Resurrection (for poobah)
Ray and Sandy Briggs brite1@inetworld.net
Mon, 01 Feb 1999 21:22:13 -0800 (00917954533, 199902020522.VAA12326@inet1.inetworld.net)
----------
>From: Jason Filley <jfilley@primary.net>
>Cc: errancy@infidels.org
>Subject: Re: Resurrection (for poobah)
>Date: Mon, Feb 1, 1999, 4:29 PM
>
>> Poobah wrote:
>> >So in #1 above, you must show why your reading is more credible than the
>> >JEDP hypothesis.
>>
>> Ray:
>> Although I snipped most of your post, it was a good one (as usual). But I
>> have a suggestion. Although the JEDP hypothesis is well founded, it is more
>> than required here. In Genesis, only the JE part is required and I believe
>> it is less controversial than the full blown hypothesis. Just a suggestion
>> so our inerrantist friend cannot quote from some authority questioning the
>> whole theory when the (at least) dual authorship of this part of Genesis is
>> so obvious.
>>
>> Regards, Ray
>
>JASON
>J & P.
>
>The five books of the Torah each begin with a Priestly section.
>E (as set forth by Richard E. Friedman, anyway) contains the following
>texts:
>
>Genesis
>20:1-18
>21:6, 8-34
>22:1-10, 16b-19
>25:1-4
>28:11b-12, 17, 18, 20-22
>30:1b-3, 4b-24a
>31:1, 2, 4-16, 19-48, 50-54
>32:14-33
>33:1-20
>35:1-8, 16-22
>36:31-43
>37:2b, 3b, 5-11, 19, 20, 23, 25b-27, 28b, 31-35
>38:1-30
>39:1-23
>42:1-4, 8-20, 26-34, 38
>43: 1-13, 15-17, 24-34
>44:1-34
>45:1, 2, 4-28
>46:5b, 28-34
>47:1-6, 11-27a, 29-31
>49:1-27
>50:1-11, 14-23
>
>Exodus
>1:8-12, 15-21
>3:1, 4b, 6, 9-18
>4:1-18, 20b, 21a, 22, 23, 27-31
>5:3 - 6:1
>7:14-18, 20b-21a, 23-29
>8:3b-11a, 16-28
>9:1-7 13-34
>10:1-19, 21-26, 28, 29
>11:1-8
>12:24-27, 29-36, 37b-39
>13:1-16, 17-19
>14:11-12, 19a, 20a, 25a
>15:20, 21, 25b, 26
>17:2-16
>18:1-27
>19:2b9, 16b, 17, 19
>20:18-26
>21:1-27
>22:1-30
>23:1-33
>24:1-15a, 18b
>32:1 - 33:23
>
>Numbers
>11:1-35
>12:1-16
>21:4b-9
>22:2 - 24:25
>
>Deuteronomy
>31:14, 15, 23
>33:1
>34:1-6
>
>E doesn't have a creation story.
>
>Genesis 1:1-2:3 = (P)
>Genesis 2:4b-25 = (J)
>
>Regards,
>Jason
Ray:
My mistake. I should have said JP not JE. I have also read "Who Wrote the
Bible" by Friedman. I was thrown off by the fact that Elohim is used in the
P version. Friedman does say (pg 52) that the P source had been hidden
within the earlier identified E sources.
I didn't say what I meant very well anyway and maybe it isn't important
either. My point was that if you say there are two creation stories (G1 and
G2) and tie it to the JEPD hypothesis, then it appears to be dependent upon
that hypothesis. But even if this hypothesis had never been developed, the
fact that these two creation stories use a different name for God stands on
its own as being a very strong argument that they are from different
authors.
Regards, Ray
>
>
>