Re: another heresy?

Michael writes:

 "That view I have long held but cant see why it matters when the
Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many times before
the final form."

I agree. Historical questions of authorship, composition, etc., are
interesting, and may provide hermeneutical aids, but in the final analysis
it is the text as we have it that matters. What are its stories and what do
they mean theologically and spiritually?

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: another heresy?

> Theological students in the 50s had four coloured pencils and coloured the
> Pentateuch according to whether it was JEP orD! When I did theology in the
> 70s my non-conservative OT teacher said JEPD didn't work and combined J
> and E.
>
> There is much question about this now , but still it is taught .
>
> The likes of Gordon Wenham dispense with it and reckon the Pentateuch was
> collated in about 1000BC thus dispensing with both JEPD and Mosaic
> authorship. That view I have long held but cant see why it matters when
> the Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many times
> before the final form.
>
> Mathematicians will be interested to know that Euclid's geometry only
> partially derives form Euclid and was collated over centuries. Does that
> disprove geometry?
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
> To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:51 AM
> Subject: JEDP: another heresy?
>
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I've been wondering lately what the status of the JEDP documentary
>> hypothesis should be in light of its "evolutionary" character. It is
>> cited approvingly in plenty of Bible commentaries and is lambasted by
>> Answers in Genesis (see
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp) so my
>> assumption is to treat it with some plausibility. But I don't really
>> know much about it, so I thought I would ask experts on the list if it
>> is a firm explanation of "textual origins" or something weaker.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 7 19:36:19 2005