Elohist tradition - current thoughts?
DiscussieBiblical History
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1richardbsmith
Reading in Blenkinsopp A History of Prophecy in Israel, I found this from the Introduction:
"Even if the elusive Elohist (E) constitutes an identifiable and independent source, which many scholars would be no longer prepared to grant, its "northern" provenance is simply assumed rather than demonstrated."
This comment, almost an aside in the introduction to the book, was a little surprising to me. I had not been aware of such revisions to the standard documentary hypothesis, thinking that JE separation was difficult in places but that J and E independence was firmly established, as also their respective provenances.
Any thoughts or references on current studies and conclusions in the documentary hypothesis?
"Even if the elusive Elohist (E) constitutes an identifiable and independent source, which many scholars would be no longer prepared to grant, its "northern" provenance is simply assumed rather than demonstrated."
This comment, almost an aside in the introduction to the book, was a little surprising to me. I had not been aware of such revisions to the standard documentary hypothesis, thinking that JE separation was difficult in places but that J and E independence was firmly established, as also their respective provenances.
Any thoughts or references on current studies and conclusions in the documentary hypothesis?
2Rood
I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I believe that attempts to suggest that the Bible was not compiled from widely different sources at widely different times, and for widely different reasons is at best wishful thinking. The insertion of Genesis 17 into the narrative during the exile, as a replacement for Genesis 15, for instance, is only too apparent.
But see:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html
But see:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html
3richardbsmith
Rood
Appreciate the comment. In my question, I was assuming the basic outline of the documentary hypothesis - that the growth and development of the bible was a compilation of numerous distinct sources. The question was more about apparent revisions to the thought that two separate traditions could be identified in the part that is generally identified as JE.
J was thought to be from Judah and E was thought to be from Israel.
The statement quoted from Blenkinsopp implies to me that such a clear distinction is no longer granted and that the question of provenance of the two sources then is still open. That is new info for me.
Of course, neither am I a biblical scholar.
Thanks for the link.
Appreciate the comment. In my question, I was assuming the basic outline of the documentary hypothesis - that the growth and development of the bible was a compilation of numerous distinct sources. The question was more about apparent revisions to the thought that two separate traditions could be identified in the part that is generally identified as JE.
J was thought to be from Judah and E was thought to be from Israel.
The statement quoted from Blenkinsopp implies to me that such a clear distinction is no longer granted and that the question of provenance of the two sources then is still open. That is new info for me.
Of course, neither am I a biblical scholar.
Thanks for the link.
4kiwimac
While there is some considerable discussion about the documentary hypothesis, it is still considered the best description of the history of the Pentateuch / Hexateuch among scholars. Some groups disagree with it but they tend to be the more fundamentalist of Judaic / Christian groups.
5bookmonk8888
>2 Rood: (Rood)
You say "I believe that attempts to suggest that the Bible was not compiled from widely different sources at widely different times, and for widely different reasons is at best wishful thinking."
Most Biblical scholars believe that the Bible was "compiled from widely different sources at widely different times". It is more a library than a book.
You say "I believe that attempts to suggest that the Bible was not compiled from widely different sources at widely different times, and for widely different reasons is at best wishful thinking."
Most Biblical scholars believe that the Bible was "compiled from widely different sources at widely different times". It is more a library than a book.
6Rood
Yes, but many fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible was handed down by "God" in one fell swoop, complete and finished, without emendations ... in English, of course.
7bookmonk8888
>6 Rood:
How so true. Fundamentalists reject scholarly research of the biblical documents as historical documents. The principles are the same for the study of all ancient manuscripts - redaction criticism etc. This study could actually be independent of one's belief of the bible as 'inspired'. Unfortunately it is the same with the Koran for an awful lot of Muslims.
How so true. Fundamentalists reject scholarly research of the biblical documents as historical documents. The principles are the same for the study of all ancient manuscripts - redaction criticism etc. This study could actually be independent of one's belief of the bible as 'inspired'. Unfortunately it is the same with the Koran for an awful lot of Muslims.
