JEDP theory

[StThomasMore]

What do you guys think of the JEPD theory of the study of the OT? I just got the book "Reading the Old testament: An Introduction" by Lawrence boadt. And some of the historical-critical areas can border on the line of heterodox teachings at times. Such as the parts that Genesis was almost "copied" from other cultures and Noah's ark. Boadt bases his discussions of the Torah on the theories of Julius Wellhausen, a 19th century German rationalist who doubted the "authenticity" of the Torah

Does anyone think the historical critical approach is going a little to far in some seminary books and readings? At times it seemed like Father Lawrence boadt didn't even think the OT was inspired and that the book of Jonah was in a category of "Hebrew comedy". Or maybe I'm just too used to TAN and Ignatius's publications writing style and am being too sensitive?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

The "Historical-Critical Method" is a load of hetereodox hullabaloo; it's very conducive to heresy. As Pilgrim stated in the other thread, such a "historical critical" method was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Providenttissimus Deus: Providentissimus Deus

It de-constructs and rips apart Scripture; it is the path towards agnosticism and abandonment of Christianity.

 

[ebia]

What do you guys think of the JEPD theory of the study of the OT? I just got the book "Reading the Old testament: An Introduction" by Lawrence boadt. And some of the historical-critical areas can border on the line of heterodox teachings at times. Such as the parts that Genesis was almost "copied" from other cultures and Noah's ark. Boadt bases his discussions of the Torah on the theories of Julius Wellhausen, a 19th century German rationalist who doubted the "authenticity" of the Torah

Does anyone think the historical critical approach is going a little to far in some seminary books and readings? At times it seemed like Father Lawrence boadt didn't even think the OT was inspired and that the book of Jonah was in a category of "Hebrew comedy". Or maybe I'm just too used to TAN and Ignatius's publications writing style and am being too sensitive?

My limited experience of Catholic seminary/university biblical studies is that it's actually a bit behind where the scholarship is at. Some of the details of a lot of these theories have proved to definite; they tried to say too much and without sufficient provisionality. We can be pretty certain (say) that Genesis 1 was written as a refutation of Babylonian creation myths, and that the flood story borrows from other ancient near-eastern flood stories, but (say) the exactitudes of JEPD can't be definitively answered in the way that some of the texts of a couple of decades ago thought they could. General biblical scholarship has moved on to being considerably more circumspect in what it says about such things, Catholic seminaries seem to be lagging behind there somewhat.

I've only read bits of Boadt so I can't comment on his particular position, but an historical understanding of how the texts came about and what their actual genres are does not undermine their God-breathedness any more than realising that each has a human author does.

 

[AMDG]

I remember Boadt. I have one of his books. One of the Bible Studies at my parish was based on that book. From that study, got a chance to learn that what the Church had been teaching for two thousand years was....wrong.

 

[Davidnic]

Some of it, like theories on authorial sources, is fine. And some of it has the problems you mention. On the whole it goes too far on many things. About 20% of it is very useful. 25% interesting and can go either way. and the rest...well, you summed it up in your concerns.

 

[SolomonVII]

What do you guys think of the JEPD theory of the study of the OT? I just got the book "Reading the Old testament: An Introduction" by Lawrence boadt. And some of the historical-critical areas can border on the line of heterodox teachings at times. Such as the parts that Genesis was almost "copied" from other cultures and Noah's ark. Boadt bases his discussions of the Torah on the theories of Julius Wellhausen, a 19th century German rationalist who doubted the "authenticity" of the Torah

Does anyone think the historical critical approach is going a little to far in some seminary books and readings? At times it seemed like Father Lawrence boadt didn't even think the OT was inspired and that the book of Jonah was in a category of "Hebrew comedy". Or maybe I'm just too used to TAN and Ignatius's publications writing style and am being too sensitive?

It may explain some of the history and literary devises used. What it cannot explain is the essential connectivity found again and again between the different stories and traditions.

