Response to Genesis Post #13
Well, I must confess, I am not fluent in Hebrew. But I'm sensing a trend. This is somewhat reminiscent of the much maligned comment, "That depends on what the word "is" is." made by Bill Clinton during his times of trouble in the 90's.
I don't say that just to be glib or dismissive of scholarship. In fact I applaud this approach you are taking; studying the language, examining the context, researching the culture. But do you take it far enough?
As an evangelical Christian I was taught that Moses wrote all 5 of the first books in the Bible. As it turns out, this is not what the vast majority of Biblical scholars believe to be true. (In fact the only ones who don't acknowledge the following tend to be of a decidedly evangelical or fundamentalist bent).
In fact, although Moses still receives credit for most of the source material in the Torah, both Jewish and Christian scholarship has determined there are as many as 5 easily identifiable authors, or more pointedly, scribes within these books attributed to Moses.
We can certainly get in to the different authors at a later time. But, for those unfamiliar or skeptical of the notion It would be informative to read chapter 1 and chapter two in a "compare and contrast" method.
Stylistically and linguistically they are quite different. In fact, it would appear to be a very confused mind that would write these two chapters sequentially and present them as a narrative.
Beyond just the contradictions of chronology, there is a distinct difference in the "voice" of these two passages.
But, it is even more subtle a proposition than that. We of a modern and Western mindset will be compelled to (if we accept the premise of dual authors) conclude that chapter 1 is writer A (actually, he's known as "P" for "Priestly") and chapter 2 as writer B (actually, he's known as "J" for Yahwist or Jehovist), but we would be in error.
The writer of chapter 1 is indeed "P", the "Priestly" writer. A literary style more concerned with history and genealogies, the letter of the law, if you will. You'll notice in chapter 1 the almost mantra-like approach to the action. Not a lot of personality.
In chapter 2 "P" continues…but just for the first few verses. Then, verse 4 rather abruptly, transitions to Creation story redux. This 4th verse is generally thought to be written by yet a 3rd author, at least in part. But more about "Redactor" as necessary.
The remainder of chapter 2, which is also thought to predate chapter 1, is attributed to writer "J". Our Yahwist friend. And to be fair, compared to "P", old "J" is a regular pushover. "J" is where you're more likely to hear and feel real emotion, dialogue, and blessed mercy from God. For example, the words "mercy", "grace", and "repentance" never emanate from "P"'s pen. However, "J" and his commiserator "E" (yes, that's another one the scholars have identified through style, language, and interest) use these words around 70 times. Apparently, "P" is believed to have written chapter 1 after "J" wrote chapter 2. This would explain the presence of "R" and his clumsy attempt at a transitional phrase (the first half of verse 4).
Sorry this is so dang long…
By the way Alan, I am not assuming you are ignorant of these things. Although, I don't know how much education you have received outside the confines of modern evangelical "thought". I would assume, with your curious and voracious intellect that I'm not showing you any new info here. However, I can say with great confidence, that this knowledge of Biblical origin is not exactly bandied about in Sunday School.
The point is, these were oral traditions of a pre-history for the nomadic Hebrews. They were written down, once a written language was developed, and were later compiled. This took centuries of development. To read this as a literal truth flies in the face of even the most remedial research. That said, faith is a funny thing. One can certainly believe whatever one wishes. But to do so without examining the evidence is a shoddy bit of work.
No comments:
Post a Comment