Re: [asa] JDEP

George writes:
"This is the idea of "canonical criticism" for which Brevard Childs and other biblical scholars have argued. We need to do the analytical work & try to discern different sources, genres &c. That can be done without any particular theological commitment. But belief that there is a canon of scripture (even if its borders are fuzzy) then requires that we put the pieces back together. There is theological significance in the fact that the Pentateuch has been seen within the canon as "Moses" regardless of how much of it Moses wrote. Isaiah is a canonical whole even if there are 3 oor 4 parts of it."

Bob: Agreed. The same would be true of the gospels. Once form criticism etc. has done its work, one needs to look at the finished product holistically in terms of themes, theology, etc.. As for the Penteteuch, although, there are some awkward joints and repetitions, let's cut the editor(s) some slack. While the flood narrative may be woven together from two sources, the editor has done it so skillfully that the entire narrative displays a chiastic arrangement. Gordon Wenham has a good exposition in his Word Commentary.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 8 22:46:17 2006