I have an old copy of Peakes Bible Commentary (around 1970 or so) at home that I picked up in a second hand book shop for $10. It has a foreword by the archbishop of Canterbury. In the chapter on Genesis it sets out the two Genesis creation stories side by side to demonstrate the differences and expounds a theory of Genesis as an amalgamation of two sources by a third source. For example, the two sources use different words to refer to god. The second source uses Yahweh, translated in the RSV as Lord God, while the first uses the term god only. The sequence of events is different in chapter 1 to that put forward in chapter 2 and 3 (the split is in the middle of verse 4 of chapter 2). For example in the first story plants were created first and in the second man was created first.
I am not sure if this theory of the genesis of genesis is still in vogue or what stature it has in scholarly circles. Note I said scholarly circles - I am talking published papers in refereed journals here.
I’ve not followed this thread, but came across your comments here and thought I’d post a quick reply. The theory you refer to is called the Documentary Hypothesis, that should be enough to google some info on it. Basically it proposes a series of sources and redactors designated J, E, P, and D were responsible for the Pentateuch as we have it today. It has been a very influential theory through the early part of the 20th century and continues to hold sway in some parts of OT scholarship.
That being said, the theory is no longer as prominent as it once was. The rise of newer literary approaches to reading the Bible has recognised the hypothetical nature of the DH as well as identified literary connections between parts of the text otherwise designated as originating from disparate sources. Further, significant questions have been raised over the methodology used to undergird the DH.
There’s an immense amount of material covering the topic and if you’re really interested a visit to a theological library will provide ample reading. An important review of the methodology is R. N. Whybray’s The Making of the Pentateuch. IIRC, Robert Alter discusses the way that the DH undermines the literary characteristics of the extant text in his The Art of Biblical Narrative. Perhaps my favourite work on the matter is David Cline’s parody, “New Directions in Pooh Studies” which applies the same methodology to the Winnie the Pooh books. You can find it online if you search for it.
That being said, the theory is no longer as prominent as it once was. The rise of newer literary approaches to reading the Bible has recognised the hypothetical nature of the DH as well as identified literary connections between parts of the text otherwise designated as originating from disparate sources. Further, significant questions have been raised over the methodology used to undergird the DH.
I’m certainly not able to defend or critique the Documentary Hypothesis, but surely it’s reasonable to accept that at least some books in the OT are compilations from several sources? The classic example I’m aware of is the flood story in Genesis which seems almost certainly to be a compilation from two separate accounts (eg see http://imp.lss.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/history/flood.htm).
I’m certainly not able to defend or critique the Documentary Hypothesis, but surely it’s reasonable to accept that at least some books in the OT are compilations from several sources? The classic example I’m aware of is the flood story in Genesis which seems almost certainly to be a compilation from two separate accounts (eg see http://imp.lss.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/history/flood.htm).
The issue isn’t really about whether sources were used by the author or not, but about what significance we assign to them. Luke’s gospel, for example, implies the use of sources, but that doesn’t detract from the literary integrity of the final work. Proponents of the DH have traditionally implied that the final product lacks any literary plan and that the sources were combined in a somewhat haphazard manner. The problem with this, as I suggested above, is that subsequent literary analysis of the extant text has uncovered significance in the relationship between portions of the text which, under the DH, were assigned to different sources, often on the premise that they appeared not to fit together (when judged from a different set of criteria). The literary approaches thus undermine the methodology of the DH and further call into question the value of the task at all.
So while the DH does divide the flood narrative, others have sought to show that the product is not haphazard but a well integrated literary work. In light of this the significance and existence of sources is rightly subsumed under the intent of the author of the text we have received, since all sources are (at best) hypothetical.
I’m sure this is a red herring when it comes to the theme of this thread, and I didn’t mean to hijack it.
I am not aware of a substantive difference between literally and literallistically, except the the suffix ist suggests a personal noun, ie the first implies there is no human agency. A literal reading takes the words at face value without mysticism, allegory or metaphor.