Lectures - Rabbi David Fohrman: Guided Adventures in Jewish Text

 

[StThomasMore]

well at times while I was reading boadt's book it almost felt like he made Yahweh to be just "another god(lowercase emphasis)" among all the other pagan gods of the time.Although the author "acknowledges" the Bible is divinely inspired, in fact many of his assertions tend toward undermining that very statement

The author, specialized in the Old Testament (OT), reveals at the beginning his guiding principle, the instruction given by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu; accepting the OT as divine revelation yet taking into account these truths that can be deduced scholarly about the authors, the modes of writing

But it seems at times he goes a little too far and makes it seem that the bible was fully reliant on pagan cultures and competing gods of other towns. When he brings up oral tradition during the OT, he uses words like "fairy tales" and "legend mythologies". I understand the historical-critical view of the bible is a part of its study, but it seems at times it can go so far as to questioning the bible inerrancy and making it seem that it is a book of collected pagan traditions that the Israelites worked out for themselves so they could have their own God. Other parts claim that Moses might not even have been the author, but a source that was more compiled by later prophets like Ezra and Nehemiah.

 

[ebia]

well at times while I was reading boadt's book it almost felt like he made Yahweh to be just "another god(lowercase emphasis)" among all the other pagan gods of the time.Although the author "acknowledges" the Bible is divinely inspired, in fact many of his assertions tend toward undermining that very statement

The author, specialized in the Old Testament (OT), reveals at the beginning his guiding principle, the instruction given by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu; accepting the OT as divine revelation yet taking into account these truths that can be deduced scholarly about the authors, the modes of writing

But it seems at times he goes a little too far and makes it seem that the bible was fully reliant on pagan cultures and competing gods of other towns. When he brings up oral tradition during the OT, he uses words like "fairy tales" and "legend mythologies". I understand the historical-critical view of the bible is a part of its study, but it seems at times it can go so far as to questioning the bible inerrancy and making it seem that it is a book of collected pagan traditions that the Israelites worked out for themselves so they could have their own God. Other parts claim that Moses might not even have been the author, but a source that was more compiled by later prophets like Ezra and Nehemiah.

In can be a legitimate part of scholarly writing to write purely as an historian, setting aside one's faith assumptions and the truths one holds to be true but which are not part of the historical method. That doesn't mean one is denying those truth, but they are not part of the type of study one is trying to present. Just as a scientist writes from purely scientific methodology regardless of his faith position, so can an historian.

 

[AMDG]

In can be a legitimate part of scholarly writing to write purely as an historian, setting aside one's faith assumptions and the truths one holds to be true but which are not part of the historical method. That doesn't mean one is denying those truth, but they are not part of the type of study one is trying to present. Just as a scientist writes from purely scientific methodology regardless of his faith position, so can an historian.

Maybe if they are Protestant, but with Catholics, their religion is to be thoroughly integrated throughout their being. It's who they are. It cannot be "compartmentalized".

 

[StThomasMore]

Maybe if they are Protestant, but with Catholics, their religion is to be thoroughly integrated throughout their being. It's who they are. It cannot be "compartmentalized".

yea thats the hard part for me. I have trouble dissecting up the OT because it seems too sterile and compromises what the book is actually supposed to be about. I remember hearing on person say that one catholic study book he had even said that the exodus probably didn't even happen or exist.

It seems at times, getting too much into the OT can hurt ones faith because there is so much historical-critical literature out there that many people just deduce it to fables or myth. I can understand the issue of things like Creation in 6 days not being a scientific proposition and more a compartmentalized and periodic analogy, but then some books go as far to say things like the Exodus never existing, or the story of Jonah being "Hebrew comedy", Moses not being the author, the non-existence of heaven, the OT being recycled pagan traditions, etc.

 

[StThomasMore]

Maybe if they are Protestant, but with Catholics, their religion is to be thoroughly integrated throughout their being. It's who they are. It cannot be "compartmentalized".

ok, that is weird,

cause I just used the word compartmentalized too at a very similar time to your post, lol

 

[Gwendolyn]

This is the theory I learned in my Scripture studies. It didn't destroy my faith or sterilise my studies. On the contrary, it brought the previously confusing (to me) Old Testament to life.

