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

  • Thread starter Thread starter clarkal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TOME

Sorry, I cannot answer your question. I, however, firmly believe that I could find a long list of answers from St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Origen and similar people. Also, I feel confident that creeds and other official teachings can give you a list of answers. (I could not tell if you were being rhetorical or really wanting to know.) I, however, do not have the time or energy to do that.

Have you studied there explanations?

If you have, what is your opinion of their explanations?

Also, I am just a high school religion teacher.

What are your qualifications?

Also, have you carefully read and studied the entire Holy Bible? Have you studied the primary texts of the early Church, et cetera?

To be totally honest, I ask the questions out of love and respect. For me, it helps me to know with whom I am talking. If I have insulted or offended by these personal questions, please know I am sorry.

Thank you and God bless.
 
40.png
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?
Click to expand...
 
Tome,

Regarding the knowledge that our Lord had in His divine and human natures, here is the appropriate section from the CCC:

Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

471** **Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”, and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.

**[473](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/473.htm’)😉 **But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person. “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.” Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

Peace,
Gene
 
GeneC, in regards to the references to the CCC I have a few responses and hopefully they will not be jumbled.

First, in the case of Appollinarius (and if I’m wrong please correct me I’m going from memory now) his heresy delt with a denial of either two “Wills” of Jesus or that Jesus had only one nature. Both when you think about it are closely related in that they deny Jesus’ humanity, a denial of His Human Nature and/Will. I deny neither. But that leads to the second question about Jesus’ knowledge.

I you study St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas holds that there is the knowledge that the intellect understands. This knowledge is immediate and not based on the senses. This is the knowledge of the angels (even those fallen) and more important this is Divine Knowledge. God’s knowledge is Immediate.

A second type of knowledge comes from the senses, the type of knowledge that animals have. They cannot know of anything that is outside of the senses. Even instinct is sensed based that is sense knowledge that is imprinted on the brain, so to speak.

St. Thomas further teachs that Human understanding comes from both the Intellect (Immediate) and Rational (Sense based).

From there, I think we can discuss how Christ, in His human understanding could read men’s hearts and have knowledge and understanding of the Father and the Father’s plan for us. It is that knowledge of the intellect and was essential for His mission of proclaiming the reality of the Kingdom of God. And at the same time profess human ignorance and have limited Human knowledge (which may have included an illitercy of Hebrew and certainly English) because this type of knowledge is based on sense experience as opposed to the immediate knowledge of the intellect.

Finally, if you study the footnotes of the passages from the CCC, which I do have with me) 473 and 474 quote Mark the most often and John a couple of times. What is important about Mark is this Gospel’s uniqueness in having Jesus (and I’m paraphrasing now) saying again and again, “Don’t tell anyone…”. Where as in Matthew Christ Jesus just says “He doen’t know”. John is so onto it self theologically we don’t see any real signs of ignorance or hiding of information with out a reason given.

So hopefully this will clear up a little further where I am coming from in this matter and tying it into the original thread, I’m refering to trying to understand the human elements of the myrstery of Salvation History.
 
Jim, yes I have studied the writings of the men you listed as as you might have seen used St Thomas but in a way that if he’s not turning in his grave he’s most likely is asking God to allow him a brief meeting with me for a good wack on the side of my head - and God in His infinate wisdom will probrably remind St Thomas about a good kick in the… to knock some sense into me.

Howver, until that epiphany occurs I will procees as usual.

As for my background, I’m going to decline going into my background because I believe the nature of this forum should be to let each person express their understands regardless of their educational background and training. For me, what is important is that what I express to correct. Where I may have a different opinion from another then I think there should be an open discussion based on what is written without any reference to the person’s unique character. But rom this I hope you do not think I’m implying that I was insulted in any way, I wasn’t and in all truth the thought hadn’t cross my mind - it’s just a desire to keep the playing field level for all.

About, my opinion of the men you listed I have read them all but again I believe it partly a question of starting points. Theirs is a High Christology, mine is a Low Christology and of coarse in their lives each most likely forgot in their sleep more than I could ever hope to know.

That being said, I would point out there has been a development in Christology which is based on scientific methods such as Form and Historical criticism and Archeology just to name a few. Now I realize the limits inherent in the use of any scientific method. I would suggest to anyone the work of our Pope Benedict
“Introduction to Christianity” inwhich he brings this out. That said, however, I still see the value of this Low Christology so long that it is a means and not an end. Now, before this development, Christology was almost with out an exception High Christology which was based more on philosophical reasoning rather than biblical study. This doesn’t mean that the bible wasn’t used but it was used as is, for example all qoutes of Jesus were Ippsissma Verbi. St Thomas was a creationist because that was how creation was presented in the Bible. Also, if you study the history of the Creeds, you will find that they were based on what I will call
Apostolic Tradition, which until the time of heresies were accepted by the Church and not really questioned, rather, they were celebrated in the Liturgical Life of the Church rather than analyzed. Then with the rise of various heresies the creedual response again was based on more philosophical reasoning than scripture study.
 