Well what you are calling there is what I’d call literalistic, ignoring genre and assuming meaning can be derived purely from the words alone, which is really quite stupid. What I call literal takes into account the genres of the texts, metaphor and other figurative language, and which tries to understand the texts how they were meant by the authors, as something like history in the case of Genesis. You seem to be a proponent of an allegorical reading, with Genesis (at least 1-3) being unhistorical or ahistorical or not even related to history at all. But as I’ve been discussing with Owen, an allegorical reading of Genesis destroys our doctrine of sin. To be an orthodox Christian of any denomination you must have a correct doctrine of sin, which must have humankind created perfect and through the rebellion of one man been subjected to sin and death. If you want to take up Genesis, feel free to in that topic.
Now… JEPD… what a joke. Please do read the Pooh analogy. The theory was developed before the modern field of archeology really took off… evidence from clay tablets has led to other theories about the compostion of Genesis (Google toledoth.) More than that, the basis from breaking up theories is quite silly. For example… how are doublets evidence of different authorship?? Why would we assume Abraham wasn’t so foolish and lacking in faith to lie about Sarah twice? It seems a little circular too… how would you know that the ark is never in E (as wikipedia says) except by defining E as not having anything to do with the levitical sacrifices? The much better explanation is that the J passages are the ones about God’s covenant people - it uses Yahweh, has the ritualistic items and places and people.
This inconsistent application of rules makes me wary, and leads me to treat the purported basis as a post hoc justification of a particular ideological position.
No, it’s based on genre. Genesis is a narrative (the particular type may be up for debate), whereas Jesus spoke in parables most of the time. Even if he wasn’t, as Martin has shown the language clearly indicated metaphor, and to make it non-figurative you have to read the tex anachronistically as well as conflate too distinct greek terms.
FUTURE UNKNOWN, EVEN TO GOD
From the story: “A key premise of open theology is that God does not know the future, because it hasn’t happened yet. In a world that’s free, open theology says things can happen that are surprising, even to God. While this concept appalls many ‘Bible-believing’ Christians, open theologians cite more than 95 instances in the Bible of prophecies that didn’t materialize, events that ‘just happen’ and God’s mind changing after interacting with humans ... Open theology challenges several things about so-called neo-classical Christian theology, especially the widespread belief God is unchanging (immutable).”
As a result, evangelical psychotherapists are often drawn to open theology. When grieving clients agonize in therapy over why God “planned” terrible things to happen to them, open theology gives therapists an alternative explanation.
But people whom Pinnock calls “dogmatists” in the influential Evangelical Theological Society have not always found open theology so enlightening. Some have called it “heretical.”
They hauled Pinnock and Sanders on the carpet in 2003, forcing a doctrinal hearing. Despite concerted denunciations, both Pinnock and Sanders survived the theologians’ vote.
Many, however, say Sanders’s views eventually cost him his job at Huntington University, which led to his current posting at Hendrix College in Arkansas.
One of the major reasons Pinnock believes conservative evangelicals “hate” open theology is it’s similarity to so-called process theology, which is advocated by liberal Christians, Jews and others.
Based on the thought of Harvard philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, process theology also teaches God has not predetermined the future, but works in concert with the world’s creatures.
Any comments ? Where should ‘open theology’ fit into the scheme of things ? Do any Australian theological colleges embrace it ?
Kevin
I have a science , biology background and I have never found the need to believe in a God that knows everything about the future. This is an unnecessary belief and an affront to the sovereignty of God, I believe. Of course others may think differently. No problem.
My own way of thinking of it is this. God lets his sheep(us) out into the pasture(the abundant life) to live. The sheep decide what to eat and where to graze, even if it means falling over a cliff. God may or may not interfere in things, but God does know where the the sheep came from and where they are going.
It is amazing how many alternative, open, new, progressive, emerging and downright dissident threads there are in the church today. The Grand Inquisitors could make a bonfire of awesome proportions.
The Pooh story is amusing, but at best it could be constructed as argument by false analogy. No doubt literary criticism can be taken to extremes, but at the same time contingent history leaves traces behind.
Regardless of the source, we can’t have one creation story where man was created before plants and then plants created before man. The two things are mutually exclusive.
Dannii, I suspect that a joke is any belief you don’t share. Your emotional beliefs do not form an argument.
If I have conflated two distinct greek terms, then the translators of RSV have done the same. Alternativey, you are required to engage in the hoary fundamentalist practice of taking verses and parts of verses out of context to prove a point.
