Yuku free message boards

This is a 19th century Chrstian hypothesis that was long ago debunked. It is called JEPD and was based on some goyim who don't realize that G-d has many names so they assumed that His being called different names was from different religions and authors at different times. Totally comes from ignorance, but what doesn't?

JEPD was dreamed up by a German named Wellhausen and his dates were way off. There is nothing to support JEDP -- it is simply a theory, and one that archeology has disproved. Found a good explanation of the theory on a blog:

Wellhausen published all this into a book in 1878. His book revolutionized the study of the OT and the Pentateuch in particular. The theory works like this: the Pentateuch was either composed or compiled (or both) shortly before Alexander the Great conquered the known world around 330 BC. This theory divides the Pentateuch into four separate sources:

"J". J is the HaShem text. In other words, the portions that refer to G-d, predominantly as HaShem's most sacred name. This is the majority of the text of the Pentateuch. This is supposed to be from Judah.

"E". E is the Eloh-im text. In other words, the portions that refer to G-d, predominantly as Eloh-im. There is not much text from "E" and it supposedly preserves Northern Israelite belief.

"D". D is Deuteronomy. "D" is thought to be composed during King Josiah's reign (640s - 600ish BCE). "D" is a pure legal code that exalts Jerusalem.

"P". P is the Priestly text. It was thought to be the latest, post-Exile (444 BC forward) and concerned with only the Temple rituals.

To recap, the theory says that all these documents/sources were pulled together around the time of King Josiah, edited, and then VOILA! You have the OT! And the purpose was to provide religious validation of the monarchy of Judah.

This theory became the bedrock or backbone to all Biblical scholarship of the 1900's. You could compare JEDP's effect on Biblical scholarship the way Darwin's theory of evolution has had on biology, geology, and astronomy. It was presumed that the JEDP theory was accurate and it became an assumption by scholars. This directly contradicted traditional Chrstian and Jewish belief that the Pentateuch was written totally by Moses. As time went on, JEDP became a standard part of seminary and religious school education. Now whether or not it was taught as fact in every school, I don't know. But typically it receives at least an introduction in probably all schools. I remain open to correction on that statement.

And since it became a standard part of seminary and religious school education, JEDP made its way into the pulpit. How does this look? If the Pentateuch (& the OT) is a propaganda production of King Josiah, how can we trust the text? Is it reliable? What part is original and what part was "doctored"? JEDP focused on the supposed DISUNITY of the text and its "origins" not on its purpose to faith. Heretofore, there hasn't been an alternative taught to those budding pastors as to how to handle the Pentateuch/OT. So, pastors stopped teaching from/on the OT. It may be referenced, but is no longer a consistent part of preaching the Word of God. The Pentateuch/OT is now believed to be confusing and messy, rather than being a cohesive text whose purpose is to uphold faith in the God of Israel. So, pastors more or less ignored the OT and perhaps even made fun of its difficult names.

Over the years, more conservative leaning scholars began to debate the validity of JEDP. Various methods of studying the text of the Pentateuch came about (such as the canonical approach or the literary approach) and archaeological finds forced adjustments as well.

In the 1970s a silver scroll was discovered that dates from the 7th century BCE (2700 years ago) and it shows the priestly benediction from Leviticus and text from Deuteronomy together long beforeWellhausen's theoretical "Deuteronomist" existed. This disproves the JEPD all in one fell swoop.

The silver scrolls contain portions of the Shema (Hear O Israel! from Deuteronomy 6:4) and the Aaronic priestly blessing (HaShem bless you and keep you… Lev. 6:22-24). The Leviticus portion is from the "P" text which was supposed to be after the Exile. But, here it was in a PRE-Exilic tomb. And here they are together from Leviticus AND Deuteronomy.

It shows that these two examples from two different books, proposed to be from two different "sources" are found prior to the Babylonian Exile, in the 7th century BCE. Here are silver scrolls from 700 BCE (2700 or so years ago) found by Gabriel Barkay and destroying completely Wellhausen's JEPD theory except that people of course don't bother to LEARN the facts. Here is one of the scrolls:



The JEPD theory is total balderdash. All this person is spouting is a theory -- and one that has been disproven.

NP. Lots of the JEPD crowd questioned the dating on the silver scrolls -- but scientific dating squashed them like a bug. USC's West Semitic Research Project, used very sophisticated photographic and computer enhancement technologies to let the script on the scrolls be read more easily -- these tests let the scrolls be more accurately dated. USC published its results in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) in 2004. The article stated that the scrolls were dated prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE and thus earlier than the exile.

There is no doubt the silver scrolls pre-date the Babylonian exile. The JEPD is just a theory that has failed the test of time.

Yonah, it is like a duckling who imprints on the first thing it sees as its "mother." They've been told the JEPD is the truth -- not that it is just a theory. Ergo they bend over backwards to find ways to prove it and make it fit an ever changing archeological proof.

