Documentary Hypothesis: True or False, and...?

[InnocentIII]

clarkal:

I
And please do not roll your eyes at me like a 13 year old girl when or if you think that my beliefs and opinions do not align with yours. Is this a mature response?

Is this???

 

[clarkal]

Pointing out that his reaction to one of my posts was immature is not immature in itself. It is what it is.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Help please!!!

How does the Documentary Hypothesis deal with the anagogical, tropological, and allegorical levels of scripture?

Thank you for the help!!!

 

[Jim_Baur]

Any help?

 

[clarkal]

The main purpose of the Documentary Hypothesis is to explain who wrote the Bible.

I recommend you read Richard Elliott Friedman’s Book, Who Wrote the Bible.

He does interpret some passages there.

 

[Jim_Baur]

clarkal

According to the documentary hypostesis, how and to what degree is the Holy Spirit involved in writing the Holy Bible?

I know each author and teacher is different.

Thank you!

 

[TOME]

Jim, perhaps I may help with two of your questions. First, as to the role of the Holy Spirit DH. doesn’t really address that question nor is it meant to address such a question.

I would say that the proper starting point in studying DH is to begin with ones faith response that the Holy Spirit is guiding all involved in developing these scrptural writings as presented in the Vat. II Constitution Dei Verbum. So to answer that question, the role of the Holy Spirit has to be assumed.

The assumptions that the Holy Spirit is guiding man’s efforts then turn to looking and studying just what were the human efforts or activities that went into producing this human literary works that would be the metrix of Divine Revelation? This bring us to your first question and the study of the different types of liturary devises (for want of a better word) which created the human side (that is the human constructs) that God used to reveal Himself to us.

And using these divises say the use of allagory, or widom or history etc. there seems that each of the different threads would show a particular and distinct trait(s). Sometimes these distinct traits would show itself in the same passage and even the same verse which has laed many to accept that the HP in principle is true. And I am one of those who accepts this theory,

 

[buffalo]

TOME:

I have to say in principle that the Documentary Hypothesis is True. I believe that scholars using all the literary, historical and archeologicals at their disposal have developed a reasonable theory with the standard explanation using the JEPD models. I believe there is enough evidence to support this.

I am really going to have to read up on the criticism of this theory, however, from what I do remember people’s attacks on this theory almost always goes to specific points and rejects the whole principle. For example, and this is just a made up example, if those who held that certain passages were from the E source based on what was know at the time, if later evidence is developed that shows this particular passage has a different source, then what was believe to be fact wasn’t but that doesn’t mean that the principles which lead to this faulty conclusion were in themselves wrong, it has more to do with the data upon which these principles were applied.

In other words, those who reject this theory, especially those who take a literal approach to the Bible, fail to comprehend that Scriptural Studies, like all studies in history and science is a dynamic reality, which is always growing or deeping in its understandings but always guided by basic principles.

One thing to consider - my writing style has changed through my life. I have a completely different style than 20 years ago. I wonder if someone investigated my writings 3,000 years from now they would conclude there were two authors.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi all,

How does the Documentary Hypothesis fit in with Jesus’ words in the Gospels when He refers to Moses?

Mark 10

1 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

John 5

45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

“Moses…wrote about me.” That sounds pretty conclusive to me.

Gene

 

[clarkal]

buffalo:

One thing to consider - my writing style has changed through my life. I have a completely different style than 20 years ago. I wonder if someone investigated my writings 3,000 years from now they would conclude there were two authors.

No, that’s not a good analogy, and it’s not as simple as a different writing style, but also divergent concepts and ideas inserted into the text that interrupt the flow, concepts and ideas that we know were the products of a certain time period.

I suggest you read the evidence for the DH in the book *Who Wrote the Bible *by Richard Elliott Friedman.

 

[clarkal]

Gene C.:

Hi all,

How does the Documentary Hypothesis fit in with Jesus’ words in the Gospels when He refers to Moses?

Mark 10

1 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

John 5

45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

“Moses…wrote about me.” That sounds pretty conclusive to me.

Gene

I suppose one could reason that Jesus was accessing his human knowledge in such statements, reflecting the beliefs of the people of that particular time period.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

clarkal:

Why am I arrogant?

I also made available the option ‘Other’ for a person who wanted to explain why in a post.

I would say that this reply could qualify.

clarkal:

I was perfectly clear.

I am looking for educated opinions. If you don’t know anything about the Documentary Hypothesis, then don’t respond. What good is a person’s opinion if he does not know anything about the matter? Not much.

And this reply was in response to a question as to what the “Documentary Hypothesis” is. I believe that when one posts a poll looking for the response of others that they fully explain what the question is. As I doubt many know what the “Documentary Hypothesis” is I would have, and so do others, expected an explaination in the first post of the thread.

Yes your first post has no clue as to what it is, your second post corrects an error in the poll as the poll question says True or False yet the selections in the poll are Yes, No, and Other.

It took you over an hour to post an explaination after you were asked for one and then you seemed to attack the person asking.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Tome

Thank you for your answer…

 

[Gene_C]

clarkal:

I suppose one could reason that Jesus was accessing his human knowledge in such statements, reflecting the beliefs of the people of that particular time period.

Hi Al,

If one is inclined to believe in the Documentary Hypothesis, and believe in it with a passion, then I guess that one would make any other contrary evidence fit in with what they believe.

I did this for the past 30-plus years as an Evangelical Christian. I read the Scriptures with Evangelical glasses on and made everything fit in with that theological viewpoint. Then I took the glasses off and started to read the Bible plainly and discovered it’s a Catholic book.

Boy, I am really digressing, Al, and please understand I’m not attacking your viewpoint. It’s just that I believe that the words of Jesus plainly indicate that Moses wrote the first five books of Scripture.

