Doublet in Genesis

[Tubal-Cain]

I did some checking into the author and his book last night. At no point did I see that he was a Christian author. He writes about biblical stuff, but that doesnt make him Christian. I recall seeing that he got his education at Jewish places, not Christian ones. Even so, there are very liberal places out there that dont accept the word of God as His word. In an interview I saw with the author online, the impression was left that if you really wanted to believe in divine inspiration you still could with his theory, but that was only to placate Christians. It didnt sound like he viewed the bible as the word of God.

Friedman might be Jewish but I'm pretty sure he is not Christian.

In my checking into this book and its claims, I couldnt find any reason given for the claim that there were 3 seperate texts used to write the first 5 books of the bible, except for some subjective supposed stylistic differences that he claims to have seen and claims others have seen. At no point did I find anything that gave concrete reasons why they believed that. Personally I dont agree with his claims.

Friedman's article on "Torah" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a good overview of the evidence. I'll try to summarize things here:

First there are the reasons for believing that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (in its present form):

1. The Torah notes that the Canaanites were in the promised land "at that time" (Gen 12:6; 13:7). This means that the Canaanites were no longer in the land when the Torah was written.
   
2. The Torah speaks of things lasting "to this day" (Gen 22:14; 26:33; 32:32; 35:20; Dt 3:14; 34:6). These are not the words of a contemporary author but of an author pointing out that something from the past has endured to his time.
   
3. The Torah contains various anachronisms such as the mention of the Philistines (Gen 21:32-34; 26:1, 8, 14-15; Ex 13:17; 15:14; 23:31).
   
4. The Torah contains a list of Edomite kings who lived after Moses' death (Gen 36:31-39).
   
5. The Torah refers to Moses in the third person.
   
6. Num 12:3 says Moses was the humblest man on earth. It is hard to believe that the humblest man on earth would make such a statement. It is even harder to believe that he told people he was the greatest prophet Israel ever had as is done in Dt 34:10.
   
7. Dt 1:1; 3:20 say that Moses spoke "across the Jordan". Moses was speaking on the eastern side of the Jordan which means the author was on the western side of the Jordan. Moses never crossed the Jordan and therefore could not have written such a thing.
   
8. The Torah gives an account of Moses' death and the aftermath of that event (Dt 34). Dt 34:10 says that a prophet like Moses did not arise in Israel again. Such a statement could only be made by someone who had lived to see many other prophets.
   

With the rejection of Mosaic authorship a fresh look at the text of the Pentateuch is required in order to determine how it came to be. A number of different types of evidence converge in confirming the JEPD theory.

The number of doublets (and some triplets) in the Torah is rather high if it was written by a single author:

1. Creation
   
2. The genealogies of Cain and Seth, sons of Adam, have parellel names (Cain/Cainan, Enoch, Irad/Jered, Methushael/Methuselah, Lamech)
   
3. The flood
   
4. Genealogy from Shem
   
5. Abraham's migration
   
6. Wife being passed off as a sister to a king
   
7. Abraham and Lot part company
   
8. The covenant with Abraham
   
9. Hagar and Ishmael
   
10. Prophecy of Isaac's birth
    
11. Naming of Beersheba
    
12. Jacob and Esau
    
13. Jacob at Bethel
    
14. Jacob's twelve sons
    
15. Jacob's name changed to Israel
    
16. Joseph sold and taken to Egypt
    
17. Moses summoned by YHWH
    
18. Moses and Pharaoh
    
19. The Passover
    
20. The Red Sea
    
21. Manna and quail
    
22. Water from a rock at Meribah
    
23. Theophany at mountain
    
24. The Ten Commandments
    
25. Kid in mother's milk
    
26. Forbidden animals
    
27. Centralization of sacrifice
    
28. Holidays
    
29. The spies
    
30. Heresy at Peor
    
31. Joshua appointed
    

A close study of these doublets and triplets will reveal a startling fact. Where doublets or triplets occur, each version of the story will use its own terminology. Moreover, this characteristic terminology extends consistently over the doublets and triplets. For example, one version of the creation account will use the same terminology as one version of the flood account. This indicates that the same author wrote both stories. Some of that terminology is below:

Contrasts between the sources:

1. Sinai/Horeb. It is clear that all four sources know of a mountain where the theophany and covenant occurred. J and P call it Sinai while E and D call it Horeb or "the Mountain of God". There is no exception to this rule in the 34 occurrences of this mountain.
   
2. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart. E uses the term kbd when describing the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (Ex 8:11, 28; 9:7, 34; 10:1) while P uses either hzq or qsh (Ex 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:12; 14:4, 8, 17).
   
3. The snake before Pharaoh. E uses the term nahas to describe the snake before Pharaoh while P uses the term tannin.
   

J's terminology:

1. Contains 11 of the 13 occurrences of skb (to lie with) when it is used as a euphemism for sex.

2. Contains all 7 occurrences of sb (to suffer).

3. Contains all 5 occurrences of yd (to know) when it is used as a euphemism for sex.

4. Contains all 6 occurrences of sheol (the abode of the dead).

P's terminology:

1. Contains all 11 occurrences of gw (to die).

2. Contains 14 of the 15 occurrences of the word ngp (plague).

3. Contains all (of the over 100) occurrences of the word edah (congregation).

4. Contains 67 of the 69 occurrences of the word nasi (tribal leader).

5. Contains 33 of the 35 occurrences of the word ahuzzah (possession).

6. Contains 22 of the 23 occurrences of "to complain" (lwn or telunot).

7. Contains 56 of the 59 occurrences of "cubit".

8. Contains all 11 occurrences of the phrase "gathered unto his people" as a euphemism for death (Gen 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29, 33; Num 20:24, 26; 27:13; 31:2; Dt 32:50 (twice)).

9. Contains all 3 occurrences of the phrase "fire came out from before YHWH" (Lev 9:24; 10:2; Num 16:35).

10. Contains all 8 occurrences of the phrase "and he/they fell on his/their face/s" (Gen 17:3, 17; Lev 9:24; Num 14:5; 16:4, 22; 17:9; 20:6).

11. Contains all 12 occurrences of the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4; Ex 1:7; Lev 26:9).

12. Contains 12 of the 13 occurrences of the phrase "YHWH's glory" (kebod yhwh) (Ex 16:7, 10; 24:16, 17; 40:34, 35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6) (Num 14:21 is in J).

13. Does not use the term "prophet" except for once (Ex 7:1) in a figurative sense.

14. Contains 11 of the 12 occurrences of the phrase "in that very day" (besem hayyom hazzeh).

15. Contains all 8 occurrences of the root dp.

16. Contains 8 occurrences of the word rekus (property) (Gen 12:5; 13:6; 31:18; 36:7; 46:6; Num 16:32; 35:3). Four other occurences are in Gen 14, an independent source (vv. 11, 12, 16, 21). The redactor uses the word once (Gen 15:14).

17. Contains 52 of the 53 occurrences of the phrase "as he commanded" in Gen-Num.

D's terminology:

1. Contains all 9 occurrences of the phrase "with all your heart and with all your soul" (Dt 4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:4; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10).

2. Contains 11 of the 12 occurrences of the phrase "lengthen your days in the land".

3. Contains all 13 occurrences of the following phrases: "to go after other gods" or "to turn to other gods" or "to worship other gods".

4. Contains all 12 occurrences of the phrase "listen to the voice of YHWH" (sm bqwl yhwh).

5. Contains all 10 occurrences of the phrases "the place where YHWH sets his name" or "the place where YHWH tents his name".

We can also note different characteristics between the souces:

1. The divine name. The names YHWH and El/Elohim occur more than 2000 times in the Pentateuch. Amazingly, there are only three exceptions to the rules laid out below.

* J. In J the divine name (YHWH) was known from the beginning of human history for Eve knows the divine name (Gen 4:1) and people invoked that name (Gen 4:26). Individuals in J's narrative may use the term El/Elohim but the narrator never uses the term except when it is used to describe the "sons of God" in Gen 6:2.

* E. In E the divine name is not revealed to humans until the time of Moses (Ex 3:13-15). There are two exceptions to this rule (Gen 28:21).

