From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:59:25 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1199@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.130253.202956@uctvax.uct.ac.za> watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> |> 
> |> The standard results of textual criticism are that the Torah (not just
> |> Genesis) is a conflation of at least *four* major sources, usually
> |> called J, E, D, and P.  In addition, there is, of course, the Redactor
> |> (or redactors) who squished them all together.
> |> 
> |> Genesis 1 is either by P or D (P, I think).  Genesis 2 is by J.
> |
> |   Actually, Gen1 is E, for Elihoist; Gen2 is J, for Jahweist redactors.
> 
> Are you sure of that?  I could have sworn that the concepts developed in
> the first creation account were developed much later in time than the
> E text.  They really seem more appropriate for the Babylonian Exile era,
> which would make them P. (Certainly its textual base, a Babylonian poly-
> theistic creation myth would have been more easily accessed during the
> Exile than earlier).

It depends on which writer you prefer to follow. Ewald (1831) postulated Three
sources E(the main one), J(supplimentary) and D(late work). Hupfield (1853)
divided E into three sources E1, E2 and E3. Riehm recognised only E1 (the
earliest; NB that found in Gen1) and E2 (which he subsequently called P) which
was later than E1. Graf 1n 1866 postulated P(E2) was the LATEST document, then
three years later Kuenen postulated that J was older than E.Some one else (cant
remember off-hand) maintained that the E1 material in Gen1 cant be considered
as seperate from P, and since P is late, so too is Gen1 (hense the confusion as
to whether Gen1 is P or E, early or late - basically "youse pays your money 'n
youse take yuor choice"!

> 
> |Wellhausen's JEPD theory arose during the late 1800's, based on the (now
> |questionable) assumption of the archaeological and historical failure of the
> |Old Testament. It postulated the compilation of the Old Testament from various
> |sources thru' out Israel's history - the Eliohist and Jahweist being the
> |earliest, then the Priestly redactor was added, then the Deutoronomist source
> |at the time of the Monarchy (I don't have exact dates but ca.680BC I think)
> |The Deuteronomist redactor is the last in the line.
> 
> If so then it has certainly been largely revised.  J and E are certainly
> the oldest, but P is the latest, with D in between.

You are correct here (sorry about that - its been 4 years since I studied this
and I was going on memory - you don,t keep notes on the Documentary Theory in a
Chem Lab :-) ). I was confusing myself with some of the arguments over whether
D or P was latest, one of the points I remembered was that P material in
Leviticus was alluded to in D material in Deuteronomy ie. D must be older than
P. However P is now considered older. (It gets confusing doesn't it :-) ).
Gary
> The D material almost certainly originates at the time of the 'rediscovery'
> of a 'book of the law' under one of the later kings, with the revival it
> initiated.
> 
> The P authors were almost certainly the heirs of Isaiah during the the Exile.
> -- 

> Stanley.Friesen