The Pooh story is amusing, but at best it could be constructed as argument by false analogy. No doubt literary criticism can be taken to extremes, but at the same time contingent history leaves traces behind.
Your assessment of the Pooh story would appear either to reflect a failure to understand Clines’ point, or else to understand that which he parodies. Clines shows how application of the same methodologies employed by proponents of the DH to a single-author text could feasibly produce similar results.
And can you demonstrate that “contingent history” must always and invariably leave traces? It sounds like a very bold claim to make, particularly if you don’t have source documents with which to compare the finished product.
If you really want to come to grips with the debate, you’re going to need to read more widely. Whybray’s book is a comprehensive analysis of the underlying methodology and demonstration of its problems.
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 08:01 PM
Regardless of the source, we can’t have one creation story where man was created before plants and then plants created before man. The two things are mutually exclusive.
While I would not want to argue that there are no difficulties reconciling all aspects of Gen 1 and 2, the point you’re picking on is very weak. Gen 2 does not refer to all plants, but specific types of plants (i.e. “of the field"), and further notes that these plants do not grow because there is no man to cultivate them. It seems quite clear that the reference is to crops of some form.
Well it is a bit of a problem discussing contingent history as this is largely the underpinning of evolutionary beliefs and I imagine I am talking to a lot of creationists. But yes, I would argue for contingent history. That is that the history we see is contingent on what went before it. It is an evolutionary view. And there is evidence of those precursors (to a greater or lesser extent depending on distance) in what we see around us. I would suggest that you can’t prove things but can only falsify hypotheses. So if you think my statement is universal, then you only need to find one thing which does not carry any historical baggage with it. See what you can come up with.
Oh come on, so now it is some plants. Now this has to be special pleading to reconcile clear differences. In the first story man comes last as the culmination of creation and in the second story man comes after earth, heaven and water and before everything else. But if you guys want to redefine your way out of difficulties don’t let me get in your way. Just don’t ask me to agree with you.
Well it is a bit of a problem discussing contingent history as this is largely the underpinning of evolutionary beliefs and I imagine I am talking to a lot of creationists.
Well, I’d call myself a creationist only to make the claim that I believe that God is creator. I do not align myself with those who claim Genesis 1 demands that the universe was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago (in fact I’ve argued vociferously against such a reading of Genesis 1).
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 08:43 PM
But yes, I would argue for contingent history. That is that the history we see is contingent on what went before it. It is an evolutionary view. And there is evidence of those precursors (to a greater or lesser extent depending on distance) in what we see around us. I would suggest that you can’t prove things but can only falsify hypotheses. So if you think my statement is universal, then you only need to find one thing which does not carry any historical baggage with it. See what you can come up with.
It is difficult to see what this has to do with the Documentary Hypothesis that we were actually discussing.
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 08:43 PM
Oh come on, so now it is some plants. Now this has to be special pleading to reconcile clear differences.
No, it is a case of pointing out what is actually fairly blatantly stated in the text to someone who apparently has not read the text very closely or carefully.
John Charles Storer - 04 September 2008 08:43 PM
In the first story man comes last as the culmination of creation and in the second story man comes after earth, heaven and water and before everything else.
As I said, I do not claim that it is possible (or necessary) to eliminate all difficulties, just that the one you’d chosen about the plants was a particularly weak one. I could list some more significant difficulties for those who wish to reconcile every aspect of the text, but that would not further this discussion.
I owe you a response on this. I had a killer example around the Pooh story but I have forgotten what it was, it has been a while. I could construct a similar parody in support of a flat earth theory. It must be flat or else we would all fall off etc.
I love the way you read detail into texts that is not there. I also admire the way you change your argument depending on what you are arguing. In this case for example you say there is no conflict by defining your way out of the problem. Presumably by your argument domestic plants didn’t require water even though the verse (Gen 2:5) suggests that the reason there were no wild plants because there was 1 no rain and 2 no one to till the soil. Why it is necessary to till the soil for weeds to grow is not discussed.
On the documentary hypothesis, I just read a 2007 book by a professor of literature on the bible, she subscribes wholeheartedly to the documentary hypothesis. There seem to be some circles where it is held in high regard.
