documentary hypothesis

[Sayre]

To what degree is Christian doctrine threatened by JEPD? Is it a deal breaker or not? I can't fathom how to reconcile the two.

 

[lesliedellow]

To what degree is Christian doctrine threatened by JEPD? Is it a deal breaker or not? I can't fathom how to reconcile the two.

I don't think it matters a great deal who wrote the Pentateuch; what matters is the theology contained therein.

 

[Sayre]

I don't think it matters a great deal who wrote the Pentateuch; what matters is the theology contained therein.

I'm not sure it is just that. The theology itself appears to have been evolved, and later edited. If it is true that the idea of a covenant is a late one, then Abraham (if he existed) didn't receive a covenant - or at least he didn't recognise it as such. Isn't the basis of our salvation the Abrahamic covenant?

 

[All Souls]

Subscribing

 

[All Souls]

Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism by William J. Abraham may be worth reading

 

[Sayre]

Thanks, but my library is already huge. Is there a website summarising his argument somewhere? Briefly, what is the limit?

 

[hedrick]

Technically it shouldn't be an issue. But in practice it's hard to maintain both the documentary hypothesis and inerrancy. Pretty much everyone who accepts the DH regards Gen 1 and 2 as not entirely consistent with each other. Inerrancy is the foundation of conservative Protestantism, so the DH is normally rejected by conservative Protestants. During the latter parr of the 20th Cent Catholics accepted critical Biblical scholarship. I believe most Catholic scholars today would be similar to non-conservative Protestants and secular scholars. I'm not sure the DH is universal there, but it's common.

 

[Sayre]

Technically it shouldn't be an issue. But in practice it's hard to maintain both the documentary hypothesis and inerrancy. Pretty much everyone who accepts the DH regards Gen 1 and 2 as not entirely consistent with each other. Inerrancy is the foundation of conservative Protestantism, so the DH is normally rejected by conservative Protestants. During the latter parr of the 20th Cent Catholics accepted critical Biblical scholarship. I believe most Catholic scholars today would be similar to non-conservative Protestants and secular scholars. I'm not sure the DH is universal there, but it's common.

Inerrancy is a dead duck and I don't consider it at all plausible. So how do those who accept DH (such as modern catholics) reconcile it with theology described in the most heavily edited, redacted books?

 

[All Souls]

Thanks, but my library is already huge. Is there a website summarising his argument somewhere? Briefly, what is the limit?

It's been a while since I read it, but basically he argues they are not in conflict

 

[Sayre]

Formats
Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover -- $1,098.50 $169.99
Paperback -- -- --

 

[All Souls]

Inerrancy is a dead duck and I don't consider it at all plausible. So how do those who accept DH (such as modern catholics) reconcile it with theology described in the most heavily edited, redacted books?

The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible and http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8HitAkYU9Y8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not sure it is just that. The theology itself appears to have been evolved, and later edited. If it is true that the idea of a covenant is a late one, then Abraham (if he existed) didn't receive a covenant - or at least he didn't recognise it as such. Isn't the basis of our salvation the Abrahamic covenant?

The basis of salvation is faith in Christ. I made a comment elsewhere on this site, that, to me, the New Testament is about salvation, and the Old Testament is about the need for it. Speaking very broadly of course.

In any case, reconstructing what happened more than two millennia ago is at best guesswork. Even amongst liberal scholars, there are nowadays at least two alternative hypotheses in circulation.

If you spend all your time worrying about how the Bible was put together, you will never get around to reading what it says theologically.

 

[Radagast]

The basis of salvation is faith in Christ.

Indeed. In that sense, most theology relies on the N.T. As to the need for salvation, we don't actually require the O.T. to tell us that it's necessary.

 

[All Souls]

Formats
Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover -- $1,098.50 $169.99
Paperback -- -- --

The US price seems somewhat prohibitive for a personal library; I think the thing to keep in mind is that there are many Christians who hold to biblical criticism, thus adherence to JEDP does not demand one to reject faith in Jesus. One example is the Reverend Professor Ernest Nicholson whose book on the Pentateuch can be previewed online.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To what degree is Christian doctrine threatened by JEPD? Is it a deal breaker or not? I can't fathom how to reconcile the two.

Not at all. It isn't a deal breaker.

How to reconcile? Yes, that is a tough one. I do it by not assuming that we know the full historiographical nature of the bible. In other words, in our modern era, we want to assume that it meant to be a straightforward historical account, somewhat like intelligent people would write to today. But that, I think, is a mistake. Besides the fact that the bible is a collection of different genres of literature, some of the earliest (i.e. Genesis) are more in the way of theological polemics in the shape of history. Add to this that it has indications of being somewhat an reworking of older documents (e.g. Book of Wars), as well as having been worked over by later individuals. The early essence, however, it still there.

That's my approach anyway.

 

[Sayre]

Not at all. It isn't a deal breaker.

How to reconcile? Yes, that is a tough one. I do it by not assuming that we know the full historiographical nature of the bible. In other words, in our modern era, we want to assume that it meant to be a straightforward historical account, somewhat like intelligent people would write to today. But that, I think, is a mistake. Besides the fact that the bible is a collection of different genres of literature, some of the earliest (i.e. Genesis) are more in the way of theological polemics in the shape of history. Add to this that it has indications of being somewhat an reworking of older documents (e.g. Book of Wars), as well as having been worked over by later individuals. The early essence, however, it still there.

That's my approach anyway.

It isn't that I don't believe you - but I don't see this in the church. I only see it in the halls of academia. What role does the bible play in the outworking of your faith?

 

[lesliedellow]

It isn't that I don't believe you - but I don't see this in the church. I only see it in the halls of academia. What role does the bible play in the outworking of your faith?

I don't see the problem. For the sake of argument, let's say that the JEPD hypothesis is correct, and that J was writing around 1,000BC. The world Abraham is depicted as inhabiting is that of the first half of the second millenium BC. Therefore, in writing about Abraham, J was either:

1.) Making stuff up, or

2.) Reworking earlier traditions.

One or the other must be true, and yet people who want to reject the first possibility seem also to want to reject the second possibility.

 

[ebia]

To what degree is Christian doctrine threatened by JEPD?

Not at all.

Not that anything as definite as JEPD is considered settled these days.

 

[ebia]

Inerrancy is a dead duck and I don't consider it at all plausible. So how do those who accept DH (such as modern catholics) reconcile it with theology described in the most heavily edited, redacted books?

God can't work through a process of development and redaction?

 

[Sayre]

God can't work through a process of development and redaction?

Sure he can - I said inerrancy was dead, not infallibility.