Z
zarthan
Guest
Agree. Jesus Christ himself quotes from the prophet Daniel (Matt.24:15), as does the apostle Paul (2 Thess. 2:4) and John in Revelations 13.
- Status
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Well Mark was the author of the Gospel in the Sense that He wrote it, based on Matthew, but to a different audience.
P
ProVobis
Guest
C
Crumpy
Guest
The Jewish Publication Society has a book in print titled “The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices” by Israel Knohl, 2003, 155 pages plus notes.
The book discusses the JEDP sources of the Torah and, especially, highlights their agreements and contradictions. He attacks a monolithic approach to scripture as simply not agreeing with what was written.
The title suggests the author’s concluding remarks, that there really are a lot of disparate ideas in the Torah, which he highlights throughout the book. He reasons that they arose in groups who were isolated from each other. The “Bible” didn’t come together until a later time in Israel’s history, and he notes evidence of attempts in scripture to smooth over differences.
The Pontifical Biblical Institute issued a document called “The Jewish People and their Scriptures” (which is available in the document library of the www.ewtn.com website). There is an acknowledgement that the Hebrew Scriptures are inspired, and they are important to understanding the New Testament. In general, the document recommends that the Church not ignore the Jewish scholarship of a couple thousand years’ study of the Torah.
Regarding an earlier remark, the late Jaroslav Pelikan wrote a volume called “Whose Bible is It?” describing how Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim ownership and understanding of the Old and New Testament (as the case may be), and he shows what they do with it. So, there is NOT a single view of who “owns” the Old Testament. This book is worth reading, it is well-written.
The book discusses the JEDP sources of the Torah and, especially, highlights their agreements and contradictions. He attacks a monolithic approach to scripture as simply not agreeing with what was written.
The title suggests the author’s concluding remarks, that there really are a lot of disparate ideas in the Torah, which he highlights throughout the book. He reasons that they arose in groups who were isolated from each other. The “Bible” didn’t come together until a later time in Israel’s history, and he notes evidence of attempts in scripture to smooth over differences.
The Pontifical Biblical Institute issued a document called “The Jewish People and their Scriptures” (which is available in the document library of the www.ewtn.com website). There is an acknowledgement that the Hebrew Scriptures are inspired, and they are important to understanding the New Testament. In general, the document recommends that the Church not ignore the Jewish scholarship of a couple thousand years’ study of the Torah.
Regarding an earlier remark, the late Jaroslav Pelikan wrote a volume called “Whose Bible is It?” describing how Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim ownership and understanding of the Old and New Testament (as the case may be), and he shows what they do with it. So, there is NOT a single view of who “owns” the Old Testament. This book is worth reading, it is well-written.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
A very good post. There is another book, written about 80 years ago by Jewish biblical scholars led by Rabbi Julian Morgenstern, that takes a similar position regarding Genesis. They looked at Genesis as a compilation of stories gathered over time from different traditions. They had no problem accepting or teaching this idea, and it did not lessen their belief that the scriptures are inspired by God.
The Pelikan book is one of my favorites, and after reading it I bought a copy for my library. I too would highly recommend it.
You are correct; I mis-stated that in my post. Daniel (of which there are a couple of versions of different lengths) was not universally accepted as there was no set Jewish canon at the time. Some Jewish groups included it, and some didn’t. Thanks for the clarification.
B
bkennedy
Guest
The Pontifical Biblical Commission shed some light on this question in 1906. For those who can read Italian here is a link:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19060627_pentateuchi_it.html
The basic stand is that Moses was the author of the Torah, but it can be believed that he may have used previous sources under “the divine influence” and that it may have had minor editions to it “in the long course of centuries” such as statements about Moses’ death, or that he was the “most humble of all men.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19060627_pentateuchi_it.html
The basic stand is that Moses was the author of the Torah, but it can be believed that he may have used previous sources under “the divine influence” and that it may have had minor editions to it “in the long course of centuries” such as statements about Moses’ death, or that he was the “most humble of all men.”
B
bkennedy
Guest
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Actually, modern Biblical scholarship holds that Mark was written first (if you accept the Q theory). There are approx 4 different competing theories, but all, or maybe just 3, hold Markan primacy.
I’ve picked this up from my diocesan Scripture class, but I believe it’s covered in the Ignatius Study Bible intro as well (Scott Hahn, etc).
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Markan priority is the minority view, and I hold it due to lack of evidence to the contrary. In fact, all evidence for Matthean priority can be interpreted to support Markan priority. My source? I am in aiblical Foundations class taught by…wait for it…Dr. Scott Hahn
R
rcjones
Guest
P.J. Wiseman demonstrates that the key to understanding authorship lies in the phrase “these are the generations of” which is repeated throughout Genesis.
Ancient clay tablets ended with a colophon indicating authorship. As such, thus phrase is evidence that Genesis was transcribed from clay tablets on to papyrus maintaining the structure of the tablets.
2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth”.
5:1 “This is the book of the generations of Adam”
6:9 “These are the generations of Noah”.
10:1 “These are the generations of the sons of Noah”.
11:10 “These are the generations of Shem”.
11:27 “These are the generations of Terah”.
25:12 “These are the generations of Ishmael”.
25:19 “These are the generations of Isaac”.
36:1 “These are the generations of Esau”.
36:9 “These are the generations of Esau”.
37:2 “These are the generations of Jacob”.
Each usage in Genesis indicates it’s author except for the first one and the last tablet had no colophon.
