Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible? Essay Example

Friedman identifies Ezra as R, the person who edited together JE, D, and P. He also identified J, E, and D as having been written by Jeremiah and Baruch. In addition the Deuteronomistic History were two editions written by the same person, and P was written during reign of Hezekiah. These clues were used to identify this theory.

One of the major arguments in favor of seeing the editor as an Aaronid priest is that there was a major shift between focus from Moses as the leader of the Israelites to Aaron, Aaron seemed to have greater tendency and ability to directly indicate to the reader how the faith should be practiced, and based on the way the text was written, Aaron was generally held in higher esteem.

Cross still believes that the Documentary Hypothesis or modified forms of it are correct in identifying the authorship of P. However, Friedman’s view is discussed above in question one. Friedman was not satisfied with the Documentary Hypothesis and associated evidence as proof. Therefore, he conducted additional studies, and believes the fact that the books were independently authored and then brought together by Ezra best accounts for the evidence that scholars have identified as clues.

A major piece of evidence that is used to support a connection specifically with Ezra is due to the historical accounts concerning Ezra’s role as a priest and rule in Jerusalem. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are characteristic of Ezra’s work, and this is also used as evidence. From these books, it is easy to determine the style he would have used in this compilation. According to Friedman and other supporters of this theory, these characteristics are consistant.

The major guideline that Ezra used in combining his sources was to create the text into a single narrative. However, in doing so, many of the discrepancies that are noted today had been created. Unfortunately, there were points of confusion and repetition. However, the repetition that had occurred is indicative of a compilation attempt because it is evidence that the writer or compiler had knowledge of what was written in the other books. This could only have occurred at a point in time in which all of the books had already been written.

As mentioned above, the results that came from combining the various sources into one document was not without error. Since the books did not originally read as a straight narrative due to the differing authorships and need to combine several different writing styles, there were points of confusion and repetition. However, one can assume that Ezra’s compilation actually reduced some of the confusions that were in place initially because he was one of the first bible scholars to read through all of the books and attempt to draw connections between them.

The view presented in this book may actually enhance our appreciation for the Bible rather than detract from it because it helps us understand the complexity behind how it was written. This helps spark many scholarly thoughts about the bible and will help scholarly research continue. It also helps us recognize that the bible was written over time and by man, and it is important to determine the source of the statements that were contained within it. Ultimately, there is a lot left to learn and understand.