There were also dissenters from the start, notably Scandinavians, such as Ivan Engnell, who argued for the oral nature of the sources behind the Tetrateuch, and Israelis, especially Yehezkel Kaufmann, who advocated the antiquity of priestly material and were generally doubtful about breaking up the text.
Nevertheless, the Documentary Hypothesis dominated Pentateuchal study until the s when the existence of E began to be questioned and J was dated to the postexilic period. At about this same time, source criticism replaced literary criticism, which came to be used for the interpretation of the Bible as literature under the influence of literary studies in the humanities.
In the late s and early s European scholars dismissed J as a source, replacing it with a model that identifies numerous written sources and cycles of tradition. However, many North American scholars steadfastly defend the Documentary Hypothesis. This widespread disagreement continues today, although P is still generally recognized as a principal source, and the distinctiveness of D is also maintained.
While the showcase of source criticism has been the Pentateuch, it is also used in other parts of the Hebrew Bible. Source criticism entails three steps: determining the separate elements that make up a text, reconstructing the sources, and dating them. The first two steps involve taking note of three features within a text: doublets and repetitions, contradictions and tensions, and differences of vocabulary and style.
The leading examples are the creation accounts in Gen and the flood story in Gen In Gen , two separate accounts of creation doublets have been juxtaposed in Gen and Gen b, with Gen a as a linking verse.
The a and b refer to half verses. The most obvious tension between them is the order of creation where humans are created last and as a group in Gen but a man and a woman separately in Genesis 2, with plants the garden and animals between them.
In the flood story, two versions have been intertwined. Doublets are apparent, as in the two sets of reasons for the flood Gen vs. Gen One of the most obvious contradictions concerns whether Noah is to bring one pair of every kind of animal Gen or seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean Gen Such differences in content are reinforced by different styles and sets of vocabulary, including the two distinct names for god—Yahweh and Elohim.
Once the different sources are isolated, an effort can be made to date them. Dating is of two kinds: relative and absolute. Relative dating tries to determine which source is older than the other. The link in Gen a is often recognized as part of an organizational scheme used by P as a heading. This suggests that the author of Gen P edited Gen b J? Absolute dating assigns concrete dates to the sources. The postexilic date typically assigned to Gen a, for instance, depends on the dating of P as a whole and on possible evidence of Babylonian influence during the exile.
Steven L. McKenzie Professor, Rhodes College. His research and teaching interests include the history of ancient Israel, the literature of the Hebrew Bible, Hebrew language, the Dead Sea Scrolls, methods of biblical interpretation, and archaeology. The Bible did not just appear in its entirety. It was written, edited, and collected by people over the centuries.
Over a thousand-year period, biblical texts were written onto scrolls, copied by scribes, and circulated in various communities who deemed them canonical or not.
Legends about the authorship of the Hebrew Bible notwithstanding, it is likely that most of the books had many writers and editors.
A state of being that, in the Bible, combined ritual and moral purity. Certain actions, like touching a corpse, made a person unclean. Evaluating its subject carefully, rigorously, and with minimal preconceptions. Related to the religious beliefs connected to Deuteronomy, which emphasized monotheism, the Jerusalem temple, observance of the Law, and the destruction of idolatry.
The theory that the Pentateuch Torah is composed of four distinct literary sources, known as J, E, D, and P, that were edited together by a redactor into a single composition. Interpretation of the genre and shape of a narrative in order to determine its original setting and function. Hebrew is regarded as the spoken language of ancient Israel but is largely replaced by Aramaic in the Persian period.
The set of Biblical books shared by Jews and Christians. A more neutral alternative to "Old Testament. Relating to or associated with people living in the territory of the northern kingdom of Israel during the divided monarchy, or more broadly describing the biblical descendants of Jacob.
The religion and culture of Jews. Of or related to the written word, especially that which is considered literature; literary criticism is a interpretative method that has been adapted to biblical analysis.
Relating to the period in Judean history following the Babylonian exile — B. Relating to the priests, the people responsible for overseeing the system of religious observance, especially temple sacrifice, depicted in the Hebrew Bible. Redact, redacting. A method of biblical study that considers the various versions of a text and the edits that have been made to it.
A historical-critical method of biblical interpretation that analyzes discontinuities, inconsistencies, repetitions, and other narrative clues to identify the different authors of the Bible; see Documentary Hypothesis. Was Matthew a Calvinist?
God forbid! Even God applied the attribute good to the creation? Even though the work of the sixth day is never called good by itself.
Source criticism is a very unique way to study the bible in order to find the source of the text. This problem entails the connections between Matthew, Mark and Luke and how they slightly differ in word selection. This statistic is hard to read over and truly makes me think that Mark was the source used for Matthew and Luke. Thinking this, there is still possible fears of probing into the origins of the Gospels using this method. For example, it would be easy to get caught up in the sources that the actual message would be overlooked.