 

[Davidnic]

This is the theory I learned in my Scripture studies. It didn't destroy my faith or sterilise my studies. On the contrary, it brought the previously confusing (to me) Old Testament to life.

Me too, and taught well it is very effective. But taught badly it can be abused. It really depends on the teacher.

 

[AMDG]

ok, that is weird,

cause I just used the word compartmentalized too at a very similar time to your post, lol

Guess it means that we've both been exposed to Boadt.

 

[MoreCoffee]

READING THE OLD TESTAMENT by Lawrence Boadt was copyright in 1984, that makes its likely writing date a year or two before that and the scholarship from which it drew probably several years before that ... maybe from the 1970s. That makes it about 40 years old, and being 40 years old it is likely that some changes in opinion have developed in scholarly circles since it was written.

I have the book and I've read it cover to cover. On the whole it was very helpful - especially in dispelling some "evangelical/protestant" perspectives on the nature of the bible, its role in faith and life, and its authorship. So I wouldn't dismiss Boadt's work as a challenge to orthodoxy and I wouldn't accept his view as orthodoxy either. He writes as a scholar of this times and a Catholic in seminary (or elsewhere) ought to take everything that scholars write with a few grains of salt. After all, if you want to maintain an orthodox Catholic perspective on sacred scripture then Dei Verbum should be your first port of call (after the bible itself).

God bless.

 

[SolomonVII]

Other parts claim that Moses might not even have been the author, but a source that was more compiled by later prophets like Ezra and Nehemiah.

Probably true.
Moses would certainly not have been the author of the parts that describe his death.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Moses could not have written in Hebrew letters because the Hebrew alphabet was invented at least a few centuries after Moses' death. So if Moses wrote anything it would not be written in the alphabet that Hebrew manuscripts contain - at best anything he wrote would be surviving as a transliteration from some other form of script into Hebrew script and more likely anything he wrote would need to be translated (at a later date) into Hebrew by some Hebrew speaking/writing scholars of that day ....

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

My limited experience of Catholic seminary/university biblical studies is that it's actually a bit behind where the scholarship is at. Some of the details of a lot of these theories have proved to definite; they tried to say too much and without sufficient provisionality. We can be pretty certain (say) that Genesis 1 was written as a refutation of Babylonian creation myths, and that the flood story borrows from other ancient near-eastern flood stories, but (say) the exactitudes of JEPD can't be definitively answered in the way that some of the texts of a couple of decades ago thought they could. General biblical scholarship has moved on to being considerably more circumspect in what it says about such things, Catholic seminaries seem to be lagging behind there somewhat.

I've only read bits of Boadt so I can't comment on his particular position, but an historical understanding of how the texts came about and what their actual genres are does not undermine their God-breathedness any more than realising that each has a human author does.

Catholic seminaries keep up with it pretty well actually.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The "Historical-Critical Method" is a load of hetereodox hullabaloo; it's very conducive to heresy. As Pilgrim stated in the other thread, such a "historical critical" method was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Providenttissimus Deus: Providentissimus Deus

It de-constructs and rips apart Scripture; it is the path towards agnosticism and abandonment of Christianity.

That's simply not true. It is a problem for people that have preconceived notions about what the bible is and can't tolerate the idea that old myths about its construction are as true as the words themselves.

The historical-critical method gives us great insights into scripture.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Regarding Moses, the Torah ends:

"Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated. So the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses came to an end.
Now Joshua the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him; and the sons of Israel listened to him and did as the LORD had commanded Moses. Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, for all the signs and wonders which the LORD sent him to perform in the land of Egypt against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land, and for all the mighty power and for all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel."

So, did Moses write this??

It is must more interesting to see the different authorship that went into the Torah. The Northern and Southern influence, the priest editors, etc.