wavy said:
Thanks for those insights on some of the prophets, Josh.
There are many complex factors involved, however. Your resources I think are too simplistic.
Possibly. I didn't go into a whole lot of detail, and that would have to act like the opening presentation of a thesis paper with a body of the evidence given afterward if one were to flesh out the argument to make it more convincing. But either way, I was just wanting to introduce the idea since I came across it recently.
The first problem is, of course, the dating of the pertinent books, which is also relevant to the literary genre of 'prophecy' and the office of a 'prophet'. It is not my opinion that the prophecy is strictly about about foretelling. Rather, it's about forthtelling.
That statement (probably inadvertently) is more theologically correct than you know, although not for the reasons that I think you are thinking. ;) If you meant that prophecy can seem to be accurate because it is written while the events happen, thus only seems predictive, then that is definately not what I'm talking about. However, theologically speaking, in the Old Testament and also in the office of prophet in the Church era starting with the New Testament, prophets were/are given relevant details to what is
presently transpiring in heaven (the prophet who envisioned God asking who will entice Ahab into battle), or in the spiritual realm (the angels surrounding the Aramaeans coming against Elisha & the King), and King Saul prophesying when God humorously inhabited Him with His Spirit almost against His will (which was originally to kill David). Simply put, not all legitimate prophecy is predictive (like some think) but prophecy also teaches and reveals present (yet heretofore hidden or unrealized) realities as well. That being said prophecy is also predictive as well. I think all of what I just said is completely apart from the point you were trying to make but it just struck me as funny that you would say something so (inadvertently?) theologically correct.
Secondly, I also see a compositional post-exilic straw man with regard to the Pentateuch. DH scholars assign the bulk of Pentateuch material to the pre-exilic/monarchial era, drawing on existing traditions.
The so-called allusions to the Pentateuch can be dismissed as an argument since it's hardly plausbile that legal material/traditions entered Israel's institutions only after the Pentateuch was written, and no scholar would ever say as much. There are legal prescriptions in the pre-Mosaic narratives of the patriarchs. While some could be argued to be mere retrojections of later legal material as found in the Pentateuch, it's a given that the patriarchs would have practiced common customs deriving from their Semitic history, which were incorporated into the Pentateuchal corpus.
That being said, why is the DH important to you? What does it explain for you? So even if the DH does not deny the earlier sources, it is primarily all about the theory of how and why it was composed in the form it was. Does it give scholars some peace or sanity of mind to be able to trace some religio-historical influence/sequence of events to compose such a document? And does it of necessity have to be seen or used as a mechanism to explain percieved contradictions in the text (not what the DH is [or should be, anyway...] aimed toward)? Isn't that the role of the literary critic or the expositor? I know this may seem like coming from left field but I'm just wondering about, if the DH does not invalidate or even deny the existence of earlier sources (unlike some think or use the DH), what purpose does it serve for the critic as to the meaning of the text? Because the meaning (or reasons for composition) is obviously a motivating factor for a theory, but the theory itself shouldn't rely too heavily on using meaning (which it uses in the form of the redactors with different theological views, for example the Yahwist) to piece its textual theory together. Because if it cannot deny the earlier strains of thought (even if they weren't penned at the time) then a "progression" becomes less distinct if certain early parts had existed until "late" in oral and popular form. Basically I guess the question is, "What for you personally (and perhaps for other scholars) does the DH do for you (reference the "peace and sanity of mind?" question above)?"
Perhaps you would invalidate it for reasons in your past (I know you've had some sort of crisis of faith, that I do not personally know about), but I firmly rely on the conviction that
given scholarly pursuit and dedicated study of Biblical theology that the
reasons for the composition of the text can be theologically discerned, rather than having to rely on textual criticism as the primary explanatory evidence. I know you no longer consider yourself a Christian, although I don't know if that means you don't believe in God though (because I know some in such a position that still do believe in God, just not as [they think] how the Bible portrays God), but I must not and cannot, in my belief in God (for reasons other than just scholarship), invalidate God's working in the composition of the Bible.
Whether you want to call it mass human psycology, sociology, or religious movement the people who penned the Bible did so under similar convictions of God and I find it only due process to consider their works on the same terms under which they were written. And thus, in pursuit of that - not without faith (and infact primarily with faith), I also pursue the scholarly pursuits that I due to learn the times, culture, language, way of thinking and every day life of Bible times to come all that closer to understanding the Bible and why I believe God inspired it to be composed as it currently is. Sincerely speaking, that is what spurs me on to study the Bible as I do, and I am far from the only person to take this approach, and frankly I am encouraged by other Christians that are scholarly and more able than I that can dedicate their lives to so worthy pursuit. And even for those arguements that oppose, scepticism cannto be an end in itself and must have a realistic goal. My goal is to under stand how God tries to relate to us, and I believe the Bible in no uncertain terms tells us how, and for those dedicated enough to studiously read His Word that the truth can be made known in time. That is why I engage in these discussions and I hope you benefit as well as I do from these, but every once in a while I have to back up and evaluate why I am doing what I am doing to keep a focus, and I hope my sincerity shows in that.
I appreciate your constant efforts and willingness in continuing to discuss things with me as I bring them up. I hope I am giving able-enough responses to your posts and thoughts, and I hope one day to somehow connect with you on a human level rather than just a scholarly and intellectual level. I don't know what any of your failures or disappointments have been, or what crisis of faith you may have had, but I never hold out the possibility of being able to communicate to you some truth of the Bible. And your obvious dedication to studying such as subject, in relation to the BIble (even as a skeptic), shows that you have some certain passion or interest in it that drives you to do so. I'll take that as embers of hope and never stop trying to blow on it with the
ruach of the Spirit (if you will) I can possibly in any way once again rekindle and renew your interest and belief that God speaks through His Scriptures and that there is truth in them. ;)
God Bless,
~Josh