It reminds me of some Seventh Day Adventists I once knew (great people BTW, they really believe in helping others) -- they were joking that originally their religion said the Jsus would "come back" on October 22, 1844. When that didn't happen they just changed the rules!

Although these silver scrolls were discovered in the 1970s they were a subject of controversy (mostly by the JEPD crowd) saying they couldn't POSSIBLY pre-date the exile until this definitive testing a mere five years ago.

Now since JEPD has been around for a hundred plus year it is going take time for the "word to get out" -- and even then many will deny it, simply because they've been imprinted with the JEPD doctrine.

There was a time people said there never was a King David, and then stones were found with his name on them, and possibly even his palace!

The idea of national revelation and the transmission of Torah from father to son for 3500 years in an unbroken chain of transmission by KNOWN people with living descendents is such an aberation compared to the anonymous religions most follow that they have to come up with SOME way of saying "it isn't true."

Rebbecca that is total BS.

Where is the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 2000 years ago? It isn't there any more than it is there today!

The "300 prophecies" are all based on things taken out of context or mistranslations -- the very things we deal with here day in and day out. Passover has always been held on Nisan 15. We eat unleavened bread. Yet the GT has Jsus eating LEAVEN during his Passover Seder. So on and so forth.

Check out There are no prophecies about Jsus in the Jewish Bible -- let alone 300! It doesn't cover all the distortions, but it addresses many of them. Start with 300 Prophecies, NOT

I the second thread I quoted this article From Jewsweek note the part on Hosea 11 that you mentioned. I made it large so it was easy to spot.

300 missionary Messianic prophecies: proofs or spoofs?

A former missionary gives us a crash course in fending off those who want to convert the Jews.

by Gavriel Aryeh Sanders March 4, 2003

During a recent lecture on why I embraced Judaism, someone bluntly asked how I could deny Jsus as the Jewish messiah, seeing that he fulfilled some 300 Old Testament prophecies. I responded with a classic story of the Maggid of Dubno.

There was once a man hiking in the forest who marveled to see a number of arrows shot into the center of a series of bull's eyes scattered about on several tree trunks. Wandering further, he found an archer, leaning against a tree. "You shot all those perfect shots?" the hiker queried. "Indeed", boasted the archer, "and would you like to see how I do it?" He stood erect, fired an arrow into a nearby tree, then grabbed a pail of whitewash and painted a bull's-eye around the arrow. What appeared to be proof of greatness was actually a clever spoof.

When applied to the 300 Old Testament prophecies Jsus allegedly fulfilled, we encounter incident after incident of painted proofs, also known as post hoc reasoning (in which causality is ascribed to preceding conditions which were in fact irrelevant to the supposed effect).

As a former missionary, I often repeated this mantra about 300 fulfillments. I believed it because I believed what "they" told me to believe, not because the primary textual evidence really supported it. On closer examination, especially from the Hebrew, my proof texts dissolved into spoof texts.

Missionaries commonly create proof texts by taking a passage from the Hebrew Scriptures out of its clear and consistent context. And they know better. I recall studying hermeneutics, the science and art of biblical interpretation, during my early years of theological training. Let me take you back to a classroom discussion of the fundamentals of interpreting a text.

The passage or words must be studied in context.

The first context is the material that immediately precedes and follows the passage under consideration. "A text without a context is a pretext."

[Rev. E.P.] Barrows stated,

"To interpret without regard to the context is to interpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach falsehood for truth" (Barrows, Companion to the Bible, 531). [Barrows, a professor of theology at Oberlin Seminary, wrote in 1868.]

Question: Did we practice what we preached?

Answer: No. The evidence is widespread and well documented. (Here are four quick online resources to bookmark for further study: The Messiah Truth Project; Torah Atlanta; Jews for Judaism; Outreach Judaism.)

I'll offer two classic examples here, keeping in mind that there are scores of others.

First, is the Virgin Birth (a popular notion of mystery cults which pre-date Chrstianity, by the way). The classic proof text is Isaiah 7:14 wherein G-d is to give King Ahaz a "sign". Missionaries say this verse predicts the sinless conception and miraculous birth of Jsus Chrst. However, the clear context of the passage shows that Isaiah is giving King Ahaz (8th cent. BCE) contemporary assurance that a threatening northern alliance between the kingdom of Israel and Syria will be vanquished.

The "sign" is that these enemies will be defeated before a certain child, born to a young woman known to both Isaiah and King Ahaz, reaches maturity. This is precisely what happened according to Jewish history. A child born 700 years later, miraculously or naturally, would not be any comfort to Ahaz. The missionary conclusion of this passage illustrates the principle that "a text without a context is a pretext". Next time the missionary quotes you Isaiah 7:14, ask for a quote from Isaiah 7:13 or 7:15 or even 7:1. Odds are, they won't know it.

