The Documentary Hypothesis

[ebia]

Tom Wright is unashamed to label himself as an evangelical, but you want to support his views but don't want the evangelical association.

But I do note your icon that tells us your political views. OK for you to associate with the Australian Greens but not OK to associate with Australian evangelicals, even Anglican evangelicals.

Oz

I don't choose to use the label about myself. I'm not a big fan of labels.

I'm not a member of the green party either.

I have been an active member, including Warden and lay-preacher, in an evangelical parish for the last few years. I've also been teaching Catholic RE. I'm comfortable in both contexts.

 

[hedrick]

The term "evangelical" means something different in the US and elsewhere. In the US it normally implies inerrancy. Outside it does not. N T Wright does not hold the positions being defended here by evangelicals. He also tends to be more liberal politically than US evangelicals (although there's a growing liberal evangelical wing).

As far as I can tell his views on things such as the Trinity are similar to mine: that some kind of Trinity is inevitable, but that the 4th and 5th Cent formulation is not.

My sense is that if you take all of his positions together you get something closer to the mainline churches in the US (the actual mainline churches, not the fruitcakes used as the basis for anti-mainline propaganda). The main difference I see is that he does not accept homosexuality.

 

[OzSpen]

The term "evangelical" means something different in the US and elsewhere. In the US it normally implies inerrancy. Outside it does not. N T Wright does not hold the positions being defended here by evangelicals. He also tends to be more liberal politically than US evangelicals (although there's a growing liberal evangelical wing).

As far as I can tell his views on things such as the Trinity are similar to mine: that some kind of Trinity is inevitable, but that the 4th and 5th Cent formulation is not.

My sense is that if you take all of his positions together you get something closer to the mainline churches in the US (the actual mainline churches, not the fruitcakes used as the basis for anti-mainline propaganda). The main difference I see is that he does not accept homosexuality.

I lived for 7 years in the USA, so I'm familiar with the breadth of meaning when one uses the term, evangelical. I'm old enough to remember the turmoil in the Southern Baptist Convention over inerrancy/errancy in the 1970s, when I lived there (late 70s & early 80s). It is a false designation to label all evangelicals as supporting the inerrancy position on Scripture, although I support inerrancy.

There are some in the evangelical churches here in Australia who wouldn't know their clear views on the nature of Scripture. However, most would have a high view of the authority of Scripture.

My understanding is that N. T. Wright, as an Anglican evangelical, does not support inerrancy - but he is from the UK.

Oz

 

[jd01]

This amounts to a challenge that has no validity. The God of Islam is not the God of Judeo-Christianity.

You can try that one on someone else.

Oz

If you are a rational person with no preconceived notions how do you distinguish the Bible from the Koran based on self-attestation? Self-attestation means we have to believe every book and person who 'claims' to be written/inspired/breathed etc etc by God. How in the world is self-attestation useful?

 

[Steve Petersen]

I think there is something to the notion that there are different authors of the Pentateuch. IIRC, there is even a ancient Jewish tradition that Ezra the scribe collated several competing manuscripts.

I have noticed that some elements of the Torah seem very primitive and others quite sublime. To me this suggests writings from different periods in Israel's religious history, as their religion matured from pure superstition to more philosophical.

 

[OzSpen]

If you are a rational person with no preconceived notions how do you distinguish the Bible from the Koran based on self-attestation? Self-attestation means we have to believe every book and person who 'claims' to be written/inspired/breathed etc etc by God. How in the world is self-attestation useful?

It is not the only method of proof. I recommended Wayne Grudem's article, "Scripture's self-attestation and the problem of formulating a doctrine of Scripture", in D A Carson & John D Woodbridge (ed), Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1983, 1992. it was to determine the doctrine of the Christian Scriptures.

You have falsely made some assumptions about what I wrote, that we have to believe the claims of every book and person that claims to be inspired. That's not what I said and it is an illogical extension of what I said. That is not what I wrote nor what I intended.

