The Documentary Hypothesis

[ebia]

Your characterisation of me as "fundamentalism" is false. I also am committed to Scripture and N T Wright and Richard Bauckham have been a great help in helping me understand Scripture, as have D A Carson, Craig Blomberg and Craig Evans, along with former professor of history and exegete from Macquarie Uni, Sydney, Paul Barnett.

Your labelling me in your understanding of "fundamentalism" is both false and misleading.

Oz

I wasn't labeling you as a fundamentalist, but responding to your attempt to label me as a theological liberal. Note the conditional word UNLESS in my post. I deliberately choose Wright and Bauckham because I know they are shared reference points.

 

[OzSpen]

I wasn't labeling you as a fundamentalist, but responding to your attempt to label me as a theological liberal. Note the conditional word UNLESS in my post. I deliberately choose Wright and Bauckham because I know they are shared reference points.

I sincerely apologise for associating your posts with that of theological liberalism if that is not your view. I do believe I was the one to encourage you to read Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans 2006). Have you read Bauckham's work of 2007, The Testimony of the Beloved Apostle (Baker Academic)?

You say that your thinking is along the lines of N T Wright, John Goldingay and Richard Bauckham and then you stated:

Since we are talking about the Pentateuch we'll take John Goldingay - evangelical Anglican scholar who takes scripture very seriously, as God's word and decries himself as a "bible believing Christian".

Would you describe yourself as an evangelical, Bible-believing Australian Anglican who believes and affirms the fundamentals of the faith as summarised in the Nicene Creed?

Sincerely, Oz

 

[ebia]

I sincerely apologise for associating your posts with that of theological liberalism if that is not your view. I do believe I was the one to encourage you to read Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans 2006). Have you read Bauckham's work of 2007, The Testimony of the Beloved Apostle (Baker Academic)?

You say that your thinking is along the lines of N T Wright, John Goldingay and Richard Bauckham and then you stated:
Would you describe yourself as an evangelical, Bible-believing Australian Anglican who believes and affirms the fundamentals of the faith as summarised in the Nicene Creed?

Sincerely, Oz

I wouldn't call myself evangelical particularly.

I haven't read testimony of the beloved disciple. I have started reading his "gospel women", but my printed books are all boxed up for house moving.

 

[OzSpen]

I wouldn't call myself evangelical particularly.

I haven't read testimony of the beloved disciple. I have started reading his "gospel women", but my printed books are all boxed up for house moving.

If you are not an evangelical and you state that you are not a theological liberal, how would you describe your theological views?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'm concerned about the characterization of liberals as interested in undermining Scripture. I suppose there are liberals and liberals, but typical mainline preachers and members are as committed to Scripture as conservatives.

Hendrick,

You obviously don't live in my part of the world.

Oz

 

[ebia]

If you are not an evangelical and you state that you are not a theological liberal, how would you describe your theological views?

Oz

Why do I need to?

 

[OzSpen]

I did qualify what I said by using the word 'acceptable'. There are any number of hypotheses but there are not 'acceptable' by recognized scholars.

You mean "recognized scholars" that are acceptable to your theological views?

Would you ever accept the theological views of OT scholars such as Walter Kaiser Jr, P. C. Craigie, Roddie Braun, and H. C. Leupold?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Why do I need to?

You are free to choose what you want to write on CF, within the boundaries of Forum rules.

Answering the question would help me to understand from where you are coming in some of your theological comments. However, you can remain a closed book on this issue. That's your choice.

Oz

 

[ebia]

You are free to choose what you want to write on CF, within the boundaries of Forum rules.

Answering the question would help me to understand from where you are coming in some of your theological comments. However, you can remain a closed book on this issue. That's your choice.

Oz

I think the people I've named - especially Wright & Goldingay - give a much more precise answer than any labels I might use.

 

[Timothew]

I had to study the documentary hypothesis in my old testament class back in college.
It seemed to put a lot of emphasis on speculation, regarding the names of God. It assumes that one writer couldn't possibly use both the name YHWH and the term Elohim. Why not? I didn't buy the theory then, and I still don't.

If the pentateuch were originally four separate documents, why weren't any of these manuscripts found? If they were, then that would be convincing evidence. Without achaelogical evidence, the rest is merely speculation.

 

[wayseer]

If the pentateuch were originally four separate documents, why weren't any of these manuscripts found? If they were, then that would be convincing evidence. Without achaelogical evidence, the rest is merely speculation.

