- Status
K
Kei
Guest
It is not out of His power, but it is not revealed by Him that He has done such, but revealed by man.
There were a lot of errors introduced in the Enlightenment era, it was an era of incessant skepticism towards God and the Bible.
There were a lot of errors introduced in the Enlightenment era, it was an era of incessant skepticism towards God and the Bible.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
You’re implying a false dichotomy.
That is, that if you reject JEPD you reject the study of how the Bible came to be.
This assumes that JEPD theory is correct when there’s no real evidence for it that still stands beyond subjective breaking apart of the narratives to display where you think one of the letters inserted his narrative over the other. Naturally, who did what and how many times and where depends on who you ask, to disastrous results.
Not everything in the Enlightenment era was bad, but you lauded the length of time it has been around as though that provides credence to it, when lots of bad things came about in the Enlightenment era.
I know, you were saying the length of time was enough for the Church to look at it and accept it, but I think it’s totally fair to say this is very much a simplification of a complex topic, ie how the Church responds to skeptical critique in academia.
That is, that if you reject JEPD you reject the study of how the Bible came to be.
This assumes that JEPD theory is correct when there’s no real evidence for it that still stands beyond subjective breaking apart of the narratives to display where you think one of the letters inserted his narrative over the other. Naturally, who did what and how many times and where depends on who you ask, to disastrous results.
Not everything in the Enlightenment era was bad, but you lauded the length of time it has been around as though that provides credence to it, when lots of bad things came about in the Enlightenment era.
I know, you were saying the length of time was enough for the Church to look at it and accept it, but I think it’s totally fair to say this is very much a simplification of a complex topic, ie how the Church responds to skeptical critique in academia.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Nonsense.
The JEPD method is exactly that: the study of how the Bible came to be in its present form.
Therefore, it is not a “false dichotomy”
I truly wish that people would actually learn the meaning of terms before they go throwing those terms at people in nonsensical ways, such as this.
I have to stop you right there.
This is something the Catholic Church has been studying for 240 years! You say that “there’s no evidence of it” when the reality is that at the present time (I’m not claiming all of those years) the Church accepts this method and regards it as perfectly legitimate and even goes so far as to make official Church teaching.
If what you claim is true (that there’s no real evidence) then it’s one of the greatest conspiracies in human history.
Obviously, by endorsing and teaching this JEPD method, the Church feels that there is more than enough evidence to support it.
We are dealing with ancient texts. It’s only natural that there be some disagreement among scholars as to the details. Scripture scholars have no problem with this. It is not an exact science.
AGAIN with the genetic fallacy. Give it up. You’re going nowhere.
It has credence because the method has been around for 240 years, and the present-day situation is based on 240 years of ongoing scholarship. That actually means something.
This issue has been discussed and debated for over 2 centuries now. If you think that somehow you know better than 2 centuries of collective scholarship by the Catholic Church, you have another thing coming.
The response of the Church has been to endorse this method and to make it part of the Church’s teaching.
K
Kei
Guest
There’s a lot to unpack here so bear with me.
The implied false dichotomy is in labeling JEPD as the ONLY way to research how Scripture came to be. You are acting as if denying JEPD means you deny studying how Scripture came to be. That is simply not the case.
What is the evidence behind the hypothesis? That different names or supposed styles exist? Then, you’d expect a fairly, or at least a somewhat similar breaking up into sources if this is so clearly seen as to be made objective. Yet, what we find is that this is not true. Different scholars can come to vastly different conclusions. Then, I will conclude that the “differences” are mainly in their own heads.
Let me ask you a question, in your university or training, were you ever introduced to the idea of Cassuto’s “The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch”?
It is not just “some disagreement”. There’s all sorts of wild speculation from much much breaking apart to relatively little.
You keep saying it is church teaching. But, I don’t think the Church approves of various scholarly “theories” regarding the origin of the Bible. Do you mean that it is taught in Catholic university? Because I’m 98% sure JEPD does NOT require any belief by a Catholic in good standing with the Church.
