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.
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.
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.
Thanks, but my library is already huge. Is there a website summarising his argument somewhere? Briefly, what is the limit?
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?
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.
Formats
Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover -- $1,098.50 $169.99
Paperback -- -- --
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.
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?
God can't work through a process of development and redaction?Sayre said: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?