Tolle, Lege discussion

Discussion of Genesis here.

Bill wrote: Isn't the merging of the two different creation myths rather obvious -- specially to anyone reading it in the original languages? We have Elohim the creator Genesis 1:1 to 2:4, then Yahweh takes over with his own version of the creation. What is the intent of the writer with this? Was he really identifying Elohim with Yahweh? Or was one of these versions an addition by a later person?

Yes, Bill, the accepted theory in modern source criticism of the Bible is that there are four main sources of the Pentateuch: the Priestly (P), the Yahwist (J- called Yahwist because he refers to God as Yahweh), the Elohist (E- because he uses "Elohim"), and the Deuteronomist (D)- plus the redactor (R).

Genesis in particular has three of these sources woven together- the J, E, and P. You're right to point out that it's particularly obvious here with the switching narratives!

For instance, the opening of Genesis, one of my favorite parts of the Bible, is generally attributed to "P"- the orderly progression and the more distant God are 'P' hallmarks.

I could go on- my study Bible breaks it down for me fairly nicely- but I need to scoot. I'd love to get back to your questions later!

My understanding of the issue is that in both Judaism and Islam, God has many different names/titles which are meant to show His different manifestations/sides and together His infiniteness. The practice was probably inspired/taken from Zoroastrianism (which has 101 names for God). There are 72 names mentioned in the Old Testament and 99 in the Quran, to me, it doesn't seem that likely that each of those names are actually different deities who were absorbed and woven into standard Judaism/Islam.

Bill wrote: "Rosemary wrote: "Yes, Bill, the accepted theory in modern source criticism of the Bible is that there are four main sources of the Pentateuch: the Priestly (P), the Yahwist (J- called Yahwist becau..."
You can read one source critic's view of how the Old Testament (Tanakh) was written here:
Who Wrote the Bible?. (I am not saying I agree with him.)

Regarding the writing of Scripture, much of Exodus and Leviticus claim to be a record of what Yahweh said to Moses. Few who believe in the inspiration of the Bible would say that it was actually dictated by God. A more common view of inspiration is that the human writers wrote using their own thought processes, vocabulary and style. They utilized sources that had been written previously. But at the same time the Holy Spirit worked in them in such a way that the end-product was what God wanted to be written, and as such Scripture has authority for faith and life.

Bill wrote: "So given this formation of the Bible from many sources, only of which The Book of Revelation in the N.T. proclaims itself to be dictated by God. If one assumes that the Bible is nevertheless, 'inspired of God', what does this mean? Isn't it a different kind of inspiration then dictation? What are the different implications of this different kind of inspiration? These are the kind of questions I ask myself and am curious to hear from others on. "

I tend to believe that the writers of the Bible were inspired by God in the same way that I feel inspired to speak in Quaker Meeting- that they prayed deeply and felt the Holy Spirit move within them, and because they were able to open themselves to God, they were able to come up with something greater than they could have on their own- but what they came up with was still subject to human error and limitations.

That's my faith-based approach, however! I also believe that folks need to be open about their biases when discussing the Bible, and further believe that an atheist can have a perfectly reasonable approach to the Bible as well, even though it won't be my own (I bristle at the 'worthless junk' approach, though- I DON'T think that's reasonable!)

Anyway, my faith traditionally sees the Bible as a revelation of God, not the definitive revelation of God, so I can get away with these things . . .

Patrice wrote: "Rosemary, I just want to say what a great idea you had in forming this group. It's one of those ideas that is so perfect and obvious that you wonder why it wasn't done before.

I have a very super..."

Awh, thanks, Patrice!

Your class sounds great- I never knew that about "Elohim," either!

I really recommend the Old Testament course that Yale offers on-line- it's videorecordings of all the class lectures, plus worksheets, etc., and it's all free. Googling "Yale open courses" will get you there.

Bill wrote: "That leaves a lot of the Bible that seems to be historical narrative, didactic, theological, or prophetic rather then devotional."

Well, I think it is all of those things! One of the best ways I've heard the Bible analogized is as a library, not a book.

For some people, Genesis is the science and biology section of that library, but not for me- it's more like a tempestuous love story. ;-)

Bill wrote: "That leaves a lot of the Bible that seems to be historical narrative, didactic, theological, or prophetic rather then devotional."

If one believes in an all powerful God (and creation would seem to bear that out), then couldn't God still be at work even in the recording of the parts that seem to us to be simply historical narrative? I would agree that there are many places where it is difficult to draw deep theological or devotional lessons/insights, but that doesn't mean that God's hand couldn't have been at work in guiding what was recorded. Just because we can't see the reason doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm constantly reminded that our thoughts and ways are not the same as God's (Isa 55:8), so can we always understand?

Also, did you mean to imply a separation between theological, didactic and prophetic and devotional? (I'm asking for clarification, not for the sake of argument.) Personally I'm not sure there must be a separation in these things, so I'm trying to understand if that's what you meant.

Blessings. --L

Bill wrote: "Need we assume factuality in historical narrative if we assume spiritual value or that God is at work?"

Nope! ;-)

Some months ago, when spending some time with the book of Genesis, I was finding the opening chapters of this book particularly fascinating as they related to the creation stories: The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis by Leon Kass.

Sometime when I get around to revisiting Genesis, I shall go seek the copy in our local library and peruse it some more -- even if I don't agree with Kass on all the positions he has taken.

Lily wrote: "Some months ago, when spending some time with the book of Genesis, I was finding the opening chapters of this book particularly fascinating as they related to the creation stories: [book:The Begin..."

I read Kass' book. I really enjoyed it. Worth the read.