They were never found because they were probably never written.

We are talking oral history here.

They were only written when scholars decided to write them - probably during the Babylonian exile when Israel needed to have some concrete material to support them in their exile. What these scholars did was knit together various oral traditions which they held which were now in danger of being lost.

What the DH argues is that these oral stories originated from different traditions - different sources - in much the same way as the gospel writers bought their stories together. These oral sources were given the names JEPD as they seem to represent a particular way of referring to God.

 

[jd01]

The assumptions of source and redaction criticism have been the subject of a lot of scholarly (and sometimes heated) debate and criticism down through the years. JEDP is just another example of source & redaction criticism and its many problems.



D. A. Carson has written a scholarly article that critiques redaction criticism, . Part of what Dr. Carson wrote about source criticism was:
While he was discussing NT source criticism, the application is just as penetrating for the OT, including the Documentary Hypothesis.

Source & redaction criticism is not with out its limits for sure, Mr. Carson does a good job at poking holes in the early uses of the tool, scholarship has since moved away from the late community based sources to earlier person sources in the case of the Gospels. But JEDP is supported by more than source & redaction criticism; history, archaeology, linguistics etc ... which is what makes it so compelling.

By the way, you are just as capable as I at using Google to locate whether or not Whybray offered a competing hypothesis.

True. His hypothesis is that a single author assembled the five books from recent fragments in the 6th century. He regarded the Pentateuch as pure fiction. His only deviance from JEDP was a rejection of the multiple sources redacted over time. He still places most of the composition in and around King Josiah's time.

There is a competing hypothesis (the NT used as an example) but I can't imagine that you will be too impressed with its most obvious hypothesis: Grudem, Wayne A. "Scripture's Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture". Edited by D. A. Carson & John D. Woodbridge. Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983. I have a copy of this article and book.

Here is an online. The most obvious hypothesis that, in my view, is far superior to JEDP is Scripture's self-attestation. The Scriptures tell us in an inductive study of Scripture how Scripture was given to holy people of God who were moved upon by God to give us the theopneustos (breathed out by God) Scripture. That's the most sound hypothesis that has lots of scriptural backing.
Oz

Oz, if you really believe self-attestation trumps all other forms of research then you must also believe the Koran is what it claims to be and not a jumble of 7th century tribal religious literature.

 

[hedrick]

Source & redaction criticism is not with out its limits for sure, Mr. Carson does a
Oz, if you really believe self-attestation trumps all other forms of research then you must also believe the Koran is what it claims to be and not a jumble of 7th century tribal religious literature.

Furthermore, self-attestation only confirms Scripture as inspired by God. Despite the NIV's bizarre translation of "inspired" into "God-breathed", inspiration does not dictate a specific way in which Scripture was assembled, nor even inerrancy as the term is currently being used.

 

[Timothew]

Furthermore, self-attestation only confirms Scripture as inspired by God. Despite the NIV's bizarre translation of "inspired" into "God-breathed", inspiration does not dictate a specific way in which Scripture was assembled, nor even inerrancy as the term is currently being used.

That's a very literal translation of θεόπνευστος.

Strong's Greek Dictionary

theopneustos: God-breathed, i.e. inspired by God​

Original Word: θεόπνευστος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: theopneustos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-op'-nyoo-stos)
Short Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God
Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God.

given by inspiration of God.
From theos and a presumed derivative of pneo; divinely breathed in -- given by inspiration of God.

 

[hedrick]

Except when you look at actual usage, this is an over translation. Equivalent to translating goodbye as if people actually meant God be with you. Inspired by God, certainly.

 

[OzSpen]

I think the people I've named - especially Wright & Goldingay - give a much more precise answer than any labels I might use.

ebia,

You don't seem to know what Tom Wright calls his own theological views when you say that you don't want to be identified as an evangelical. What is N. T. Wright's position regarding evangelical Christianity?

Rowan Williams, (hardly known for his own evangelical persuasion) gives this recommendation of N. T. Wright's magnificent exposition, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press 2003), on the rear cover:

No one could read this without learning something fresh about almost every verse of the Synoptics, and being provoked into new wrestling with the test … an Evangelical energy that will make it a book for prayerful meditations as well as intellectual stimulus (emphasis added).