TOME

I do not know, but it seems to me you might have inverted faith and knowledge.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod holds two ironic positions, perhaps the two greatest ironies in the theology of history. First: Only faith! However, they told me that it was by scholarship that they discerned which books are biblical. Second: Only the Bible. However, they told me that they do not have a dogma for the canon of scriptures. I found that ironic.

Concerning the first, they have used the tree or wood of knowledge of good and evil (scholarship or human reason) to decided or discern which books are inspired. Biblically speaking, they have put seeing (knowing) first. The next step they take is hearing (believing). In my judgment, they have eyes but cannot see. They have ears but cannot hear. In my understanding: Faith first, then knowledge. In other words, we learn by faith. We do not get faith by learning. Scholarship must listen to the divinely revealed faith.

I do not know, but I believe that you have inverted the order also.

When I studied at the Angelicum Father Parsons said the say things that you are saying. We must approach the Synoptic Problem as any other piece of literature. We must approach it scientifically. He placed the wood or tree of knowledge of good and evil before the tree or wood of life. As we like to quote Saint Augustine: I want to believe so that I can understand. Faith is a mystery which is above our ability to comprehend.

Again, I do not know, but it seems to me that you have inverted the steps.

God bless!
 
Jim,

No I haven’t inverted faith and knowledge, but what I have done or failed to do is to clarify that my staring point is rooted in Faith. Actually, this apparent failing may be based that I assumed (and we all know what happens with that word!) that all would, in my case atleast, knew that and I wasn’t trying to be a neo-bultmann.

So I begin with the belief in the Christ of Faith but what I seek to know more is the Jesus of history because for me I think this could help me in my faith response. After all, are not the lessons and commands given to those who are commited to follow Christ were originally by a very human person?
 
Hi Tome,

Sorry for not answering sooner. I’ve been on an evangelical board and the discussion is heavy and time-consuming.

The bottom line for me is that I believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, but leave open the possibility that there were oral and written sources that he “edited” into what we know as Genesis. The Documentary Hypothesis is just that…a hypothesis.

As far as our Lord’s knowledge, since He was God in the flesh, since He was still the second Person of the Trinity while He walked on earth, I believe he was still omniscient. And when He said “Moses wrote,” I take Him at His word.

Thanks for the brief discussion.

Grace,
Gene
 
Gene C.:
Hi Tome,

The bottom line for me is that I believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, but leave open the possibility that there were oral and written sources that he “edited” into what we know as Genesis. The Documentary Hypothesis is just that…a hypothesis.

As far as our Lord’s knowledge, since He was God in the flesh, since He was still the second Person of the Trinity while He walked on earth, I believe he was still omniscient. And when He said “Moses wrote,” I take Him at His word.

Gene
Click to expand...
May I recommend the book “The Bible Unearthed” by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684869136/qid=1129207161/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-6648439-4396833?v=glance&s=books

Asa
 
I am no theologian, but I think Jesus may have had areas of “ignorance.” For example, I imagine the cry, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” to have been wholly sincere – at least in that moment of extremis, Jesus was blinded (or had blinded himself) to His divine nature (in order, perhaps, to truly experience death, as only a human being can experience it). It’s a mystery, of course, but I believe that Jesus must have possessed a fully human nature – there is more to the Incarnation than God inhabiting a body and PRETENDING to be human. In short, I can buy Him not knowing Hebrew.
 
40.png
gnosys:
I am no theologian, but I think Jesus may have had areas of “ignorance.” For example, I imagine the cry, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” to have been wholly sincere – at least in that moment of extremis, Jesus was blinded (or had blinded himself) to His divine nature (in order, perhaps, to truly experience death, as only a human being can experience it). It’s a mystery, of course, but I believe that Jesus must have possessed a fully human nature – there is more to the Incarnation than God inhabiting a body and PRETENDING to be human. In short, I can buy Him not knowing Hebrew.
Click to expand...
Jesus was quoting psalm 22:1 from the OT in order to fulfill prophecies.
 
I’m not here to challenge anyone’s belief but I would like to point out that in studying the Bible, whether it is studying the saying of Jesus or what could have been the means by which the Torah was written, there are certain questions that come naturally. Why is it in Genesis there are two creation stories needed. Why are there clearly different names for God , different locations that in the given verse is the most holiest sites for the Hebrew people? Why are these two factors plus so many others that clearly show that they came from different areas and tribes put together sometimes in the same paragraph? These and many other questions based on differences not really brought out or lost through translations, are what has given rise to such theories, rooted in scientific studies, such as the Documentry Hypothesis.