* P. In P the divine name is not revealed to humans until it is revealed to Moses. There is one exception to this rule.

2. The Tabernacle. J and D never mention the tabernacle. E mentions it only three times. But P mentions the tabernacle over 200 times. It is the only acceptable site for sacrifices. The major ceremonies and laws are carried out there and all the revelations after Sinai occur at the tabernacle.

3. The ark of the covenant. In J the ark is important to Israel's success (Num 10:33-36; 14:44-45) while in E it is never mentioned.

4. Cherubs. Cherubs appear in J and P but not in E or D.

5. Puns. J and E use a fair amount of word play and puns while P and D rarely use them.

6. The staff of Moses/Aaron. In E the the miracles are performed by the staff of Moses (Ex 4:2-5, 17, 20; 7:15-17, 20b; 9:23; 10:13; 17:5-6, 8). In P the miracles are performed by the staff of Aaron (Ex 7:9-12, 19; 8:1-2, 12-13; Num 17:16-26; 20:8).

7. Moses and Pharaoh. E develops a process of negotiation between Moses and Pharaoh in the plagues narrative while P does not.

8. The Egyptian magicians. P develops the role of the Egyptian magicians in the plagues narrative while E does not.

9. Human Leadership.

* P. In P the priesthood is of central importance. The only path to God is through the priesthood for only the priesthood has access to God through the Urim and Tummim. There are no prophets or judges. Moreover, the forgiveness of sins can only be obtained through sacrifices brought to the Aaronid priests. The words "mercy", "grace", "repentance", and "kindness" to do not occur in P. God acts mostly according to justice as opposed to according to mercy.

* D. In D priests, prophets, and judges all play a role in the religious health of the community. The priesthood is not limited to Aaronids but extends to all Levites.

P's characteristics:

1. No angels.

2. No talking animals.

3. No dreams.

4. No blatant anthropomorphisms.

5. There are no sacrifices before the consecration of the tabernacle and priesthood (Ex 40).

6. P regularly adds two major autumn holidays (Lev 16:29-34; 23:23-32; Num 29:1-11) to the standard list of three seasonal holidays contained in the other groups of texts.

7. Only in P are Aaron and Miriam called the brother and sister of Moses (Ex 6:20; Num 26:59).

8. Is the only source concerned with ages, dates, measurements, numbers, and precise instructions.

9. The Urim and Tummim are only mentioned in P and Dt 33:8.

When combined these points (and others not listed) support the JEPD theory.

[CSLewis]

Many scholars now consider JE together as a single narrative written by a "school" of authors spanning a long historical period- and not a single author.

These priestly and non-priestly collections that make up the Torah are traditions of thought not bound to a specific locale or author.

[Leonard]

What absurd drivel! Bean Counters!!! They put the cart before the horse. "If we find this word used, then we will attribute it to a different author." That is the most nonsensical ignorance ever foisted off on us as 'scholarship!'

Many years back I was reading an article about lawyers in Atlantic Monthly. It referred to lawyers variously as 'lawyers,' 'attornies,' 'barristers' and 'avocats.' Further, while it was a mostly serious discussion, there were scattered through the article comic, and mean jokes about lawyers. Therefore by the 'assured standards' of "Higher Criticism" it is absurd to believe this article was the work of one man. It must have been the work of at least 4 men! One who knew lawyers and 'lawyers.' One who knew them as 'attornies', a man (no doubt a Brit) who knew them as 'barristers' and an Italian who spoke of 'avocats.' Further the anti-lawyer humor shows that a later writer from a school of thought which QUESTIONED the role of lawyers, had produced a document (which--with tongue firmly in cheek, we will call "Q"!) the final redactor used in creating the hodge-podge Atlantic Monthly expected us to believe was the work of one man!

Well, doesn't THAT make EVERYTHING clearer??????

[Eliyahuw]

And the contradictions are as follows.

In one story there are 2 of every animal put on the ark.

In the other story, there are 2 of every unclean animal, and 7 of every clean animal.

is two of every animal not the same as 2 of every unclean animal and 2 out of the 7 clean animal??