The implied false dichotomy is in labeling JEPD as the ONLY way to research how Scripture came to be. You are acting as if denying JEPD means you deny studying how Scripture came to be. That is simply not the case.
What is the evidence behind the hypothesis? That different names or supposed styles exist? Then, you’d expect a fairly, or at least a somewhat similar breaking up into sources if this is so clearly seen as to be made objective. Yet, what we find is that this is not true. Different scholars can come to vastly different conclusions. Then, I will conclude that the “differences” are mainly in their own heads.
Let me ask you a question, in your university or training, were you ever introduced to the idea of Cassuto’s “The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch”?
It is not just “some disagreement”. There’s all sorts of wild speculation from much much breaking apart to relatively little.
You keep saying it is church teaching. But, I don’t think the Church approves of various scholarly “theories” regarding the origin of the Bible. Do you mean that it is taught in Catholic university? Because I’m 98% sure JEPD does NOT require any belief by a Catholic in good standing with the Church.
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
The Bible just dropped out of the shy a few hundred years and we have to figure it out. 
It is rather silly to think that we should just ignore longstanding understanding and teaching, up until the Protestants came up with JEPD.
It is rather silly to think that we should just ignore longstanding understanding and teaching, up until the Protestants came up with JEPD.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I cannot possibly quote you every single reason.
The method itself has been considered for 240 years. I am not going to even attempt to research, let along explain, that 240 year history. It is perfectly sufficient to note that after all that time, the present situation is the Catholic Scripture scholarship has come to accept this method and indeed, to teach this method.
Well, if you think the Church doesn’t approve of it, then that’s your own ignorance. I can’t help that, other than to try to educate you on the subject. Something you’re clearly not willing to let happen.
It is clearly taught in the New American Bible, which is the official text of Scripture published by the USCCB.
You might try actually picking up a copy of the New American Bible and reading the introductory notes and reading the explanatory notes in the text.
It is also just as clearly taught in the Catholic-approved French and Spanish versions of the bible. I can say that with certainly.
I will also venture that the same is said in other languages. I only hesitate to say it because I have not read those texts with my own eyes.
Now time for your lesson in Introduction to Philosophy 101:
This is the fallacy known as “raising the bar.” What happens here is that one person makes a statement like “it’s Catholic teaching” and the other person responds by ‘raising the bar’ meaning, accusing the other person of meeting a much higher standard than that first person applied. That’s what happens when you change “Catholic teaching” to “JEPD does NOT require any belief by a Catholic in good standing.”
Keep posting fallacies and I’ll continue educating you on them.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Oh please! What nonsense!
The author tries to claim that ADAM HIMSELF WROTE PART OF GENESIS.
That’s not biblical scholarship: it’s biblical superstition. I’m not going to waste time debunking that kind of nonsense.
B
buffalo
Guest
Pentateuch
(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm
(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually, God Himself may have authored Gen1. After all, He did inscribe the stone 10 commandments.
What is the issue with Adam writing his part?
What is the issue with Adam writing his part?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The fact that you’re even asking the question indicates that you are nowhere near ready to engage in a serious conversation about Scripture study.
I don’t know what to say, really. I don’t even know where to start explaining the utter foolishness of the idea the Adam wrote anything at all, much less that he wrote part of the bible. Why am I even writing THIS? I must be crazy to even respond to such a question.
I can’t believe someone would even ask that question. It’s so far beyond anything approaching mature thinking.
I better just leave it at that.
B
buffalo
Guest
Once again, what is the issue with Adam writing?
K
Kei
Guest
You aren’t answering questions. Were you even offered alternatives at where you studied to the documentary hypothesis?