In the Gospels, there again many questions arise. I’ve seen in many post but in this thread and others, expressed belief that Jesus’ Divinity guarenteed Jesus knew all - He was ignorant of nothing. But how does one, then, explain Matthew 24: 26? How do we explain that sometimes Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God that was present here and now, but other times it was to come at an unknown future time? Did Jesus cleanse the Temple once at the beginning of His Ministry as in John or was it at the end of His ministry after His entry into Jerusalem? Did Jesus’ ministry last one year as found in the Synoptics or three years as in John (these time periods were determined by the mention of the various feast Jesus celebrated). We know from Pauls first letter to the Corinthians, many of the members of the Church there were having serious troubles when those who had known Jesus during His ministry and had experienced the Resurrected Jesus (the 500) were dieing amoung them some of the Disciples (James). Was Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 16: 28 wrong? All the Apostles are dead are they not? Has the Second Coming of Matthew 25 occured?

How do we explain these things?
 
Does not God the Father ask questions?

Does not God “seem” ignorant at times?

Is God said to have arms, legs, head and even a footstool?

Please forgive me, honestly, have you studied, studied, studied and studied again the Holy Bible, Talmud and the early Church.

Talmudic literature says something along these lines: Moses cried when he had to write: Moses did not cross into the Promise Land.

From Origen’s book on the Song of Songs pp. 25-26

The thing we want to demonstrate about these things is that the Divine Scriptures make use of homonyms; that is to say, they use identical terms for describing different things. And they even go so far as to call the members of the outer man by same names as the parts and dispositions of the inner man; and not only are the same terms employed, but the things themselves are compared with one another.

Origen believes that the inner man has ears, eyes, mouth, nose, womb, heart, and many other parts. He believes that the outer man’s parts are named from or after the inner man’s parts.

From Origen’s book Dialogue with Heraclides pp. 66 and 70, Origen teaches the same thing.

Origen believes that the inner man was created in the image and likeness of God.

Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (KJV).

Origen believes that the outward man is explained in Genesis.

Genesis 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (JKV).

Colossians 3: 9 Stop lying to one another, since you have taken off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed, for knowledge, in the image of its creator.

Colossians 3: 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10 And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him (KJV):
 
Jim, first about my background, reading your post I would say it’s probrably similar to yours.Yes I have done some scriptural studies which has included, though not directlt the Talmud. And yes I have read the Church Fathers as well.

Now about some of the other parts of your letter. I’m glad about your first point on how God, at times shows ignorance. How would you explain an All knowing God being ignorant? If you take it on its face value, that is what is found in the Bible has to be true, then God is ignorant on some things, God’s knowledge is mutable, that is it grows or changes, and God’s moods change as well. However, all these attributes add up to our God is not God at all if you believe St Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for the existance of God.

As for your quotes from Origen, I think it is important to understand the philosophical basis from which he is writing and teaching. Origen was deeply influenced by the philosophy of Plato. And remember, in Platonic philosophy there exist two worlds, the perfect world and the physical world which we experience.

I am sure that in your studies of the Old Testament you came accross the teachings about the original state of man. Our bodies were quite different almost spiritual bodies. In the Hebrew mythology, after the fall when God made clothes for Adam and Eve, these clothes were actually the bodies and skin humans have today. I think in our western thinking we have always pictured God sewing animal skins together, but the Hebrew thought was different.

This concept also gives us an understanding why Circumcision was and is so important for the Jewish people. It is a physical sign of the covenat which ultimately will lead to our original state before the fall.

This understanding also gives us some insight into Paul’s thinking. Remember, one of the most important aspects of Christ Jesus was Christ was the NEW ADAM. In Christ we are call to return to the state we were in before the fall. Now if you apply wrote I wrote above, about man’s physical state before the fall, then some of what Paul writes and you reference becomes clearer, at least for me.
 
Documentary Hypothesis: True or False?

It is what it is…a hypothesis. I believe that certain aspects of it will remain pious speculation, just as the hypothesis put forth by Molinists and Thomists, while contary to one another, are pious speculations, neither sententia certa of the Church, nor condemned as error by the Church.
 
40.png
clarkal:
But what about my other question? Does the Four-Source theory conflict with orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
I believe in the GELND Five-Source theory of the Pentateuch. Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy. I’m not quite sure why scholars feel the need to assert “new” theories, other than to sell books. 🙂
 
Gottle of Geer:
Other - since hypotheses can be valid or not, but not true or not, as only a direct statement can be true, or not. Too many statements, of differing logical status, make up too many forms of the Documentary Hypothesis, for it - they - to be true or false. It’s like asking “Do wheels have spokes ?” - there is too much detail to allow for a simple, straightforward no/yes answer.
Click to expand...
Eeeeeegaaaads…I agree with Gottle of Geer about Scritpure!!! 😉
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Boy, that was pretty harsh. The only people I know who speak that way are either fallen away Catholics or Athiests.
 
40.png
clarkal:
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.
Click to expand...
I recommend also what C.S. Lewis wrote regarding the accuracy (or complete lack thereof) of textual critics with regard to his own writings. See here:

Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism by C.S. Lewis
lrc.edu/rel/blosser/Lewis_on_Biblical_Criticism.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top