You may not like what Tom (N T) Wright calls his own theological perspective. He unashamedly calls himself an Anglican evangelical, but you don't want to be identified as an evangelical. However, you want to be associated with Tom Wright's theological perspective. This is what Tom Wright said about his own view of his theological position:

I believe that to call myself an evangelical Anglican, and/or an Anglican evangelical, is not to precipitate an identity problem, let alone a crisis, but rather to place myself at that point on the ecclesiological map where I am free to learn how to be a Bible person, a Gospel person, a Church person (emphasis added).[1]

What does this mean to your views? It seems that your perspective, not wanting to be associated with an evangelical theology, is contradictory to that of Tom Wright.

This article associates N T Wright with the "open evangelical" movement.

Ridley Hall at Cambridge University, where Wright has taught, gives this explanation of the meaning of 'open evangelical':

We are unashamedly evangelical in our commitment to the authority of Scripture, the need for personal faith, the uniqueness of Christ and the free gift of eternal life for humankind only through his death on the cross. We recognize the truth of orthodox Christian belief as expressed in the early Creeds of the Church. We are open in a number of ways:

Open to the world around us. If we are to communicate the Gospel effectively we must be engaged in a process of "double listening" to the Bible and to the world, hearing the questions and the insights of others around us, and working to hear the message of the scriptures in the light of this.
Open to God's work in other Christian traditions. Evangelicals do not have a monopoly on the truth, and through partnership and dialogue we seek to be open to learn from what God has done and is doing in other parts of His Church. This refers to other Christians in our own Western setting, but must also increasingly include the voices of our fellow believers in the Two-Thirds World.

Open to playing our full part within the Church of England. Following the lead set by the National Evangelical Anglican Congresses at Keele in 1967 and Nottingham in 1977, Open Evangelicals are committed to involvement in the structures of the Church of England and to making a significant constructive contribution to the direction of the Church's life. And finally.

Open to God saying new things through the Bible and His Spirit. Being under the authority of scripture means we may need to be ready to change our mind as we understand more fully.
​

So, in identifying with the theology of Tom Wright, are you distancing yourself from identifying yourself from being an Anglican evangelical, when you say that you are not an evangelical. If so, you are not associating with the theology of Tom Wright as he defines his own theology - evangelical.

Sincerely, Oz

Notes:
[1] Tom Wright 1980. "Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for contemporary Evangelicalism", available at: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf (Accessed 30 December 2011).

 

[ebia]

ebia,

You don't seem to know what Tom Wright calls his own theological views when you say that you don't want to be identified as an evangelical. What is N. T. Wright's position regarding evangelical Christianity?

Rowan Williams, (hardly known for his own evangelical persuasion) gives this recommendation of N. T. Wright's magnificent exposition, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press 2003), on the rear cover:

You may not like what Tom (N T) Wright calls his own theological perspective. He unashamedly calls himself an Anglican evangelical, but you don't want to be identified as an evangelical. However, you want to be associated with Tom Wright's theological perspective. This is what Tom Wright said about his own view of his theological position:

What does this mean to your views? It seems that your perspective, not wanting to be associated with an evangelical theology, is contradictory to that of Tom Wright.
http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1_2317
This article associates N T Wright with the "open evangelical" movement.

Ridley Hall at Cambridge University, where Wright has taught, gives this explanation of the meaning of 'open evangelical':

So, in identifying with the theology of Tom Wright, are you distancing yourself from identifying yourself from being an Anglican evangelical, when you say that you are not an evangelical. If so, you are not associating with the theology of Tom Wright as he defines his own theology - evangelical.

Oz
[1] Tom Wright 1980. "Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for contemporary Evangelicalism", available at: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf (Accessed 30 December 2011).

I know Tom Wright's position very well. I've read about half his books, listened to the vast majority of his lectures,...

I'm not distancing myself from anything, I'm declining to use a particular label.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, if you really believe self-attestation trumps all other forms of research then you must also believe the Koran is what it claims to be and not a jumble of 7th century tribal religious literature.

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

 

[OzSpen]

I know Tom Wright's position very well. I've read about half his books, listened to the vast majority of his lectures,...

I'm not distancing myself from anything, I'm declining to use a particular label.

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

 

[OzSpen]

Furthermore, self-attestation only confirms Scripture as inspired by God. Despite the NIV's bizarre translation of "inspired" into "God-breathed", inspiration does not dictate a specific way in which Scripture was assembled, nor even inerrancy as the term is currently being used.

God-breathed is a better translation than "inspired", but I agree with you that "God-breathed" (NIV) is not as accurate as it could be. The ESV, "breathed out by God" is more accurate for theopneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16.

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.

Oz