When your claim is that the church teaches it after 240 years ergo it is valid, it is important to define what the phrase, “taught by the Church” means. To a Catholic, this may sound like it is Church teaching in some manner, acquiring some sort of assent by the faithful. This is not so, and I am clarifying that.
What you mean by taught by the Church was that it is assumed in the NAB? I am not at all surprised. I have a copy, and indeed it has one of the least liked commentaries among many of the faithful for a reason. Someone that wasn’t Christian probably would not be swayed by the “truths” of the Catholic Faith if they were to read the notes in the text. Like denying that the Magnificat was not said by Mary or implying that Gospel writers made up significant portions of what is said. It is odd that this is what you define as “church teaching” as the Magnificat is said in the Liturgy of the Hours. My point is that it is mainly a very critical and skeptical commentary.
As you’re not laying out any arguments in its favor aside from it being Catholic teaching after 240 years, then it begs the question. How long was the single source (ie Moses) hypothesis considered true by the Church as Catholic teaching?
Or, perhaps more fitting, how long did the Church teach humors (ie in writings of the saints and Church doctors, etc)? This is also an idea founded outside the Bible and tradition, and instead is a fairly secular concept that the Church taught (using your seeming definition).
My point is that simply because something is accepted by “the Church” in such a manner as JEPD is accepted does not make it true, even if it’s so after x amount of years. 240 years is hardly a dent in the thousands of years of tradition of the Church.
God bless
When your claim is that the church teaches it after 240 years ergo it is valid, it is important to define what the phrase, “taught by the Church” means. To a Catholic, this may sound like it is Church teaching in some manner, acquiring some sort of assent by the faithful. This is not so, and I am clarifying that.
What you mean by taught by the Church was that it is assumed in the NAB? I am not at all surprised. I have a copy, and indeed it has one of the least liked commentaries among many of the faithful for a reason. Someone that wasn’t Christian probably would not be swayed by the “truths” of the Catholic Faith if they were to read the notes in the text. Like denying that the Magnificat was not said by Mary or implying that Gospel writers made up significant portions of what is said. It is odd that this is what you define as “church teaching” as the Magnificat is said in the Liturgy of the Hours. My point is that it is mainly a very critical and skeptical commentary.
As you’re not laying out any arguments in its favor aside from it being Catholic teaching after 240 years, then it begs the question. How long was the single source (ie Moses) hypothesis considered true by the Church as Catholic teaching?
Or, perhaps more fitting, how long did the Church teach humors (ie in writings of the saints and Church doctors, etc)? This is also an idea founded outside the Bible and tradition, and instead is a fairly secular concept that the Church taught (using your seeming definition).
My point is that simply because something is accepted by “the Church” in such a manner as JEPD is accepted does not make it true, even if it’s so after x amount of years. 240 years is hardly a dent in the thousands of years of tradition of the Church.
God bless
J
joeybaggz
Guest
What did Adam write with and what did he write on? Oh, I forgot, behind the pear trees in Eden was a Staples.
Guess he dropped by with a ten dollar bill!
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The question does not even deserve a response.
And by the way, don’t bother to ask it again, because that’s all I’m going to say about it.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Just an aside here! I got thrown out of 3rd grade religion studies when I was a kid, because I had the audacity to ask where did Noah get penquins, kangaroos, and polar bears. (and western diamondback rattlesnakes) I mean they weren’t indigenous to the area and I don’t think Fed Ex delivered at that time. Sister Theresa of the Cross wasn’t amused although the rest of the class though I was funny. Class clowns are that way.
A bit of a more serious observation. Someone very early on stated the Flood account was allegorical. Notice the use of 40 days, the same amount of time Jesus spent in the desert with Satan, the same amount of days in Lent. And support for the idea of an allegorical account is supported by Jesus Himself as didn’t the Lord use allegorical stories, parables, to make his points. The Bible, as I understand it, is inspired, not necessarily literal in its emphasis.
