What is the JEDP Theory?

They call this kind of criticism scientific. It surely has all the marks of so-called science. Speculation, uncertainty and complicated statements are the leading characteristics of this criticism. They claim now that the Pentateuch (the five books written by Moses) was never written by him, but that these books consist of four diverse documents. These they designate as follows: 1. The Jehovist. 2. The Elohist. 3. The Deuteronomist. 4. The Priestly Code. The authorship of Moses has been completely given up and it is claimed that the earliest part of the Pentateuch was written perhaps six hundred years after Moses' death. They put the date of the greater part of these five books after the Babylonian captivity.

"This view is supported by the fact that, even as it now stands the history sometimes gives more than one account of the same event, and that the Pentateuch often gives several laws on the same subject. Of the latter we have already had one example, but for our present argument the main point is not diversity of enactment, which may often be only apparent, but the existence within the Pentateuch of distinct groups of laws partly taking up the same topics. Thus the legislation of Exodus 20-23 is partly repeated in Exodus 34, and on the passover and feast of unleavened bread we have at least six laws, which, if not really discordant, are at least so divergent in form and conception that they cannot be all from the same pen (Ex. 12:1-28; Ex. 13:3-10; Ex. 23:15; Ex. 34:18; Lev. 23:5-14; Deut. 16.) Of historical duplicates the most celebrated are the twofold history of the creation and the flood, to which we must recur presently. The same kind of thing is found in the later books; for example, in the account of the way in which Saul became king, where it is scarcely possible to avoid the conclusion that 1 Samuel 11:11 should attach directly to 1 Samuel 10:16 (cf. 1 Sam. 10:7).

"The extent to which the historical books are made up of parallel narratives, which, though they cover the same period, do not necessarily record the same events, was first clearly seen after Astruc (1753 A.D.) observed that the respective uses of Jehovah (LORD) and Elohim (God) as the name of a deity afford a criterion by which two documents can be dissected out of the book of Genesis. That the way in which the two names are used can only be due to difference of authorship is now generally admitted, for the alternation corresponds with such important duplicates as the two accounts of creation, and is regularly accompanied through a great part of the book by unmistakable peculiarities of language and thought, so that it is still possible to reconstruct at least the Elohim document with a completeness which makes its original independence and homogeneity matter of direct observation. The character of this narrative is annalistic, and where other materials fail, blanks are supplied by genealogical lists. Great weight is laid on orderly development, and the name Jehovah is avoided in the history of the patriarchs in order to give proper contrast to the Mosaic period (cf. Gen. 17:1; Ex. 6:3) and, accordingly, we find that the unmistakable secondary marks of this author run through the whole Pentateuch and Joshua, though the exclusive use of Elohim ceases at Exodus 6. Of course the disappearance of this criterion makes it less easy to carry on an exact reconstruction of the later parts of the document; but on many points there can be no uncertainty, and it is clearly made out that the author has strong priestly tendencies, and devotes a very large proportion of his space to liturgical matters. The separation of this document may justly be called the point of departure of positive criticism of the sources of the Old Testament; and present controversy turns mainly on its relation to other parts of the Pentateuch. Of these the most important are: 1. The Jehovistic narrative, which also begins with the creation, and treats the early history more in the spirit of prophetic theology and idealism, containing, for example, the narrative of the fall, and the parts of the history of Abraham which are most important for Old Testament theology. That this narrative is not a mere supplement to the other, but an independent whole, appears most plainly in the story of the flood, where two distinct accounts have certainly been interwoven by a third hand. 2. Many of the finest stories in Genesis, especially great part of the history of Joseph, agree with the Elohim-document in the name of God, but are widely divergent in other respects. Since the researches of Hupfeld, a third author, belonging to northern Israel, and specially interested in the ancestors of the northern tribes, is generally postulated for these sections. His literary individuality is in truth sharply marked, though the limits of his contributions to the Pentateuch are obscure." — Ed. B. W. and R.

There are two systems in the main, if you take thoroughgoing destructives as Graf and others (De Wette grew somewhat more sober); that Deuteronomy was the first book written, and in Josiah's time, or a little before, but produced then by the high priest; and that the legal enactments of the Pentateuch were added after the Babylonish captivity, Moses' name being used to secure the priestly influence established in them. I suppose this is not inspiration.

"A comparatively large law-book was written (Deuteronomy, about B. C. 622); and this, in accordance with the ideas of the times, which demanded the authority of ancient sages and lawgivers, was ascribed to Moses … After various law-books had been written, they were all gathered up, sifted, and edited about the time of Ezra (B.C. 450), as one book. This is substantially our present Law (Tora), or Pentateuch. (pp. 6, 7.)

Kuenen is referred to in Supernatural Religion as a very able book. With sufficient contradiction to make their judgment of little worth, all these rationalists are in substance on the same ground. The Pentateuch is not a really historical book at all, but a compilation from a few old documents, partly made in the time of Judges, partly in David's or Solomon's reign, partly after the exile. There, at any rate, it received its priestly form. Every divine element is completely excluded; of course therefore, no prophecy. Hence, when events later than the professed date of the writing are found, it was written after these events. Jahve was the national god, but Monotheism was only that into which they gradually grew up (through a Semitic tendency). Some think Jahve (Jehovah) a Canaanitish god; at any rate it was one party, and a small one, who held to his exclusive worship; other gods being equally recognised, even in the Pentateuch, and by the best kings. One party would have fellowship with the Canaanites; another drive them wholly out.