Actually, there were 4 of every unclean animal and 14 of every clean animal. Notice it says 7 of every clean animal the male and his female.

same with the unclean.

At any rate theres no contradiction. if you take 2 of every animal, then it is the same as 2 of unclean and 2 of the clean. The extras were for sacrifices that were to be made as well as food for noah and his family.

In one story Noah sends out a dove, in the other one he sends out a raven.

7And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

NOTICE the simple little word Also in verse 8. that means he sent a raven, AND he sent a dove. no contradiction here!

In one story the flood lasts 40 days and 40 nights.

In the other story the flood lasts 300 days.

5And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

IF you look at verse 5, 10 months is equal to around 300 days. the flood ended when the tops of the mountains were exposed!

[Tubal-Cain]

What absurd drivel! Bean Counters!!! They put the cart before the horse. "If we find this word used, then we will attribute it to a different author." That is the most nonsensical ignorance ever foisted off on us as 'scholarship!'

You're attacking a straw man argument and not the actual argument put forth. Scholars begin by noting that Moses could not have written the Torah as we now have it. Then they note the doublets and the discrepancies which point to multiple authors. The common terminology and characteristics in the doublets then leads them to believe note that four main sources were used in composing the Torah.

[Leonard]

What absurd drivel! Bean Counters!!! They put the cart before the horse. "If we find this word used, then we will attribute it to a different author." That is the most nonsensical ignorance ever foisted off on us as 'scholarship!'

You're attacking a straw man argument and not the actual argument put forth. Scholars begin by noting that Moses could not have written the Torah as we now have it. Then they note the doublets and the discrepancies which point to multiple authors. The common terminology and characteristics in the doublets then leads them to believe note that four main sources were used in composing the Torah.

And you obviously did not read my entire post. In 7 years of seminary I studied modern criticism ad nauseum and drew my Theological degrees with high academic honors.

It is humbug!

[Tubal-Cain]

And you obviously did not read my entire post.

I did read your whole post. I did not comment on your supposed analogy because it is not an apt analogy since you misrepresent Friedman's argument.

In 7 years of seminary I studied modern criticism ad nauseum and drew my Theological degrees with high academic honors.

An appeal to authority is not a valid argument. Furthermore, Friedman's academic resume and professional experience would mean he has more authority than you do. Clearly this is not the route you want to take.

It is humbug!

Then please demonstrate it as such. You initially said: "One very common Rabbinical way of writing is to first give 'the big picture' without much detail, and then to GO BACK, and focus very tightly on the 'important' part of the big story, and write about it with great detail, without bothering much about the big story." How about taking a few minutes and showing how the flood narrative fits that description because I don't see it?

[Leonard]

How about we don't bother. Over the course of more than 30 years of Ministry, and academic work, I have learned that if someone is looking for an excuse to ignore all or part of God's Word, no amount of mere reason will help. It is a moral decision.

[Tubal-Cain]

How about we don't bother. Over the course of more than 30 years of Ministry, and academic work, I have learned that if someone is looking for an excuse to ignore all or part of God's Word, no amount of mere reason will help. It is a moral decision.

I'm not looking to ignore any part of God's word (how did you reach that conclusion?). I'm looking for an intellectual reason as to why you reject the JEPD theory and how you explain the flood narrative. I have no problem reconciling Christianity with the JEPD theory nor do many other people.

[CSLewis]

How about we don't bother. Over the course of more than 30 years of Ministry, and academic work, I have learned that if someone is looking for an excuse to ignore all or part of God's Word, no amount of mere reason will help. It is a moral decision.

Such as the Reformers who annulled the word of God?

No one is saying we should ignore it- just understand it.

Tubal-Cain quoted a plausible theory and if the attorney example word game is all you can come up with in response to JEPD theory - I would side with the validaty of the JEPD theory.

I assure you - I have only been a christian for three years and only have one degree and that is in chemistry not in Hebrew or archaeology - so I rely on other scholars for understanding. Leonard with 30 years of academic work and ministry to boot - you definately have my respect - surely you could humor us with a better rebuttal than that? Or point us in a direction of a credible source that disagrees with the multiple authorship of the Torah- because I cannot find one.