Torah w/ J,P,D,E passages highlighted

[Darkside]

Does anyone know if there is a translation of the Torah that distinguishes between the J,P,D and E segments?

I realize that the exact split between the four documents is not agreed upon by all, but any reasonably scholarly work would be fine for my purposes.

[S.C.Carlson]

Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), does exactly what you are asking for.

[Darkside]

Perfect. Thank you.

[Dean Anderson]

I'd thoroughly recommend the above book. As well as the main body of the book - which is the text split as described above - there is an excellent introduction giving a thorough summary (is that an oxymoron?) of the evidence in favour of the Documentary Hypothesis.

I know that Professor Friedman is well liked on this forum - particularly for his ability to write for a lay audience - but does anyone know how representative he is of mainstream Textual Criticism?

[rob117]

I know that Professor Friedman is well liked on this forum - particularly for his ability to write for a lay audience - but does anyone know how representative he is of mainstream Textual Criticism?
His dating of J and E is generally considered a bit too early these days- most critics would date them to the 8th century rather than the 9th. Also his theory that J extends through Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and the first two chapters of 1 Kings is not accepted by most. Also he believes monotheism (not just monolatry) was present in Israel very early, a somewhat divergent opinion. A good discussion of Friedman by his colleagues can be found here. (http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.pl/000000A/http/www.basarchive.org/bswbSearch.asp=3fPubID=3dBSBR&Volume=3d15&Issue=3d2&ArticleID=3d14&UserID=3d0&)

Apart from those few quirks he is generally representative of mainstream text criticism.

[Joan of Bark]

I don't know how Friedmen can argue for an early monotheism in Judaism. As late as 2 Chronicles Solomon says: "The temple I am going to build will be great because our god is greater than all other gods." (2 Chron. 2:5)

[John Kesler]

I don't know how Friedmen can argue for an early monotheism in Judaism. As late as 2 Chronicles Solomon says: "The temple I am going to build will be great because our god is greater than all other gods." (2 Chron. 2:5)

The problem with citing this passage as proof of henotheism or polytheism is that it appears in the context of a letter sent to a friendly foreign leader, Hiram, king of Tyre, so it could be argued that Solomon was being tactful by not denying other gods' existence. It's interesting to note that the corresponding passage in 1 Kings 5 (http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/BIBLE/1KI/1KI5.HTM), which presumably was the Chronicler's source, does not contain the verse in question. Why, then, would the Chronicler add it? It's well known that the Chronicler omits some of the more unsavory aspects of David and Solomon's lives, and included in this is Solomon's idolatry; 1 Kings 11 (http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/BIBLE/1KI/1KI11.HTM) has no parallel in Chronicles. I think 2 Chronicles 2:5 is another attempt by the Chronicler to cast Solomon as one who maintained fidelity to Yahweh.

[Sheshbazzar]

That old horse that has been ridden so far down a dead end trail has now died, and its carcass is stinking, beating on it is futle, and will not revive it.

Turn, turn, turn back now.

[gregor]

thanks, Shesh. As helpful as always.

[Sheshbazzar]

Welcome.

[Dean Anderson]

His dating of J and E is generally considered a bit too early these days- most critics would date them to the 8th century rather than the 9th. Also his theory that J extends through Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and the first two chapters of 1 Kings is not accepted by most. Also he believes monotheism (not just monolatry) was present in Israel very early, a somewhat divergent opinion. A good discussion of Friedman by his colleagues can be found here. (http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.pl/000000A/http/www.basarchive.org/bswbSearch.asp=3fPubID=3dBSBR&Volume=3d15&Issue=3d2&ArticleID=3d14&UserID=3d0&)

A most fascinating discussion there - thanks for the link.

Apart from those few quirks he is generally representative of mainstream text criticism.

I should point out for the benefit of the OP, that these "quirks" don't affect the material in the book we recommended - which falls squarely (as far as I can tell) into the "generally representative of mainstream" area.

[Anat]

I must say it isn't easy to read patiently the ideas of people who think the biblical biography of David was contemporary and close to historical after having read Finkelstein and Silberman.