Please cite sources for JEDP "refutation(s)" or USEFULNE

peter_kirk at peter_kirk at
Mon Dec 13 20:33:06 EST 1999

I wonder if "refutation" is needed for the JEDP approach. Since this 
hypothesis is well over 100 years old and is largely dependant at the 
foundational level on a discredited model of the history of religions, 
I think the onus is on those who continue to assume JEDP to prove 
their case. So I would be more interested in seeing a thorough modern 
exposition of this theory, based on up-to-date arguments including 
linguistic analysis rather than appeal to 19th century authorities. 
Maybe Vince's work will lead him in this direction, or maybe towards a 
refutation - best of all, I would hope, a balanced reevaluation of the 

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Please cite sources for JEDP "refutation(s)" or USEFULNESS
Author:  <sundance at> at Internet
Date:    12/12/1999 11:41

> Ian Hutchesson wrote in part:
> There are lots of problems with the simple JEDP approach, but this doesn't 
> make the general approach mistaken, just details and complexity. JEDP has
> served its time and modern analyses have taken a lot from what it gave, but 
> moved on. I myself see parts of the so-called JE materials being written
> after D & P materials. The idea of a "refutation" seems to imply throwing 
> out the baby with the bathwater.

Please cite sources for JEDP "refutation(s)" - any URLs 
books, papers etc; examples will be appreciated -cheers 
Harold Helm <sundance at> USA ph. 713-529-2333

You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk at 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list