S
- Status
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
As rwoehmke said
The use of doublets goes beyond Genesis, at least as far as Exodus 15 - there are two sets of Exodus narratives
It is a prejudice, nothing more, to assume that, to be true, a tradition can only ever come in one form - IMHO, the Bible gains immensely from telling more than one tradition of a event, more than one approach to it. Two versions of an event supplement one another - both tell us something about God, that we would not have if only version were given us. In the Bible at least, “variety” really is “the spice of life”.
absolutely. It suggests moreover that the ancient Hebrews were more open minded when it comes to “god’s word”…they thought both versions added something, so they included both.
Have you read Claus Westermann’s commentary on Genesis 1-11 ? He is very thorough in his treatment of Gen. 1-2.4a.
Those who dismiss the distinction between the Priestly & Jahwist sources out of hand & on principle could do far worse than read the last 60 or so pages of his commentary. Reasoned rejection is one thing - the late Ugo Cassuto, a Jewish scholar several times quoted in Westermann, did not believe in the validity of the Documentary Hypothesis either; but he did not rely on insults to make his point: that is the difference between Cassuto, & some Christians. If the DH is invalid, jeremiads about “modernism”, & calling its advocates bad names, do nothing to discredit it. Appeals to Church authority can’t settle the issues either.
J
juliamajor
Guest
The Priestly, Yahwist, and Eloist traditions in the story of Genesis are well attestest to. I know of no serious scholar who argues there were not two stories conflated together from two separate writings. Again, in trying to force the text, you lose part of the message./Quote
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
All your “experiment” proves is that you can identify the same changes in tone and emphasis in the text that this theory is based on. However, this doesn’t prove the theory.Hi guys - I did a little experiment of my own when studying the JEP sources.I opened my bible and started underlining passages that I thought conformed to the different sources.Then I looked it up online and found out- (amateur Bible Teacher that I am) - that I could pick out the different lines of the sources. I could distinguish E from P and J from E or P.I think as a hypothesis it pretty damn solid-
“Pretty damn solid” would be discovering one of these alleged sources, or any historical reference to them.
The Catholic biblical logic test should go something like this:
Authorship Theory → Is German? → Yes → from 19th century? → Yes → REJECT.
J
juliamajor
Guest
since most “sources” started out orally it would be pretty difficult to prove.Most creation stories were transmitted orally for centuries - would it be so odd to have several renditions off the same story?-Noah’s ark - did it carry pairs of animals (Gen.6:19-20) or was there seven pairs of clean animals and a pair of unclean animals(Gen 7:1-4)? Chapter 6 makes no difference in clean and unclean-Where did that come from since Leviticus’ Holiness Code was not in play until Mt. Sinai- who would be concerned with unclean and clean?
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
Again, isn’t it possible that the so-called “second account” or Gen 7:1-4 is just an elaboration of the so-called “first account”?since most “sources” started out orally it would be pretty difficult to prove.Most creation stories were transmitted orally for centuries - would it be so odd to have several renditions off the same story?-Noah’s ark - did it carry pairs of animals (Gen.6:19-20) or was there seven pairs of clean animals and a pair of unclean animals(Gen 7:1-4)? Chapter 6 makes no difference in clean and unclean-Where did that come from since Leviticus’ Holiness Code was not in play until Mt. Sinai- who would be concerned with unclean and clean?
I don’t think I’m the only person ever to read the Pentateuch and see it as a cohesive whole. The creation story has never seemed like two different accounts by two different authors to me, and neither does your Noah’s Ark example.
S
Steve40
Guest
Tell them that it is the same historical account from different views. One view is the wide view and the other view is of he narrow or small view. God is God of both the very wide and the very small.
Also, notice how Adam was create before there were any plants of the “field”. There were other plants created at that time but there were no plants in the field where God took the dirt to create Adam. This means that the dirt was lifeless or virgin soil.
God creates life where there is no life. I’ve seen Him do it within me as well.
Also, notice how Adam was create before there were any plants of the “field”. There were other plants created at that time but there were no plants in the field where God took the dirt to create Adam. This means that the dirt was lifeless or virgin soil.
God creates life where there is no life. I’ve seen Him do it within me as well.
S
Seamus_Sully
Guest
Origen said:
First account tells of the interior man.
Second account tells of the exterior man.
First account tells of the interior man.
Second account tells of the exterior man.
S
Steve40
Guest
There is no difference of order. In one case God created plants in general and in the other case there were no plants of the field. This is not a Biblical error on God’s part it is intentional. The field had no life in it when God took the dirt to make Adam. You need to pay attention to detail when you are reading the more detailed historical account.
S
scottm
Guest
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Notworthy says:
First account tells of the exterior God. (The God of Might - El Shaddai)
Second account tells of the Interior God. (The God of Love - Abba!!)
T
TOME
Guest
When ever I read post in a Thread, such as this one, that focuses in on the first three chapters of Genesis or Evolution something always astonishes me, namely how seldom the works of Pope John Paul II and our Holy Father Benedict XVI are used. I actually want to say never - but we know all generalities are false.