In this case for example you say there is no conflict by defining your way out of the problem. Presumably by your argument domestic plants didn’t require water even though the verse (Gen 2:5) suggests that the reason there were no wild plants because there was 1 no rain and 2 no one to till the soil. Why it is necessary to till the soil for weeds to grow is not discussed.
John, I don’t have time to go into great detail on this. You appealed to the plants as an example of discrepancy between Gen 1 and Gen 2. I did not say that there were no such discrepancies, just that your example was a particularly weak one. Your questions reveal an approach to the text which is ultimately disinterested in context or plot. Where does Gen 2:4ff mention “wild plants”? The language is specifically qualified in terms which indicate cultivation, the story is about God creating someone to till the garden. As in your approach to the Supper, you seem to feel you can ignore words in the text as it suits you.
John Charles Storer - 14 September 2008 04:41 PM
On the documentary hypothesis, I just read a 2007 book by a professor of literature on the bible, she subscribes wholeheartedly to the documentary hypothesis. There seem to be some circles where it is held in high regard.
Did she have a name?
You keep insisting others provide references and you consistently include this sort of argument! That’s up there with “I had a killer example around the Pooh story but I have forgotten what it was.” What sort of nonsense is this? Hey, John, I had a knock-down, drag-them-out argument against transubstantiation which was so blindingly, obviously right that it would’ve instantly forced you to repent of your view in sackcloth and ashes, but I just can’t remember it at the moment.
Perhaps you ought to apply to yourself the standard you insist others meet.
Furthermore, I didn’t claim that the DH no longer has any adherents, only that with the rise of forms of literary criticism that many of the foundations upon which it is based have been significantly undermined.
All valid points. Just trying to lighten things up a bit by being chatty. Sorry about that. What I am saying is that ridiculing something is not proof or analysis. It seems to me to be more a way of constructing group cohesion. I have encountered this in the atheist position. While there are sound reasons for supporting atheism, it is always annoying to me when people don’t understand or articulate these positions but instead resort to ridicule.
I suspect that the documentary hypothesis has not been seriously undermined, so much as alternative theories have been put forward.
It was some american chick, I’ll bring the book in and give you the details if you like or maybe you can just trust me on this one. All I am saying is that the theory must still carry weight in some academic circle by demonstration.
Re the wild plants, I guess we are arguing about versions. I quoted a jerusalem bible. The translation looks a bit dodge by comparison with RSV. Do you think there is one story or two stories?
What I am saying is that ridiculing something is not proof or analysis. It seems to me to be more a way of constructing group cohesion. I have encountered this in the atheist position. While there are sound reasons for supporting atheism, it is always annoying to me when people don’t understand or articulate these positions but instead resort to ridicule.
Clines assumes that his readers have some familiarity with the subject so that they understand his parody.
John Charles Storer - 14 September 2008 07:30 PM
I suspect that the documentary hypothesis has not been seriously undermined, so much as alternative theories have been put forward.
Ah, the hubris! Without bothering to read any criticism of the DH you feel you can make such an assertion. For starters, read Whybray and see if you can seriously maintain such an uninformed position. I’m sorry, but if that’s the way you make judgments about these matters, your opinions cannot be considered to carry much force.
John Charles Storer - 14 September 2008 07:30 PM
It was some american chick, I’ll bring the book in and give you the details if you like or maybe you can just trust me on this one. All I am saying is that the theory must still carry weight in some academic circle by demonstration.
I did acknowledged that the DH is still employed by some scholars, although in the light of the critical work of the last 30 years I do find it somewhat surprising. OTOH there is a substantial portion of biblical scholarship which now recognise the limitations in the approach and it is no longer so prominent as it once was.
John Charles Storer - 14 September 2008 07:30 PM
Re the wild plants, I guess we are arguing about versions. I quoted a jerusalem bible. The translation looks a bit dodge by comparison with RSV. Do you think there is one story or two stories?
My argument is based on my reading of the Hebrew text.
As to the number of stories, I suspect the label may impose a somewhat misleading expectation on the way we read the text, but I would argue that the text is not designed to present multiple distinct accounts of creation but rather that the function of Gen 1 is distinct from that of Gen 2-4 and later.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
