Re: The Pentateuch dissected and revised

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 17:39:38 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "(no subject)"

    Good point Terry. Nowhere in the Pentateuch does it say who or when the
    final version was written. A priori I cannot rule out a 5th cent final
    editing but tend to about 1000BC. However I do think it a wee bit unlikely
    that Moses wrote Deut 34 though I do know what Mark Twain would have said.

    It is 30 years since my OT lecturer took the mick out of JEPD and he wasnt
    even a conservative!!

    I do think more people could do with a better understanding of when the OT
    books may have been written and how to interpret the variouskinds of
    literature therein.

    I dont think Job 41 describes Hadrosaurs wiith inflammable gases coming out
    of their nostrils. Job 41 vs19-20. That type of view shows a lower view of
    scripture than the most sceptical atheist.



    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Terry M. Gray" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 5:38 PM
    Subject: Re: The Pentateuch dissected and revised

    > Bob Schneider wrote:
    > >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
    > >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
    > >accounts woven together. Where I found Wenham convincing is in his
    > >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
    > >job of redaction. This creative editor-writer, whoever he was, was able
    > >bring these sources together in such a way that the account reads
    > >and effectively. I think the differences in the sources are still
    > >but they do not detract from the movement of the narrative, and in fact
    > >be missed by a reader not alerted to them. I do not hesitate to believe
    > >that this redactor was inspired.
    > Just to note that there is nothing in Bob's comments here that is
    > *necessarily* inconsistent with the Old Princeton/Hodge-Warfield view
    > of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy. Perhaps the redactor
    > was Moses himself and the sources existed prior to Moses ;-). Since
    > Moses lived hundreds of years after the events of Genesis (and since
    > the view of inspiration that I am talking about is not a mechanical
    > dictation model), it is necessary that Moses obtained his information
    > from other sources either some oral traditions or perhaps some prior
    > written accounts.
    > The claim of inspiration applies to the final assembled text. Even
    > E.J. Young acknowledges certain additions to the Pentateuchal text
    > that are not likely to have been written by Moses, whom he believes
    > to be its chief author. Young notes that the editor making the
    > additions was inspired similarly to Moses so that the resultant text
    > was inspired in exactly the same way.
    > TG
    > --
    > _________________
    > Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
    > Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
    > Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
    > phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 09:39:44 EST