I will go on record that as a missionary I never paid any attention to the context of this passage either. I did get very uncomfortable when knowledgeable Jews pointed out the spoof in my proof, so I'd counter with a flimsy appeal to the "dual significance" of the text. Neither my colleagues nor I practiced Dr. Barrow's hermeneutical principle cited above to flesh out the clear meaning of Isaiah 7:14. Why? Because it would neutralize our "proof". Parenthetically, I know of a former "Torah observant Messianic missionary" who came home to Judaism because of a careful and thorough study of the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Another classic passage is Hosea 11:1, which when cited in Matthew 2:15, reads, "Out of Egypt I called my Son" (notice the subtle inference of the capital "S"). Missionaries say this verse predicts baby Jsus' own ascent from Egypt after Joseph and Mary spirited him there to escape a massacre of infants in Bethlehem by Herod.

Let's apply Dr. Barrow's principle to the full citation from Hosea 11:1, which reads, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." For those who read Hebrew, the original says, "Ki na'ar Yisrael v'ohaveyhu umi'mitzrayim qarati livni." According to the context of the verse itself, who is the son? It is Israel. The following verses of Hosea 11:2, 3 support that this is not the context of a messianic prophecy, but rather speaks of Israel as a people.

Hebrew poetry frequently employs a literary technique called parallelism (haqballah), which is more a rhyming of ideas than words. Phrase A will restate or reinforce Phrase B using variant terms. As much as one-third of the Hebrew Bible is written this way. Hosea 11:1 contains elements of haqballah wherein the "child" (na'ar) of Phrase A parallels the "son" (ben) of Phrase B.

Furthermore, in many missionary reference editions of the Bible there is a link between Hosea 11:1 and Exodus 4:22: "And thou shall say unto Pharaoh, Thus said the L-rd, Israel is my son, even my firstborn." You can't have it both ways. The "son" can't be Israel in Exodus and then Jsus in Hosea. . .

There are many more, including:

Leviticus 17:11 on blood atonement,
Genesis 3:15 as the Protevanglium of the Virgin Birth,
Daniel 9:24-27 on the "cut off" messiah,
Psalms 2:12 about messiah being the man-god, and
Psalms 22:16 about messiah's hands and feet being pierced, which "hints" at crucifixion.

These and more, when examined in context, shed their Chrstological skin.

For twenty years, I supported the "proofs" of these 300 passages. Echoing the guru of missionary apologetics, Josh McDowell, I believed the only conclusion one could reach about Jsus is that he was "liar, lunatic, or L-rd". There is a fourth option, of course, -- without an alliterative "L" -- he was a composite of frustrated hopes and fears spanning many years, whose prophetic distillations emerged from the cut-and-paste data mining of fervent believers.

This was a tough conclusion for me to embrace. I had to get hit over the head several times before the message got through. I hadn't believed in those 300 prophecies because they were true. They were true because I believed in them. So many texts -- so little context.

There is good news in all this. Many missionaries, evangelicals, and messianics are learning to apply Dr. Barrow's simple hermeneutical guideline: to interpret contrary to the context is to teach falsehood for truth. In an attempt to convince Jews that their version of Chritianity is the only truth, many missionaries are learning Hebrew, examining rabbinic sources, and seeking to understand what the Hebrew texts say without the coloration of New Testament glasses.

Beginning with the premise that "the New is in the Old concealed, while the Old is in the New revealed," many of these missionary researchers are coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that "what's true isn't new and what's new isn't true".

As a result, the Noachide movement is expanding; simultaneously, a steady stream of former messianic Jews are becoming ba'alei teshuvah (returnees to Judaism). And not a few devoted evangelicals are actually converting to Judaism. (Ironically, their former colleagues explain their traitorous migration by declaring that these souls "were never really saved".)

However, they are discovering what Torah Jews have quietly held all along, that the signs of messianic fulfillment are not matters of belief but knowledge. We know that G-d spoke to some two million of us at Mt. Sinai, giving us a covenant that would have no additions or deletions. We know that messiah is not a deity incarnate (another pre-Chrstian pagan idea), but a righteous ruler whose arrival will be visible to the entire world and who will establish global peace and the universal knowledge of G-d, with the Jews dwelling in a redeemed land with a rebuilt Temple. These are not matters of subjective faith but demonstrable reality.

Copyright © 2005 Blue Star Media All rights reserved

Mordochai, as brilliant as the Rambam was (and there is no question of that), he was a 12-13th century man of the common era. He simply wrote as if Jsus was real, but he had no more way of knowing if he WAS real than you or I.

I do not think that Daniel (and there is debate as to whether he was a prophet or not, there is no debate that the book of Daniel is in Ketuvi'im and not Nevi'im), was speaking of Jsus. Rambam may have interpreted some of it as such, but although I agree that Chrstianity is a great deception and stumbling block.

True, but that isn't one of the 300+ the Chrstians claim is it!