said, then the prophet is 
not a prophet of God and we have *totally* erred.

  >I'll leave it to others to reconcile their Christian faith with a belief
  >that the prophets of God have been wrong on at least some occasions.

Why should we apply a different standard than God?  It seems to me that
we only end up deceiving ourselves.

Collis

Re: .26 Collis

>I wish I had more time, but I simply don't.  The vast majority of my knowledge
>of this subject comes from Josh McDowell's reference work "MORE evidence
>that demands a verdict" which presents relevant references from all sorts
>of books and documents.

That's convenient; I have a copy of Josh's book here at work.  As you may
know, I've started two topics in the GRIM::RELIGION conference to discuss
Josh McDowell's books: 187 and 547.

>Even when I didn't believe
>the Bible to be inerrant, I recognized that the so-called contradictions
>in the Bible were not provable contradictions at all.

In that case I'm sure you'll be happy to explain them.

>The integrity of the office of prophet
>is fundamental to the Bible and our acceptance of it having any value
>whatsoever.  If God did not say what the prophet said, then the prophet is 
>not a prophet of God and we have *totally* erred.

Maybe this is so for those who believe in biblical inerrency, but other
Christians believe that the Bible offers valuable insights about God even
if it contains errors.

>  >I'll leave it to others to reconcile their Christian faith with a belief
>  >that the prophets of God have been wrong on at least some occasions.
>
>Why should we apply a different standard than God?  It seems to me that
>we only end up deceiving ourselves.

What "standard" are you referring to here?

				-- Bob

Re: .6 Collis

OK, I understand now what you meant by a "single text" (i.e. that the JEDP
theory is not based on differences between different manuscripts of the
same document, as is the case for the New Testament).  However, JEDP does
make comparisons between different parts of the Torah that are both
describing the same event; Friedman calls these "doublets".  If there are
sets of doublets throughout the Torah, analyzing stylistic difference
between different accounts of the same event is similar to analyzing
differences between different manuscripts of the same document.

				-- Bob

Re: .7 Collis

>  >Ultimately it's impossible to prove anything about anything.
>
>Indeed, this is not an unusual response when the theory's shortcomings
>and assumptions are brought to light.

What shortcoming and assumptions do you think you've brought to light?

If you asked me to prove that Bill Clinton was the President of the United
States, I might show you a magazine article.  Oh, but maybe the article
was a hoax.  I could tell you that I remember seeing him sworn in - but
maybe my memory is faulty.  No matter how many hundreds of proofs I
offered, you could always come up with some counter-argument.  In the end
I'd have to concede that there is no mathematical proof that Clinton is the
president, even though it's a moral certainty.  (Of course, who knows -
maybe he resigned even as I was writing these words.  Maybe.)

Asking whether it been proved that textual comparison is a valid way of
determining the authorship of a document is like asking whether it's been
proved whether rational thought is a valid way of solving problems.
Either you believe that it is or you don't - but what's the alternative?

How's this for an experiment: create a document the approximate length of
the Torah that combines the work of between one and ten authors who weren't
intentially trying to disguise their style, show the document to a
committee of liberal biblical scholars and ask them to identify which
passages were written by the same author.

>The probability of this theory being even somewhat correct boggles my mind.

Certainly the probability that JEDP and the conservative interpretation of
the Bible are both correct is extremely small.

>Just dealing with the
>"prophecy doesn't happen" assumption denies so much of the Bible that
>it falls under its own weight.

"Prophecy doesn't happen" is *not* one of the assumption of JEDP.

>For example, Jesus referred to Moses as the author of the Law.

	"Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses
	who accuses you, on whom you set your hope.  If you believed Moses,
	you would believe me, for he wrote of me.  But if you do not
	believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
					John 5:45-47 (RSV)

Jesus's statement here could be true even if Moses wrote only part of what
eventually became part of J or E.  Or Jesus could have been speaking
figuratively, referring to the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Jesus's words may not have been recorded exactly as he said them.

				-- Bob

Re:  standard

The explicit and implicit standard used throughout the Bible
that what a prophet speaks is true in all its detail.

Collis

This is indeed a broad subject.  I just don't have the time now
to go into all the exhaustive detail that I would like.  Small,
simple answers will simply need to be expanded as you will
(rightfully) challenge all the summary statements I make.

Maybe another time.

Re: .30 Collis

>The explicit and implicit standard used throughout the Bible
>that what a prophet speaks is true in all its detail.

Yes, but if this standard was invented by fallible prophets...

Re: .31 Collis

>Maybe another time.

That's OK; there's no rush.  I hope you don't mind if I reply to some of
your earlier notes in this topic, just to touch all bases.

				-- Bob

Re: .8 Collis

>I perfectly accept the fact that, like all manuscripts,
>things were added to/changed from the original.  I certainly
>don't believe that everything we have today is exactly as
>Moses wrote it.  So, pointing out the later references does
>not impinge on Mosaic authorship - it simply points to scribes
>doing editing (consider that not one of over 5,000 New Testament
>manuscripts is exactly the same as another).

You're lucky that you aren't living in the 17th century, Collis, or you
could have suffered the same fate as Richard Simon (see 740.21). :-)

You seem to be in what Friedman called the second stage of the process of
questioning Mosaic authorship, where "investigators still accepted the
tradition that Moses wrote the Five Books, but they suggested that a few
lines were added here or there."  As Spinoza wrote in the 17th century,
though (as paraphrased by Friedman) "the problematic passages [are] not a
few isolated cases that [can] be explained away one by one.  Rather, they
[are] pervasive through the entire Five Books of Moses."

Well, I think I've replied to all the notes you've entered in this string,
and I'm sorry that you don't have time to go into this in more detail.
I do have access to Josh McDowell's "MORE evidence that demands a
verdict", which apparently is one of your primary sources.  When I have
some more free time I'll confront McDowell's "refutation" of the JEDP
theory either in this note or in the RELIGION conference.

				-- Bob

    Bob,
    
    Please enter it here when you find the time.  I too would love to read
    the reply.  Your notes here have been very helpful to me.  I do not
    have time right now to do the kind of investigation that you are doing.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    Hi!
    
    I've just re-read this string and am curious to know if John Covert
    has read Friedmann's "Who wrote the Bible?" or any of his or
    others' (Cross, for example) papers and publications on the subject.
    
    I would be very surprised if even the most entrenched traditionalist
    (no personal judgement intended) could remain *completely* unmoved
    by the arguments presented.
    
    It is worth noting that Pope Pius XII specifically encouraged further
    research into Bible exegesis and its authorship "with great care and
    without overseeing the coming light of modern research" in his
    encyclical of 1943. (Note: I do not have an English text to hand so the
    quotes above do not imply verbatim transcription).
    
    The JEDP theory has (with some minor divergencies) become part of
    accepted scholarship and is now taught in very many Thelogical and
    Divinity schools/colleges of all shades both in USA, England and in
    the rest of the world.
    
    Discussion no longer centers on the number of authors for the various
    books - on this there is wide agreement - but, rather, on the dates
    of the various texts and the identity of their authors.
    
    Although it is true that some of the prophetic writings will need to
    be reviewed theologically, I do do not personally feel that the whole
    of the Christian faith (or the Jewish) must collapse like a house of
    cards in the light of this new knowledge.
    
    It must be acknowledged that, with JEDP and Evolution, traditionalists
    are going through a rough patch. I sincerely hope that they come
    through it with only minor cuts and bruises which should heal quickly
    with the aid of the fresh air they will then be breathing.  :-)
    
    Greetings, Derek.