From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 11:13:15 EST
To follow up on David's comments about source criticism, I am finishing a
semester course devoted to the Book of Genesis, that mine of jewels. It
seemed to me, as I introduced my students to source and redaction criticism,
that there is evidence enough that Genesis is a redacted work that draws
from more than one source. After reading Gordon Wenham's critique of the
hypothesis that the Flood story contains two major sources, despite his
argument to the contrary, I still remain convinced that there are indeed two
accounts woven together. Where I found Wenham convincing is in his analysis
of the structure of the Flood story, an excellent example of chiastic or
palistrophic arrangement of episodes and details into a coherent and
striking narrative. It seems to me that what we have here is an outstanding
job of redaction. This creative editor-writer, whoever he was, was able to
bring these sources together in such a way that the account reads smoothly
and effectively. I think the differences in the sources are still evident,
but they do not detract from the movement of the narrative, and in fact may
be missed by a reader not alerted to them. I do not hesitate to believe
that this redactor was inspired.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
To: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: The Pentateuch dissected and revised
> This connects back to the higher criticism thread of a month ago.
> Having taken plenty of time to think over the issue of source
> criticism, I realized that some components of the argument are
> inherently circular. On the one hand, it is necessary to assume that
> a passage is a coherent whole in order to argue that apparent
> conflicts should be resolved in their shared context. On the other
> hand, it is necessary to assume that a passage is composite in order
> to claim that apparent conflicts represent independent contradictory
> accounts. Thus, in the account of the Flood, if the passage is taken
> as a whole, then there are no separate accounts of pairs versus pairs
> and sevens, because both are part of the same account. If the
> passage is divided, then there is a detail in one that is lacking in
> the other.
>
> As for the issue of evolution, the misuse of source criticism makes
> it understandably suspect. In noting that he assigned a bit more to
> Amos than prevailing liberal models, my religion professor said that
> the criterion for assigning authorship of a passage to the prophet
> rather than to some redactor was whether you liked the passage or
> not. He happened to like a bit more of Amos than average.
> Jefferson, with his physical cut and paste approach to editing out
> the parts he did not like, was merely more obvious. Looking for
> sources is potentially very informative, but the popular criteria for
> JPED etc. seem to me to be of highly dubious merit, as is the extreme
> fragmentation. The only objective evidence that we have on the above
> divide versus unite dilema is that the present text is united and
> therefore was presumably regarded by the final editors as a coherent
> unit.
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
> Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
> Droitgate Spa
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 30 2002 - 12:17:11 EST