I have seen in the popular media books that are easy to read about the Bible but promote the theory of Documentary Hypothesis or the thinking of critical scholars which deny the role of God in history as recorded in the Bible. However, I do not find as much material in the mass media that are easy to read that opposes such viewpoints. Apparently, the controversial it is, the more appealing to read. One such book that I got hold of is the Isaac Asimov volumes, Asimovs Guide to the Bible- The Old and New Testaments. Although in his introduction, Asimov writes I cannot pretend that in writing this book I am making any significant original contributions to Biblical scholarship; indeed, I am not competent to do so. but in its pages he echoed in the 1960s and in this 1981 combined volumes, then mainstream scholarly view of the Bibles history. However, he did so along with the traditional scholarship view. For example, with respect to Moses as author of the first five books of the Bible, he writes By ancient tradition, the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses. Then, he adds Modern scholars are convinced that this theory of authorship is not tenable and that the early books of the Bible are not the single work of any man. Rather, they are combined and carefully edited version of a number of sources. The paragraph above is in laymans terms what the DH is all about. It is an important note that up to this day these theoretical number of sources that was supposedly later compiled by an editor are nowhere to be found. That Asimov is well versed in DH theory, is demonstrated by another comment in the book of Genesis when he writes about the Hebrew word for God, Elohim (literally when translated is gods) It is possible that in the very earliest traditions on which the Bible is based, the creation was indeed the work of a plurality of gods. Does the Hebrew language support this idea? The online Jewish Encyclopedia writes The most common of the originally appellative names of God is Elohim, plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective. This is, most probably, to be explained as the plural of majesty or excellence, expressing high dignity or greatness. Note that when Elohim is used the verb is singular although the word in Hebrew is plural because as the encyclopedia notes it denotes majesty or excellence. Filipinos have an identical concept when using the plural pronoun kayo or niyo to express respect to a single individual. So, what very earliest traditions was Asimov referring to? The DH promoted the idea of the evolution of religion as first simple (animism) then developed into more complex religion (monotheism). In this view the Bible was written not in the 15th century BC as claimed by the Bible. The DH is convinced that the five books were written a thousand years later, in the 5th century BC. It is a good thing that Asimov offers another view about Elohim and other references to Genesis about God talking about us or with someone else in heaven It is possible to argue that this is not true evidence of early polytheism. God might be viewed as using the royal we; or as speaking to an angelic audience. However, Asimov came back strongly to endorse this theory when discussing the Creation story in Genesis. He writes It is widely accepted these days that the creation tale received its present shape after the Babylonian creation myth, purified of polytheism and grossness, and put into the loftiest and most abstract terms of which the Jewish priesthood was capable. He then adds the first few books of the Bible that were put into final form by priestly hands soon after the time of the Exile. Such portions are part of the Priestly document and are usually designated as P by Biblical scholars. When I reached his commentary on chapter 2 of Genesis, he writes The use of the term the Lord God (Yahveh Elohim) in place of God (Elohim) is characteristic of a particular early strand of tradition which was incorporated into the Hexateuch. This strand is known as the J document because of its characteristic use of Jehovah (Yahveh) in connection with God. What is the state of this scholarly view today? One article written by Baden who himself wrote a book about the subect writes Moreover, the shift in European scholarship away from the Documentary Hypothesis happened very quickly: one can almost draw a line at the publication of Rendtorff’s Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch in 1977, with pre-Rendtorff scholarship being largely documentary and post-Rendtorff scholarship being almost entirely non-documentary. He further adds The result is that, for many, what is known is that the documentary model we learned in school has been discarded, but we have not accepted its ostensible replacement. But, Baden is trying to revive this theory with his book. No wonder, articles have been written claiming this once popular theory is now in crisis. One article sums up the development this way, written by David Stern The mid-eighties and the early nineties witnessed a resurgence of biblical scholars challenging, revising, and even rejecting the documentary hypothesis.2 First and foremost, scholars relinquished claims to a scientific methodology. In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Jeffery Tigay insists that The degree of subjectivity which such hypothetical [source critical] procedures permit is notorious.3 In fact, Tigay characterizes these procedures as reading between the lines.4 Moreover, Edward Greenstein maintains that source critical analysis is analogous to the blind men and the elephant: each of five blind men approaches a different part of an elephants anatomy. Perceiving only part of the elephant, each man draws a different conclusion as to the identity of what he encounters.5 According to the preceding remarks, not only are source critical methods subjective, they also account for only a fraction of the total evidence. Especially when analyzing a literary corpus as bulky and complex as an elephant,6 a system which fails to consider all the evidence and wherein scholars shape the data into the configurations of their own imagination7 hardly warrants the label scientific. While surveying many conflicting proposals for the nature of the hypothetical sources, Gerhard Larsson gives a more specific account of the methodological shortcomings. He says that there is no sound objective method for recognizing the different sources, there is also no real consensus about the character and extant of sources like J and E, [and] no unity concerning limits between original sources and the insertions made by redactors.8 Rather as Greenstein says: each scholar defines and adapts the evidence according to his own point of view.9 Such an approach not only yields results which are, as Tigay highlights, hypothetical (witness the term documentary hypothesis),10 but, as David Noel Freedman declares, allows and encourages, the pages of our literature [to be] filled with endless arguments between scholars who simply reiterate their prejudices.11 The lack of a sound and rigorous methodology leads scholars to produce varying and even contradictory theories, which ultimately undermine the enterprise as a whole. JW.org has published online articles that discuss the above issues in an easy-to-read article that present both sides and defends the Bibles authenticity. Anyone who believes in the God of the Bible and trusts Gods Words needs to know the answers. The Bible offers hope of a better future in an Earth turned into a global Paradise. The hope was opened up for us through the death of Gods own Son, the Lord Jesus, which the Bible calls a ransom to neutralize the effects of human sin originating from Adam. Finding the truth glorifies the true author of the Bible, Jehovah God. One such article can be found here under the article When Was the Bible Written? wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011410?q=bible+scholars&p=par
Posted on: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 06:00:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015