When we compare the Qur'an and the Bible, there are other factors to consider, including:
(1) The contrast between the nature of Jesus Christ and the nature of Mohammed.
(2) The doctrine of Yahweh God vs the doctrine of Allah. One is trinitarian and the other unitarian. There are other attributes that differ.
(3) The content of the alleged Scriptures. One example is Mohammed's revelation of Jesus Christ. Is it accurate when assessed by the Christian Scriptures?
(4) The date of Islamic revelation vs the date of OT and NT revelation.

Take a look at this contrast:

Quran – Jesus not crucified (4:157-159). Bible – Was crucified (Lk. 23:33).
The Quran, sura 4:157-159[1]

157. And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

158. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

159. There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them –
The Bible, Luke 23:33

"When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left" (NIV)


When one revelation contradicts the content of the other's revelation, we have a major issue with the accuracy and integrity of the Qur'an.


Oz


[1] Translated into the English Language,

By Marmaduke Pickthall, Retrieved on 20th October 2002 from:
al-sunnah.com

 

[wayseer]

You have falsely made some assumptions about what I wrote, that we have to believe the claims of every book and person that claims to be inspired. That's not what I said and it is an illogical extension of what I said. That is not what I wrote nor what I intended.

But it is a fair question that jd01 asked.

If you, or me, have no preconception, how do we tell one 'inspired' book is worthier than another such 'inspired' book?

How do we make any choice inspired or not?

It's a good question.

My response is - we generally make decision based largely on our own personal experience. While we may take on new ideas and concepts, it is not until such ideas and concepts become part of our experience that we accept them. But in order to do this we must be open to new ideas and concepts - most aren't.

 

[RefCath]

The JEDP Documentary Hypothesis is nothing more than an hypothesis. No such J E D P documents have ever been found. They are a human invention when the Scriptures state that Moses wrote down the words of the Lord in the Pentateuch (e.g. Ex. 17:14; 24:2; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:22, 24). Joshua wrote the words in Joshua (e.g. John 24:26). For other details of authorship, see 1 Sam. 10:25; 1 Chron 29:29; 2 Chron 9:29; 12:15; 13;22; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32.

Hi Oz, the DH is an hypothesis attempting to explain the development of the biblical text taking into account specific textual phenomena. For example, in Genesis 6-9 there does seem to be two stories having been combined. However, the traditional DH has been challenged and indeed very few biblical scholars adhere to it. Whybray offers a substantial critique of the DH however his solution is radical, like John Van Seters. Personally I'd go with Christoph Levin or David Carr. Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation is an excellent read.

 

[RefCath]

My understanding is that N. T. Wright, as an Anglican evangelical, does not support inerrancy - but he is from the UK.

Most Anglican evangelicals would say that inerrancy is a non issue; some, influenced by Sydney Anglicanism would agree with inerrancy but they would be restricted to two or three university churches.

 

[jd01]

But it is a fair question that jd01 asked.

If you, or me, have no preconception, how do we tell one 'inspired' book is worthier than another such 'inspired' book?

How do we make any choice inspired or not?

It's a good question.

My response is - we generally make decision based largely on our own personal experience. While we may take on new ideas and concepts, it is not until such ideas and concepts become part of our experience that we accept them. But in order to do this we must be open to new ideas and concepts - most aren't.

Thank you. Exactly. Why pick the Bible over the Quran unless you have been raised and taught that the Bible is the one? It is no different for a billion Muslims who would pick the Quran. Which brings me back to my original question, starting with NO preferences, how do you craft an RATIONAL argument, to lead to one or the other. I believe evangelicals cannot or are unwilling to do so. The way forward is with smart ideas such as the DH, archaeology and continuous research, but that means having to accept the Bible, at least the OT, for what it appears to be, a collection of semi-coherent ancient Jewish religious literature and stop trying to square the circle and turn it into something that fits pre-conceptions.