A bit of a more serious observation. Someone very early on stated the Flood account was allegorical. Notice the use of 40 days, the same amount of time Jesus spent in the desert with Satan, the same amount of days in Lent. And support for the idea of an allegorical account is supported by Jesus Himself as didn’t the Lord use allegorical stories, parables, to make his points. The Bible, as I understand it, is inspired, not necessarily literal in its emphasis.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Clay tablets.
B
buffalo
Guest
On the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
June 27, 1906 (ASS 39 [1906-07] 377f; EB 174ff; Dz 1997ff)
I: Are the arguments gathered by critics to impugn the Mosaic authorship of the sacred hooks designated by the name of the Pentateuch of such weight in spite of the cumulative evidence of many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people, and furthermore of the constant tradition of the Church besides the internal indications furnished by the text itself, as to justify the statement that these books are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-Mosaic date?
Answer: In the negative.
II: Does the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch necessarily imply a production of the whole work of such a character as to impose the belief that each and every word was written by Moses’ own hand or was by him dictated to secretaries ; or is it a legitimate hypothesis that he conceived the work himself under the guidance of divine inspiration and then entrusted the writing of it to one or more persons, with the understanding that they reproduced his thoughts with fidelity and neither wrote nor omitted anything contrary to his will, and that finally the work composed after this fashion was approved by Moses, its principal and inspired author, and was published under his name?
Answer: In the negative to the first and in the affirmative to the second part.
III: Without prejudice to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, may it be granted that in the composition of his work Moses used sources, written documents namely or oral traditions, from which in accordance with the special aim he entertained and under the guidance of divine inspiration he borrowed material and inserted it in his work either word for word or in substance, either abbreviated or amplified?
Answer: In the affirmative.
IV: Subject to the Mosaic authorship and the integrity of the Pentateuch being substantially safeguarded, may it be admitted that in the protracted course of centuries certain modifications befell it, such as : additions made after the death of Moses by an inspired writer, or glosses and explanations inserted in the text, certain words and forms changed from archaic into more recent speech, finally incorrect readings due to the fault of scribes which may be the subject of inquiry and judgement according to the laws of textual criticism?
Answer In the affirmative, saving the judgement of the Church.
June 27, 1906 (ASS 39 [1906-07] 377f; EB 174ff; Dz 1997ff)
I: Are the arguments gathered by critics to impugn the Mosaic authorship of the sacred hooks designated by the name of the Pentateuch of such weight in spite of the cumulative evidence of many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people, and furthermore of the constant tradition of the Church besides the internal indications furnished by the text itself, as to justify the statement that these books are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-Mosaic date?
Answer: In the negative.
II: Does the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch necessarily imply a production of the whole work of such a character as to impose the belief that each and every word was written by Moses’ own hand or was by him dictated to secretaries ; or is it a legitimate hypothesis that he conceived the work himself under the guidance of divine inspiration and then entrusted the writing of it to one or more persons, with the understanding that they reproduced his thoughts with fidelity and neither wrote nor omitted anything contrary to his will, and that finally the work composed after this fashion was approved by Moses, its principal and inspired author, and was published under his name?
Answer: In the negative to the first and in the affirmative to the second part.
III: Without prejudice to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, may it be granted that in the composition of his work Moses used sources, written documents namely or oral traditions, from which in accordance with the special aim he entertained and under the guidance of divine inspiration he borrowed material and inserted it in his work either word for word or in substance, either abbreviated or amplified?
Answer: In the affirmative.
IV: Subject to the Mosaic authorship and the integrity of the Pentateuch being substantially safeguarded, may it be admitted that in the protracted course of centuries certain modifications befell it, such as : additions made after the death of Moses by an inspired writer, or glosses and explanations inserted in the text, certain words and forms changed from archaic into more recent speech, finally incorrect readings due to the fault of scribes which may be the subject of inquiry and judgement according to the laws of textual criticism?
Answer In the affirmative, saving the judgement of the Church.
- Status