190 I may mention two cases as specimens of their systems. As it is rejected as historically true, and what professes to be of Moses invented or legends, they try and compose a system, putting things together by the probabilities drawn from man's motives; rejecting all thought of any revelation of God - of course all prophecy and any mind of God in the matter. The whole is put together and compiled finally after the exile, with the object of exalting the priests and the authority of Jahve But I must give in my specimens:

They conjecture that these four suppositive documents were not compiled and written by Moses, but were probably constructed somewhat after this fashion: For some reason, and at some time, and in some way, someone no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, wrote Jehovist. Then someone else, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, wrote another document, which is now called Elohist. And then at a later time, the critics only know who, or why, or when, or where, an anonymous personage, whom we may call Redactor I, took in hand the reconstruction of these documents, introduced new material, harmonized the real and apparent discrepancies, and divided the inconsistent accounts of one event into two separate transactions. Then some time after this, perhaps one hundred years or more, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, some anonymous personage wrote another document, which they styled Deuteronomist. And after a while another anonymous author, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, whom we will call Redactor II, took this in hand, compared it with Jehovist and Elohist, revised them with considerable freedom and, in addition, introduced quite a body of new material. Then someone else, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, probably, however, about 525, or perhaps 425, wrote the Priestly Code; and then another anonymous Hebrew, whom we may call Redactor III, undertook to incorporate this with the triplicated composite Jehovist, Elohist, and Deuteronomist, with what they call redactional additions and insertions (Canon Hague).

In 1753, a French doctor, Jean Astruc, propounded the theory that because Genesis 1 used the word—“Elohim”—for God, and Genesis 2 used the words—“Jehovah Elohim”—for God, there must have been two original documents, which had been incorporated into one book. And who was Astruc? A free-thinker and a man of profligate life.

Jean Astruc in 1753 seems to have first suggested the chimera in his "Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux, dont il parait que Moise s'était servi pour composer le livre de Genèse," which appeared simultaneously at Brussels and Paris. He was a medical man of strong memory, wide reading, and mental activity, but totally devoid of depth or large views even in the science of his own profession. Yet a supposition equally shallow and easy of refutation, inadequate to meet the facts of the case, and barren of a spiritual thought or a godly feeling, drew after it not a few ingenious and learned Germans with their British and American admirers. For this but one circumstance accounts — the sceptical spirit that preceded and accompanied the last century of revolution. Astruc conceived a double set of longer documents by authors respectively Elohistic and Jehovistic, with nine or ten others of lesser extent, all independent. Even to give unity to such various materials was no small task. This some would assign to Moses: others are keen to bring down the unknown "redactor" or digester as late as is plausible by specious arguments. Of truth and divine design these daring speculators have no notion: God is in none of their thoughts. It is a trifle in their eyes to give the lie virtually to the Lord or any of the Twelve or Paul the apostle. To this their "higher criticism" speedily drags them down. It is a snare of the enemy.

A vast amount of learned labour has been lost in trying to account for the name of 'God' in Gen. 1 and 'Jehovah God' in Gen. 2, often ending with the conclusion that Moses must have had two or more earlier accounts of the creation before him — one called the Elohistic (which used the name of God) and the other the Jehovistic (which had Jehovah God), and that he copied first a piece of the one, and then a piece of the other. Surely this is a very unworthy conclusion to arrive at respecting the work of God by Moses! In Gen. 1 it is God as Creator; but in Gen. 2 He is in relationship with man, and this calls forth the name of Jehovah (as Jehovah was the name by which He was afterwards especially known to Israel. See Ex. 6:2-3.) The theory of Moses having copied from various documents, is carried all through the Pentateuch, and with many it has issued in the very sad result of undermining the inspiration of scripture, and attributing to the Lord, when He speaks of Moses having written the law, the use of the common tradition though it was not true!

We may well ask, Was there any occasion in all the literature of the world, when an editor produced a volume made up of the writings of twenty-two different authors, more or less, and succeeded in foisting them upon a whole nation as the writing of one of their greatest men, and received as such without question for many centuries? And yet, this is what we are asked to believe in the case of Moses and the Jewish nation.

We should suppose that men nearer the time would know more about it than German professors at this late date. Men—able men too—much nearer the time received the five books as of Mosaic authorship without question. We say well ask, Why is the Bible of all the books in the world singled out for such treatment?

The fact that Wellhausen’s twenty-two authors are all anonymous deepens suspicion. If such existed, they were wonderfully brilliant men to have produced among them the five books of Moses. There is absolutely nothing approaching them in ancient literature. But to believe that some editor, or redactor, pieced together the writings of twenty-two different authors, and made a coherent whole of them, so much so, that for centuries able men never suspected how the book was put together, would require infinitely more credulity to believe than it does to believe that God inspired Moses to write the five books, which bear his name.