This hints that God wrote the first tablets (where have we seen that before) and gave them to Adam who followed his lead in recording the family history. As the tablets got passed from father to son, Jacob carried them into Egypt where Joseph or Moses would have transcribed them onto scrolls as was the Egyptian method at the time.
Moses would have had access to them in the library of Pharaoh where Joseph left them.
.
Google ‘toledoth’ and P.J. Wiseman.
Ancient clay tablets ended with a colophon indicating authorship. As such, thus phrase is evidence that Genesis was transcribed from clay tablets on to papyrus maintaining the structure of the tablets.
2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth”.
5:1 “This is the book of the generations of Adam”
6:9 “These are the generations of Noah”.
10:1 “These are the generations of the sons of Noah”.
11:10 “These are the generations of Shem”.
11:27 “These are the generations of Terah”.
25:12 “These are the generations of Ishmael”.
25:19 “These are the generations of Isaac”.
36:1 “These are the generations of Esau”.
36:9 “These are the generations of Esau”.
37:2 “These are the generations of Jacob”.
Each usage in Genesis indicates it’s author except for the first one and the last tablet had no colophon.
This hints that God wrote the first tablets (where have we seen that before) and gave them to Adam who followed his lead in recording the family history. As the tablets got passed from father to son, Jacob carried them into Egypt where Joseph or Moses would have transcribed them onto scrolls as was the Egyptian method at the time.
Moses would have had access to them in the library of Pharaoh where Joseph left them.
.
Google ‘toledoth’ and P.J. Wiseman.
E
Epistemes
Guest
So you’re in one class with Scott Hahn, who is himself a leader in biblical misinformation, and now you think you’re poop doesn’t stink?
To the contrary, Markan priority (or, the Two Source Theory) is now the majority view, but by no means universal. Even scholars who don’t accept the source Q hypothesis nonetheless accept Markan priority. The evidence is there, of course, but I’m sure it’s easier for pedantic traditionalist conservatives to mindlessly accept the imprimatur of Scott Hahn and cite it as indisputable fact rather than take the time to truly educate one’s self.
See, for instance:
Adela Yarbro Collins - Mark: A Commentary
John S Kloppenborg - The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections
John S Kloppenborg Verbin - Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel
Christopher M Tuckett - The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis
Christopher M Tuckett - Q and the History of Early Christianity
Christopher M Tuckett - The Messianic Secret
Mark S Goodacre - The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem
Mark S Goodacre - The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze
Burton Mack - Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth
Burton Mack - The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins
John R Donahue, S.J. - The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina)
Joel Marcus - Mark (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries)
Once you’ve finished these, see me for others.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Well aren’t you the lucky one! Rome Sweet Home was an instrumental book in helping me recognize Catholicism as the best place to be after I came out of the desert of atheism I had wandered in for 25 years.
I’m not too keen on the whole Q approach - I think that it brings in unnecessary explanations. I hadn’t heard that the evidence for Mark vs. Matthew could be interpreted the same. Do you have any cites/sites you could give me for more info?
Of course, my instructor would say that Hahn’s viewpoint is in the minority. I believe that those of her belief hold many of the positions in seminaries and academia, esp in the academic publishing world. My viewpoints overall tend to overlap with Hahn’s positions overall.
Personally, I’m not all that concerned about the priority issues. My beef with this perspective is that it tends to make the miraculous the mundane, esp in regards to the OT. What does Dr. Hahn teach about JEPD? I’m less than thrilled about that approach as well.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Dr. Hahn was careful to neither endorse nor dismiss Q, or the multi-source hypothesis of redaction criticism. His personal belief I am unsure of, though I know for a fact he dismisses the multiple Isaiah nonsense. Right now I am taking a short break on a paper from another class, but after this monster has been tamed I will scour my notes and see what I can find for you.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
He has forgotten more about Theology that you or I know. Please refrain from insulting leading Catholic Scholars.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
“pedantic traditionalist conservatives”?
“Scott Hahn, who is himself a leader in biblical misinformation”?
Well, it’s rare that a single post will contain both so many good research suggestions AND nasty insults!
Is it proper to consider anyone spending time learning more about the Word of God a pedantic traditionalist conservative? Regardless of the numbers supporting one viewpoint or the other, we won’t really find out until we reach Heaven which is correct.
What are among Hahn’s many errors?
S
Sheeniac
Guest
I’ll hit Isaiah next year. I’m in a 4 year, 30 week/year, Scripture study sponsored by my Diocese. The Biblical Institute was started about 15-20 years ago in Denver, then spread to Chicago, and started last year in Joliet. One priest I talked to said it was masters level, but I consider it an intro to the Bible since we hit every book over the 4 years.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I am pursuing a MA Theology degree with the possibility of seminary to follow.
E
Epistemes
Guest
And it’s the realm of theology where Hahn ought to remain, not discussing New Testament scholarship of which he can only espouse antiquated opinions.
And Hahn is far from a “scholar,” much less one involved in the on-going debate concerning OT or NT authorship. He is, at best, a press-friendly author and apologist trapped by the expectations which other fundamentalist Catholics press upon him. Catholic scholars would include Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Pheme Perkins, Barbara Reid, Joseph Fitzmeyer, S.J., Luke Timothy Johnson, et.al.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Fundamentalist Catholics? Is that the opposite of Borderline Catholics?
I see no strains of fundamentalism in his writings. Care to share an example or two?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
You have obviously never read Kinship by Covenant. Granted many of his books are for ar general audience, but that does not diminish him as a Bible Scholar. As far as “antiquated opinions,” I will take the antiquated opinions of the Fathers over liberal Jesuits like Rahner and his ilk.
- Status