I think there is a lot of things that we can take away from this method because there are always things to discover if we dive deeper in the text. According to this, all scripture is for our learning so I think we should study it from all different angles and perspectives in order to get a better understanding.
Although there are some dangers to methods like this, with the right attitude I think there is a lot we could gain from source criticism. I have found in my own life that it is really easy to become complacent about reading the Bible and pushing myself to understand it further. I think one of the ways that we as Christians can grow spiritually is to challenge and find out where what we are reading comes from and why.
A good parallel to this is simply reading something on the internet and believe it as truth. Well, if there is no proof behind it, or even if there is, how do we know it is true? If we do not challenge those facts, we could move on and continually have false information implanted in our minds. If we use this kind of thinking for the way we dig in scripture and base our beliefs off of it, then we might go our whole lives on false information or a misconception. This might seem a bit over dramatic, but at the same time it is a habit that we should not be lazy about.
Criticizing scripture is just one way to get a larger and more in depth view of what went on during that time period. We should understand that Scripture is true, but there is no harm in trying to find out why it is true. Or where it comes from. The time and place of events, who wrote it, and a different way of looking at what is being said.
Overall, pushing scripture and trying our best to understand all perspectives on scripture is what we should do in order to grow with a well rounded knowledge of the Bible. Like a musician learning a music piece for a recital or concert, they do not just skim over the music and get the rough idea or feel for the song. They have to know the song forwards and backwards and all by memory.
Every single dynamic change and the overall feel for the song. We music approach learning and understanding scripture with the same intentions to truly grasp what the Scriptures are saying. Source criticism is used a lot today. So many people are concerned about giving credit to where it is due. In this case it is about having accurate information. Everybody debates about the bible because the bible has so many ambiguous statements that need extra interpretation.
I know that I have a hard time distinguishing between what is the truth and what is a lie. Obviously everything in the bible is true, but it is hard to know the full meaning behind a phrase, and each word that is changed can change the meaning of a passage. I really like the statement about the importance of using source criticism.
The bible is the inspired Word of God, and He is the ultimate source. I think that source criticism may be necessary and overall good. I think that looking into those verses with the words just being slightly changed is good for us to look at, I think stepping back and trying to dissect what is being said and who is saying it, asking these questions are very good for us to determine what the truth is.
I do not think we can just get stuck in the thinking that there is a specific one right answer for certain questions, when in reality it is probably just an opinion. We just need to do our best to read the Scripture for what it is truly saying, studying the Word and learning the background is what will help us with that, but even then it seems someone can argue something different.
I think the only thing we have to fear in source criticism is if it were to begin to cause division or dissension. I really understand and have enjoyed other forms of Gospel criticism. Historical criticism, for example, makes sense to help us understand what Jesus truly meant in his day, as opposed to how we may interpret it today. I understand, as N. Wright has been emphasizing in the first few chapters of The Challenge of Jesus, that we can often times miss something that would have been obvious to the people of that time period.
It may be tough for us to recognize that the parable of the Prodigal Son actually implied pretty clearly to the people of the day that the Kingdom of God was upon them. However, source criticism still seems less important to me.
What difference does it really make who wrote first? I think it is interesting to study and think about, but it is hard for me to understand how source criticism should have any large implications to my Gospel study.
I believe that whether or not someone is fearful of probing into the history of the Gospels depends on their purpose of searching. Their faith in Jesus is not built on a strong foundation and will be taken away in the waves and winds of the world, Ephesians It brings to light the relationship that the Gospel writers had, and it allows readers to read different portions of the Gospel through different sets of eyes.
I believe that the Gospels are written differently for a unique purpose. Source criticism opens up another realm into understanding the differences of the Gospels.
Will someone please explain to me how the sermon on the mount would have been remembered verbatim by someone in the audience when it was preached. But there is clearly an oral tradition that predates the Gospel writers and appears in a variety of sources.
You seem ignorant about how speeches were reported int he ancient world, whether Jesus or a Roman orator. Obviously you ought to read the books themselves, but this is a good start. These two scholars are far from conservative fundamentalists and will give you a nice overview about how oral tradition works. None of this is true, and your statement is an assumption that cannot be proven by using legitimate methods of historical research.
To be honest, my head was swimming after reading about the Synoptic Problem and all the various forms of criticism. I found the parallel of knowing your source on the internet, written in a comment from Ben in , to really bring the point some clarity.
I find this especially true in the world we are living in Knowing the source your information is coming from is so important. Reading a post on Facebook from a random person does not hold the same validity as reading an article from a trusted news source. I find this helpful in answering your question of what can be gained from studying source criticism.
Having an eyewitness to a story brings much more validity than simply word of mouth. Knowing that the writers of the Gospels began to write down the accounts during a time when eyewitness were alive gives an additional layer of truth to the Gospels.
0コメント