 

[hedrick]

Thank you. Exactly. Why pick the Bible over the Quran unless you have been raised and taught that the Bible is the one? It is no different for a billion Muslims who would pick the Quran. Which brings me back to my original question, starting with NO preferences, how do you craft an RATIONAL argument, to lead to one or the other. I believe evangelicals cannot or are unwilling to do so. The way forward is with smart ideas such as the DH, archaeology and continuous research, but that means having to accept the Bible, at least the OT, for what it appears to be, a collection of semi-coherent ancient Jewish religious literature and stop trying to square the circle and turn it into something that fits pre-conceptions.

I don't think there's any completely objective way to choose between basic value systems. In many ways it's going to come down to what you think leads to the best life, and there are different visions of that.

Between Judaism, Islam and Christianity I think Christianity is a pretty obvious choice. While one would never have predicted it in advance, I think in retrospect it fulfills the best hopes of the prophets. The Quran strikes me as being roughly at the level of the OT (though not some of the prophets), and thus is a step backwards. It may still be from God, although not final in the way that Muslims believe, because for the Arabs it was a step forward, and may have been all they were ready for at the time.

Buddhism (which I take to be the most advanced of the "Eastern" religions) and agnosticism are a harder comparison, because they're not as directly comparable. Both look to me like ways of living a humane life if God didn't actually act in history as Christianity (and Judaism) claims. But I think he did. I don't feel the need to reject other religions completely. The Buddha may well have reached enlightenment. But if the Bible is credible, then I think it's a more complete guide to God's intentions.

I do agree that in order to make a decision, we need to understand as realistically as possible where the Bible comes from, and check it with external evidence as much as possible.

I often get the impression that conservatives don't think it will stand up to analysis, and thus want to rule out the user of external evidence from the beginning. Indeed a conservative that I know once said that explicitly.

 

[jd01]

I often get the impression that conservatives don't think it will stand up to analysis, and thus want to rule out the user of external evidence from the beginning. Indeed a conservative that I know once said that explicitly.

Well said Hedrick, I get that feeling as well even in these forums. And if what you believe does not stand up external evidence what hope is there of spreading the Gospel of Jesus to the ends of the earth?

I don't think there's any completely objective way to choose between basic value systems. In many ways it's going to come down to what you think leads to the best life, and there are different visions of that.

That is why we need a new project to promote Jesus (but not the Bible) based on an objective point of view. Else there is no hope of evangelizing.

 

[wayseer]

That is why we need a new project to promote Jesus (but not the Bible) based on an objective point of view. Else there is no hope of evangelizing.

The Ramkrishna Order does exactly that.

 

[OzSpen]

But it is a fair question that jd01 asked.

If you, or me, have no preconception, how do we tell one 'inspired' book is worthier than another such 'inspired' book?

How do we make any choice inspired or not?

It's a good question.

My response is - we generally make decision based largely on our own personal experience. While we may take on new ideas and concepts, it is not until such ideas and concepts become part of our experience that we accept them. But in order to do this we must be open to new ideas and concepts - most aren't.

It is not a fair question when jd01 distorted and misrepresented what I wrote. Go back to #13 to see exactly what I wrote.

As for "no preconception" you are introducing your own agenda. None of us has "no preconception".

However, before I determine the validity or otherwise of an "inspired" book, I want to know how reliable it is as a document. What criteria do you use to determine the reliability of the Bible or the Qur'an?

You might make decisions based largely on your own experience, that is not the case for many of my decisions. I seek to uncover objective information that allows me to assess the value, authenticity and reliability of any decision I make. My choice of buying a Toyota, Honda or Hyundai is not based on my own experience.

What criteria would you use to determine the historical reliability of the NT?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz, the DH is an hypothesis attempting to explain the development of the biblical text taking into account specific textual phenomena. For example, in Genesis 6-9 there does seem to be two stories having been combined. However, the traditional DH has been challenged and indeed very few biblical scholars adhere to it. Whybray offers a substantial critique of the DH however his solution is radical, like John Van Seters. Personally I'd go with Christoph Levin or David Carr. Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation is an excellent read.