Well, I do believe that Genesis could fit in with a hypothesis of Moses acting as editor for oral traditions and other written documents that were handed down. He then put them into one document and made editorial comments. But this is a far cry from the Documentary Hypothesis.

I took an OT course at a Lutheran college and the professor was a moderately conservative gent but he used a very liberal text, and he just explained what the different views were and what he believed.

I believe the Documentary Hypothesis is an attempt to take the supernatural out of the Bible. It’s a liberal theory, that’s all. No one who holds to it can say absolutely that the Torah was written that way.

For me, I’ll just believe the plain words of our Savior, which I believe were recordedly accurately. If he had said “Moses said about me,” then maybe we could say it fits in with the DH. But he said “Moses WROTE about me,” and that indicates real authorship.

Blessings to you,
Gene

 

[buffalo]

Gene C.:

For me, I’ll just believe the plain words of our Savior, which I believe were recordedly accurately. If he had said “Moses said about me,” then maybe we could say it fits in with the DH. But he said “Moses WROTE about me,” and that indicates real authorship.

Blessings to you,
Gene

Right, but this goes into a big circle. It always comes down to the Divinity of Christ. If you accept His divinity then you don’t come to these (clarkals) conclusions. If you don’t accept His divintiy then you will postulate all kinds of theories, one as good as the next.

Either the Bible is anchored in truth or it’s not.

 

[TOME525]

First I just want everyone to know I come into this forum as Tome as well (proof of my limited ability on computers - or to follow directions)

A couple of points. First, I think we are getting off the original topic by quoting Jesus. I also think it is imperative, if we are to discuss this topic, everyone involved should look at the Vat II document Dei Verbum (remember it is a Constitutional Document of the Church)

One point Dei Verbum points out is that God uses human instruments to reveal His Truth. By human instruments we mean using the literary modes of the people’s culture from which the actual writing came. So in truth to study the Scriptures using such tools as form or historical criticism and the other means scripture scholars use does not in itself mean a denial of the Holy Spirit’s activity in guiding the writers of the Scriptures. No what the scriptural scholars are looking at is the human means that were used to creat the metrix for Revelation.

So if someone in their scholarly studies comes to the conclusion that Moses couldn’t have been the sole author of the Pentatuch, this is not an attack on Divine Revelation.

And a further point about Jesus and His use of Scripture (remember at the time of Jesus there was only the Old Testament). I agree with the general consesus amoung many scholars is the Jesus was very liberal in His use of Scriptures. At times if not misquoting the passage used, He certainly would quote it out of context and add a whole new understanding of the passage.

Also, if you study the history of the Hebrew language, it was most likely Jesus couldn’t read hebrew - almost nobody did, and from archological backing, today we know far more about the actual King David than Jesus did, or for that matter Moses and Abraham.

All this is not said to deny in anyway God’s presence and activity in Scriptures, it is just pointing out the human element.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Tome525

In order to help me understand your opinion: Do you believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ?

Thank you!!!

 

[buffalo]

TOME525:

Also, if you study the history of the Hebrew language, it was most likely Jesus couldn’t read hebrew - almost nobody did, and from archological backing, today we know far more about the actual King David than Jesus did, or for that matter Moses and Abraham.

All this is not said to deny in anyway God’s presence and activity in Scriptures, it is just pointing out the human element.

Our creator the author of all couldn’t read Hebrew? :banghead:

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

clarkal:

I was perfectly clear.

I am looking for educated opinions. If you don’t know anything about the Documentary Hypothesis, then don’t respond. What good is a person’s opinion if he does not know anything about the matter? Not much.

With no disrespect intended, you were somewhat less than perfectly clear. The question “Documentary Hypothesis: True or False, and…?” could be validly understood in many different ways, including by people who do not know the particular definition you are driving at. This does not make them uneducated, nor does it mean they are not entitled to courteous treatment.

Now, it’s okay not to be perfectly clear right out of the gate. That’s what follow up questions and statements are for. But your comment “What good is a person’s opinion if he does not know anything about the matter? Not much.” is way out of line. There are many people here with considerable knowlege of Scripture, but who lack the ability to read minds to determine exactly what a poster is driving at with an ambiguous opening statement.

There’s nothing wrong with your wanting to limit discussion to people with a specific technical knowledge, but if so you should say so clearly at the outset. To not do this, then make such comments is not neighborly.

 

[TOME]

Just a quick note, depending on which computer I’m using I sign in either as Tome or Tome 525, it’s not the result of a split personality, rather, it’s from a bit of impatience with a measure of not reading directions added in.

I guess there are some who may take some of my statements as a lack of belief in God, Christ Jesus and our Catholic Faith. But I assure you all this is not the case.

I think where I may come off as a non-believer or worse a Modernist, is from my starting point in my theological understanding. I do being with a Low Christology which may put me in the category of a Modernist/Non believer. This would be true if my Christology would remain a Low Christology and not move to a full union with those of a High Christological foundation, just as I believe those who remain just in a High Christology operate from an imcomplete understanding of the mysteries of our Faith.

So, starting from a Low Christology (that is trying to understand the Jesus of History) and based on my understanding of the Incarnational Principle, I would say yes, Jesus, in his humanity was human with certain human limitations (for example, I doubt if Jesus when He was walking the Earth could read this post if it was printed out and handed to Him - which might be such a bad thing for me!).

Another note, it is our Catholic Belief and understanding of the Trinity, God the Father is The Creator, the Author of Life. That is the specific distinction of the Father and Not the Son. Now, given the dinstict personage of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit could somebody please explain to me how or why Jesus, when asked about when the end of time was going to be, He expressed an ignorance and said it was only known by the Father?