I saw comments ridiculing the idea of Mosaic authorship and claiming that there was no scholarly support for it. These comments themselves were very dogmatic and unscholarly, and appeared to come from folks who have no training in biblical or theological areas.
That's fair enough. I was a little surprised myself at the unequivocal denial of evidence for Mosaic scholarship. I was under the impression myself that there was a scientifically legitimate minority that supported single authorship of Genesis.
Unfortunately, your attempts to support this were, in my opinion, not very adequate. Just to take a couple of
your examples:
quote:
Eugene Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (I own this one, and highly recommend it)
Bruce Waltke, Genesis (I own this one, and recommend it)
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 1, Gen 1-15 (I own this one, and highly recommend it)
(
Added by edit: I purposely chose the ones that you said that you own so you can comment, if you wish, on the accuracy of the comments I am quoting.)
When I look up these individuals and these works I find things that seem troubling to me. I have already
commented on Dr. Wenham's book. And here is what I find when I look up the others:
From the blurb on
Dr. Watke's book:
quote:
Exploring the first book of the Bible as "theological literature," Waltke illuminates its meanings and methods for the pastor, scholar, teacher, student, and Bible-lover. Genesis strikes an unusual balance by emphasizing the theology of the Scripture text while also paying particular attention to the flow and development of the plot and literary techniques”inclusion, irony, chiasm, and concentric patterning”that shape the message of the "book of beginnings.L Genesis Models the way to read and interpret the narratives of the book of Genesis Provides helpful exegetical notes that address key issues and debates surrounding the text Includes theological reflections on how the message addresses our contemporary theological and social issues, such as ecology, homosexuality, temperance, evil, prayer, and obedience
And here is what I find for
Dr. Merrill's work (written by someone who wrote a positive review):
quote:
The crucial fact to consider in this work is that Merrill explicitly states that his position stems from the assumption that the Bible is the revealed Word of GOD (itself a minority view among "Biblical scholars").
I just don't understand what these sorts of things have to do with "scholarship". I'm sure that you, as a scientist, don't include stuff like this in your scholarly writings, and I don't see what these have to do with what is essentially a historical analysis.
I have read exactly three books on Biblical criticism. I won't specify which ones since I think they tended to be out of the mainstream themselves and I don't want that to distract from the point I am trying to make. Namely, that these books read exactly like secular history. During the course of this thread, I decided to look up the authors, and found out that one is a Jesuit priest and the other teaches at a seminary affiliated with the Methodist Church. I was greatly surprised by this (prompting the addendum in my previous post) -- I never suspected their religious backgrounds from reading these particular works.
To me, this is what scholarship is. It doesn't have to be dry or uninteresting, but the writer should not be betraying so explicitly her own ideological partisanship. After all, it is a fact that a single person wrote Genesis, or it is a fact that Genesis is the result of the work of several people. This fact should be ascertainable simply by examining whatever physical evidence there is, whether is is a careful analysis of the texts or an examination of archeological finds. Just as in biology and geology, one's religious beliefs should be completely irrelevant as to what the facts are, and what are the reasonable inferences that one can draw from those facts.
That is not to say that the people on your list aren't scholars. And it may very well be that mixed in with the theological junk there is some valid textual criticism and historical analysis. But sure, as a scientist, you can see how mixing the theology would diminish the credibility of the works? I think we all recognize what a great scholar William Paley was, but we also recognize that his
Natural Theology is a very different creature than the Natural History of Lyell and Darwin.
Now I don't know Classical Hebrew or Akkadian or Aramaic. I do not have any direct experience with Middle Eastern archeology or Mesopotamian histriography. So when someone is trying to explain something to me, I have no way of knowing, really, how reliable they are, and when several people's accounts contradict one another I really don't know who is more accurate. I have to figure out some way of deciding how reliable the various sources are. So when I find this about the
institution with which Dr. Merrill is affiliated:
quote:
Dallas Seminary stands unequivocally committed to the Scriptures, God's inerrant, infallible, authoritative written revelation.
and I find similar statements connected with several of the authors on your list, I start to get a little bit suspicious. Regardless of these particular persons' opinions on the issue, they are part of the same crowd that has so badly embarrassed themselves in regards to biology and geology. Now am I really expected that suddenly these people are going to have an open mind when they study the scriptures that are central to their faith?
That is what I find most telling about your list. You make it seem as if Mosaic authorship is confined to the conservative wing of believing Christians. Surely you must realize how suspicious that is. If the evidence is not yet final for the documentary hypothesis, if there is reason to believe in single authorship (even for Moses himself as author), then where are the agnostic and secular researchers and the liberal theologians who accept single authorship?
I am still willing to believe that Mosaic authorship is a scientifically legitimate (if minority) position, and that the list you supplied just reflects where your personal interests in this matter lie. I am simply trying to explain why, based on what little I know, I would probably not be impressed with the sources you cite.
And, of course, I may be wrong. The blurbs I quote might be wrong; the works you cite may have no theology whatsoever (except what is necessary to explain the historical context, of course), and that they read exactly like secular history texts.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Added indicated sentence. And, what the heck, I might as well change the subtitle, too.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. --
Charley the Australopithecine
™ Version 4.2