RefCath,

This JEDP overview and brief refutation makes some valid points against the JEDP Hypothesis, “The J.E.D.P. Theory: An Explanation and Refutation” by Brian Davis of Xenos Fellowship. JEDP is designed by those who want to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and I will not have any of it.
I have a higher view of Jesus Christ than the JEDP folks seem to have, in my support of Mosaic authorship. Mr Miller wrote on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:

Livingstone summarizes the external evidence in PCE:218-219:

"The term 'the book of Moses,' found in II Chronicles 25:4; 35:12; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; and Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1, surely included the Book of Genesis and also testifies to a belief in Israelite circles in the fifth century B.C. that all five of the books were the work of Moses. Ben Sira (Ecclus. 24:23), Philo, Josephus, and the authors of the Gospels held that Moses was intimately related to the Pentateuch. Philo and Josephus even explicitly said that Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34:5-12. Other writers of the New Testament tie the Pentateuch to Moses. The Jewish Talmud asserts that whoever denied Mosaic authorship would be excluded from Paradise."​

To this may be added the explicit statements of Jesus:

• Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." (Matt 8.4)
• For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother,' and, `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' (Mark 7.10)
• "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. (Mark 10.5)
• Now about the dead rising -- have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? (Mark 12.26)
• "He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16.31)
• He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24.44)
• Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. (John 3.14)
• If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5.46f)
• 19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?" (John 7.19)
• Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." (John 7.21ff)

Thus, the external evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Mosaic authorship of the core substance (and most of the form) of the Pentateuch.

We have seen that the internal evidence for the antiquity of the Pentateuchal materials is exceedingly abundant, and that the external witness to Mosaic authority is virtually unanimous and very early. The main residual challenges to Mosaic authorship are in supposed historical inaccuracies (e.g. domestication of the camel), which I cannot go into now, but will later. The vast array of KNOWN historical points of validation, however, should engender a sense of humility in us, before judging this surprisingly accurate text as being in error!​

Mr Miller responded to an objector in ‘Was the Pentateuch “adulterated” by later additions?"’

Sincerely, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

..... That is why we need a new project to promote Jesus (but not the Bible) based on an objective point of view. Else there is no hope of evangelizing.

From where will you obtain this information, an objective point of view, that will give you an ACCURATE picture of Jesus that is outside of the Bible?

It was the Jesus of the Bible who told us to evangelise. See Matt. 28:19-20. So are your external sources more reliable than Jesus' command to evangelise and make disciples?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don't think there's any completely objective way to choose between basic value systems. In many ways it's going to come down to what you think leads to the best life, and there are different visions of that.

Lord help us if that is your subjective best way of determining the validity of the worldview of any belief system.

Any reasonable apologetics text or worldview assessment will give more objective criteria than that.

At least Winfried Corduan's 1993 publication has more objective criteria than you want to give in his Reasonable Faith: Basic Christian Apologetics. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers. His first 4 chapters deal with:

1. Faith, Reason, and Doubt;
2. Truth, Knowledge, and Relativism;
3. Knowledge: Some Important Components;
4. Knowledge: Testing Worldviews
5. Worldviews in Trouble

If I had your approach, I'd prefer to wine and dine for the rest of my days on the Whitsunday Islands of the Great Barrier Reef. That seems to meet your basic criterion: "what you think leads to the best life". Pulling in a few Mangrove Jack and Barramundi sounds like a bonza subjective experience for me.

Win Corduan has a more objective basis in "How to do apologetics", but I have a subjective hunch that this may not fit in with your worldview.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Most Anglican evangelicals would say that inerrancy is a non issue; some, influenced by Sydney Anglicanism would agree with inerrancy but they would be restricted to two or three university churches.

RefCath,

A leading British evangelical (although he has spent quite some time in Canada), J. I Packer, affirmed inerrancy of the Scripture. See, “J. I. Packer on why we need inerrancy”.

J. I. Packer is a man of substance in evangelical thinking and spent a lot of time teaching in UK theological schools until 1979. He is a leading evangelical writer in which he supports the inerrancy of scripture.

