admin asked Staff ago I am a religious man who is interested in Biblical criticism. I bought two books on the topic, Sugiyot b’Bikoret haMiqrah by Yair Hoffman and heAsufah haMiqrait by Menachem Horn.
I wanted your help in compiling a detailed list of the 4 sources of the Torah, Source E, Source J, Source P, and Source D.
I would be happy if you could send me a detailed list, from where to where each source wrote, or lead me to a book in which such a list appears and tell me where to buy it.
Thanks in advance.
jsadmin Staff answered 22 years ago
Hello,
The issue of Biblical Criticism requires a great deal of in-depth study, so it is suggested one take a university course on this topic. The Ph.D. requested anonymity and it is not our place to guess at his reasons.
Sincerely,
Daat Emet
jsadmin Staff answered 22 years ago
Hello,
I sent your question to an academic expert in the field (a Ph.D. who wishes to remain anonymous). This is his answer:
Your correspondent asks a question which is not simple, to make an understatement.
Source D: Most of Deuteronomy (chapter 1-28) is from the days of Josiah. The narrative framework (chapters 1-3, 30-34) is from the days of the Babylonian exile.
Source P: Leviticus, most of Numbers (chapters 1-12, 15:1-20:13, 25:6-36), sections of Exodus (for example, Exodus 1:1-27, 12:1-20, 12:43-51, chapters 21-31, 33:7-11, chapters 35-40), and sections of Genesis (for example, 1:1-2:4, chapters 1, 5, 10, 11:10-26, 17, 23, and parts of the Flood narrative).
Some of the scholars (mostly Israelis) suppose that the time of Source P is the kingdom era, before Deuteronomy; most of the scholars (including many Israelis not at the Hebrew University) suppose that this source is the latest, from the era of the return to Zion.
Source J and Source E: There are many difficulties in dividing these two “sources.” Today, most scholars do not suppose that these are two distinct and separate documents. There is a tendency to merge the material which in the past was attributed to two sources and to call this aspect J/E or simply J. This is the first sequence of the Genesis story (2:4-2:12), the stories of the Patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, the giving of the Torah, and the wanderings in the desert. Most of the material belonging to this redaction is found in Exodus 20:23-23:19. Scholars are quite divided on how to attribute the sections ascribed to these two sources (or even to J/E) so I will not try to go into more detail.
Many scholars also disagree about the timing of J/E. Most suppose that this is the earliest source, and because of the source’s great interest in Jacob/Israel attribute it to the period preceding the destruction of Samaria (722 BCE), but some scholars suppose that the source was written to enlarge upon the sequence of stories in Deuteronomy, and therefore attribute it to the exilic era or the start of the return to Zion.
Sincerely,
Daat Emet
jsadmin Staff answered 22 years ago
Dear Adkins,
The following is the Ph.D.’s response to your response:
1. The base supposition of divine authorship does not allow any room for discussion, for there is no evidence at all which can refute an axiom of faith. Even so, religious philosophers tended to ascribe to the Lord a measure of completeness which does not match internal contradictions. It is possible, in the framework of faith, to suppose that G-d wrote the Torah “in human language” and therefore there are contradictions, but then one must ask if G-d is imitating the style of a single author or, perhaps, He uses a style more characteristic of multiple authors.
2. I have already noted that a change in the designation for G-d is not considered a significant test for dividing the sources. The idea that Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Genesis 2:4-3:24 were written by different authors is based primarily on substantial tests of ideology and style, and even if these two stories used the same designation for G-d they would still be unique based on the significant differences between them.
3. The claim based on computerized study of the style in Genesis is a weak claim, for the current consensus is that most of Genesis (until the story of Joseph, which is an independent section) is attributed to J (we no longer speak of E, aside from Friedman; see below). Therefore it is not surprising that statistically the book’s style seems relatively uniform. The claim would be stronger were it based on, for example, a comparison of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which, according to the prevailing opinion, were written and edited by different circles. Even then I would check which stylistic elements were loaded into the computer. Vocabulary is a relatively negligible element; more significant elements are the length of sentences, use of subjugation, quantity of nouns to verbs, preference for collective or individual appellations, preference for longer or shorter pronouns, etc.
4. I think that attacking Biblical Criticism through R.E. Friedman’s book is attacking a straw man. Friedman does not represent the dominant stream if research; he is the sole representative of a questionable approach which combines Wellhausen and Kaufmann. I don’t see his book as the basis for a discussion, for the approach and hypotheses which serve him seem groundless to me, and I will not expand upon that. A much more important book is RH Whybray, “The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study,” Sheffield, 1987 .
Sincerely,
Daat Emet