From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 17:39:38 EST
Good point Terry. Nowhere in the Pentateuch does it say who or when the
final version was written. A priori I cannot rule out a 5th cent final
editing but tend to about 1000BC. However I do think it a wee bit unlikely
that Moses wrote Deut 34 though I do know what Mark Twain would have said.
It is 30 years since my OT lecturer took the mick out of JEPD and he wasnt
even a conservative!!
I do think more people could do with a better understanding of when the OT
books may have been written and how to interpret the variouskinds of
literature therein.
I dont think Job 41 describes Hadrosaurs wiith inflammable gases coming out
of their nostrils. Job 41 vs19-20. That type of view shows a lower view of
scripture than the most sceptical atheist.
Regards
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: The Pentateuch dissected and revised
>
> Bob Schneider wrote:
>
> >To follow up on David's comments about source criticism, I am finishing a
> >semester course devoted to the Book of Genesis, that mine of jewels. It
> >seemed to me, as I introduced my students to source and redaction
criticism,
> >that there is evidence enough that Genesis is a redacted work that draws
> >from more than one source. After reading Gordon Wenham's critique of the
> >hypothesis that the Flood story contains two major sources, despite his
> >argument to the contrary, I still remain convinced that there are indeed
two
> >accounts woven together. Where I found Wenham convincing is in his
analysis
> >of the structure of the Flood story, an excellent example of chiastic or
> >palistrophic arrangement of episodes and details into a coherent and
> >striking narrative. It seems to me that what we have here is an
outstanding
> >job of redaction. This creative editor-writer, whoever he was, was able
to
> >bring these sources together in such a way that the account reads
smoothly
> >and effectively. I think the differences in the sources are still
evident,
> >but they do not detract from the movement of the narrative, and in fact
may
> >be missed by a reader not alerted to them. I do not hesitate to believe
> >that this redactor was inspired.
>
> Just to note that there is nothing in Bob's comments here that is
> *necessarily* inconsistent with the Old Princeton/Hodge-Warfield view
> of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy. Perhaps the redactor
> was Moses himself and the sources existed prior to Moses ;-). Since
> Moses lived hundreds of years after the events of Genesis (and since
> the view of inspiration that I am talking about is not a mechanical
> dictation model), it is necessary that Moses obtained his information
> from other sources either some oral traditions or perhaps some prior
> written accounts.
>
> The claim of inspiration applies to the final assembled text. Even
> E.J. Young acknowledges certain additions to the Pentateuchal text
> that are not likely to have been written by Moses, whom he believes
> to be its chief author. Young notes that the editor making the
> additions was inspired similarly to Moses so that the resultant text
> was inspired in exactly the same way.
>
> TG
> --
> _________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
> grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
> phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 09:39:44 EST