In Packer's book, Truth & Power (1996. Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, now available online) - I have the book - he has a section 'Authority and Inerrancy' (p. 45ff) in which he states:

In the realm of belief, authority belongs to truth and truth only. I stick to that. I can make no sense - no reverent sense, anyway - of the idea, sometimes met, that God speaks his truth to us in and through false statements by biblical writers.... I have reasoned about the authority of Scripture on the assumption that it contains God-taught truth throughout.....
Whereas Roman Catholicism officially held to full biblical inerrancy till the second Vatican Council, its scholars have recently swallowed a great deal of Protestant skepticism....

Biblical skepticism, even in small doses, has effects that reach further than career academics in their ivory towers sometimes see....

Once I too avoided the word inerrancy as much as I could....

It is under the authority of a fully trusted Bible, however, that Christ is most fully known, and this God-given freedom most fully enjoyed. Any degree of skepticism about the portrait of Christ, the promises of God, the principles of godliness and the power of the Holy Spirit, as biblically presented, has the effect of enslaving us to our own alternative ideas about these things, and thus we miss something of the freedom, joy and vitality that the real Christ bestows. God is patient and merciful, and I do not suggest that those who fall short here thereby forfeit all knowledge of Christ, though I recognize that when one adopts a skeptical attitude toward Scripture this may indeed happen. But I do maintain most emphatically that one cannot doubt the Bible without far-reaching loss, both of fullness of truth and of fullness of life. If therefore we have at heart spiritual renewal for society, for churches and for our own lives, we will make much of the entire trustworthiness — that is, the inerrancy — of Holy Scripture as the inspired and liberating Word of God (pp 45-55).

J I Packer, a British evangelical, knew the dangers of what happens when the full authority, the inerrancy of Scripture, is denied. We see evidence of this in many places in evangelical scholarship (It's expected in modernist and postmodernist liberal scholarship) here on Christian Forums.

I, for one, am not retreating from a defense of the inerrancy of Scripture. It is the only doctrine of Scripture that makes sense inductively from the self-attesting Scriptures. No matter how attractive JEDP, form criticism, source criticism and redaction criticism and an errant Scripture look to the sceptics on this Forum (I am not placing you in that category as you have not declared your view so clearly that I understand your perspective on Scripture), I will not go down that route. I have studied enough of the scepticism of, say, the Jesus Seminar, that I reaffirm my view that Scripture is self-attesting as to its inerrancy/infallibility.

Now that kind of statement will not make me popular on this Forum and I expect many rebuttals, but I'm not here to get accolades.

Oz

 

[wayseer]

It is not a fair question when jd01 distorted and misrepresented what I wrote. Go back to #13 to see exactly what I wrote.

I think it fair question and I don't think your post was distorted.

However, before I determine the validity or otherwise of an "inspired" book, I want to know how reliable it is as a document. What criteria do you use to determine the reliability of the Bible or the Qur'an?

Good question - the very question asked by jd01.

[

You might make decisions based largely on your own experience, that is not the case for many of my decisions. I seek to uncover objective information that allows me to assess the value, authenticity and reliability of any decision I make. My choice of buying a Toyota, Honda or Hyundai is not based on my own experience.

Huh? Are you suggesting your decisions are left up to car salesmen?

What criteria would you use to determine the historical reliability of the NT?

I have already responded to that question.

 

[wayseer]

Lord help us if that is your subjective best way of determining the validity of the worldview of any belief system.

Any reasonable apologetics text or worldview assessment will give more objective criteria than that.

I have yet to find one.

If I had your approach, I'd prefer to wine and dine for the rest of my days on the Whitsunday Islands of the Great Barrier Reef. That seems to meet your basic criterion: "what you think leads to the best life". Pulling in a few Mangrove Jack and Barramundi sounds like a bonza subjective experience for me.

An objective response? More emotional, or perhaps daydreaming.

Besides, are you suggesting fishing on the Barrier Reef is not a good way to past the time? Beats working.