But I ask why is this so? Why is it I seldom see these two great theologians being quoted or used as a reference or even their writings reflected in the thoughts of those who contribute posts on this subject? Is it because too many of us are not familiar with their writings, or perhaps some find it difficult when they use modern biblical scholarship in their writings?
I ask how many of us are familiar with the General Audiances given by Pope John Paul II in the months of October through December of 1979? How many of us have read and studied Pope Benedict’s work, “In the Beginning” or his several books on Mary? I ask this because if many of us were familiar with these important works then many of the questions concerning Genesis 1 - 3 would have been answered or would have been reflected in the post given.
If we call Pope John Paul II, “John Paul the Great” then shouldn’t we honor him by studying and understanding what he wrote and taught? True, Pope John Paul II did write that what Pope Pius XII wrote about Genesis was true however I am afraid too many stop at that headline and do not to continue to go on and read the wealth of all his teachings on the meaning of Genesis 1 - 3. Or read only the criticisms Pope Benedict XVI has towards the use of historical criticical method in biblical scholarship yet fail to read his works that uses modern biblical scholarship as I believe it should be used and thus miss out on the wealth of our Holy Father’s knowledge and teachings.
But why this is so, I just don’t know.
But I ask why is this so? Why is it I seldom see these two great theologians being quoted or used as a reference or even their writings reflected in the thoughts of those who contribute posts on this subject? Is it because too many of us are not familiar with their writings, or perhaps some find it difficult when they use modern biblical scholarship in their writings?
I ask how many of us are familiar with the General Audiances given by Pope John Paul II in the months of October through December of 1979? How many of us have read and studied Pope Benedict’s work, “In the Beginning” or his several books on Mary? I ask this because if many of us were familiar with these important works then many of the questions concerning Genesis 1 - 3 would have been answered or would have been reflected in the post given.
If we call Pope John Paul II, “John Paul the Great” then shouldn’t we honor him by studying and understanding what he wrote and taught? True, Pope John Paul II did write that what Pope Pius XII wrote about Genesis was true however I am afraid too many stop at that headline and do not to continue to go on and read the wealth of all his teachings on the meaning of Genesis 1 - 3. Or read only the criticisms Pope Benedict XVI has towards the use of historical criticical method in biblical scholarship yet fail to read his works that uses modern biblical scholarship as I believe it should be used and thus miss out on the wealth of our Holy Father’s knowledge and teachings.
But why this is so, I just don’t know.
S
Steve40
Guest
Maybe we don’t agree with them, which is fine.
But, if you are refering to JP II’s Theology of the Body, I agree with this modern Biblical scholorship. In fact I would say that in relating Genesis 1-3 to Mathew 19, the Pope didn’t go far enough. He should have expoounded upon the meaning of mother and child being a type of one flesh union as shown in the Incarnation. This also gives us insight into the creation of Adam and Eve. That is, the flesh of Adam came from lifeless dirt and the Heart of God, there was no other lifeform involved in this union. Eve, as Sacred Scripture and Doctrine tells us, came from Adam and the Heart of God, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.
T
TOME
Guest
Steve40,
Yes, part of what I was referring to was Pope John Paul’s “Theology of the Body” but that was just part of it or as the saying goes, “The tip of the ice berg”. But it help illustrate my point, even if John Paul didn’t go far enough he still had points I think you fond reasonable. But to push this a little further, perhaps what you would like to see in Pope John Paul’s work may actually be found in other writings of his and if you are looking for a theology of Mary’s Virginity and why it was and why it was necessary then there is more than enough material on this contained in the works of Pope Benedict - “Daughter of Zion” is one example.
But again, my point is why is there such a lack of any reference to any of the works of these two men? And do people in this forum really don’t agree with them and if so why - and to keep it more on topic what is there to disagree with what they write on the meaning of Genesis 1 - 3?
Yes, part of what I was referring to was Pope John Paul’s “Theology of the Body” but that was just part of it or as the saying goes, “The tip of the ice berg”. But it help illustrate my point, even if John Paul didn’t go far enough he still had points I think you fond reasonable. But to push this a little further, perhaps what you would like to see in Pope John Paul’s work may actually be found in other writings of his and if you are looking for a theology of Mary’s Virginity and why it was and why it was necessary then there is more than enough material on this contained in the works of Pope Benedict - “Daughter of Zion” is one example.
But again, my point is why is there such a lack of any reference to any of the works of these two men? And do people in this forum really don’t agree with them and if so why - and to keep it more on topic what is there to disagree with what they write on the meaning of Genesis 1 - 3?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I’m aware that Benedict is quite a theologian, I have no information about his background in biblical exegensis. I was unaware that JPII was either… I considered his writings more pastoral in nature, rather than exegetical. I take it I’m wrong?
M
mschrank
Guest
JPII’s theology of the body goes right into this question.
Also, keep in mind Jesus quotes from the second account in the Gospels.
Also, keep in mind Jesus quotes from the second account in the Gospels.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Of course you arent the only one. Most of us would do the same thing. Isn’t it wonderful to learn new things from folks who devote their entire career to studying this wonderful book?
And I’m not clear on your thingy about Germans? a couple posts back…German theologians? I’m confused.
B
buffalo
Guest
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
This is a pastoral explanation and a lovely one. It is not however exegetical.
B
buffalo
Guest
- Status