Talk:Pentateuchal criticism

In the beginning ...

Creating this article as a stub - I'll fil it out over the next few days. The rationale behind it is that there is currently no article covering the broad topic of scholarly study of the Pentateuch. The article documentary hypothesis currently carries most of the weight, but the DH is in fact only one of many hypotheses put forward under this broader heading (you can take a university-level course in Pentateuchal studies, but not on on documentary hypothesis). Ultimately, in the not-to-distant future, I want to move some of the DH article to this one (the parts that cover the broader background), and have this as the main article. PiCo (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Inferior progress review

The prose, as ever, is chrystal and smooth, both.

The lead, as phrased, would seem to preclude the likes of Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin from being considered to have approached the Pentateuch in a scholastic fashion. I think I know what you mean, but I can't quite think how to phrase it; if I could, I'm sure it would indeed be the definition of the intended meaning of the title of the article.

I think there's a subtle conflation in the first section. To whom does believers refer? In what is their belief? Some would say that all Christian (or Jewish) beliefs are consequent upon belief in the Bible, or at least some substantial component of it. Others would say beliefs are consequent upon belief in traditons that include the Bible to a greater or lesser extent. Either way, religious reasons is pretty vague also, I'm sure it's true, but are they really so complex as to need compression to this summary? I'd propose something along the lines of:

"Those with some degree of belief in the reliability of the Bible have been, and still are, inclined to take seriously its own apparant claims of Mosaic authorship for its first five books. However, in recent centuries, both such believers, and others, with merely historical curiosity, have explored how relaxing the presumption of Mosaic 'dictation' of the text may provide for more plausible explanations of a range of textual difficulties."

I'm not trying to blur things with the above. Please challenge any factual details, or would you broadly agree? When I hear characterisations of the debates, the catchphrase is "Literary versus Literal" and the majority Reformed Protestant Evangelical line is Literary is the way to go (and doesn't preclude the Literal where the text is literal).

Anyway, neither point is a big deal, but I think it is important not to cast the debate as "sentimental believers" v "rational unbelievers", the sentiments and rationality are typical of both groups; additionally it is often believers who initiate theories to better understand the text. I'm not saying you've done these things, I'm just sensitive to such suggestions (not sensitive to the point of getting emotional, though). :)

Alastair Haines (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to make a distinction between "academic" study of the Pentateuch - what I mean by Pentateuchal criticism - and religious study, which is more concerned with the spiritual message it contains. Of course, the distinction is blurry at the edges - where do you fit Meredith Kline? - but somehow we have to define the scope of the article. I want it to be about origins and composition. I don't deny that the other side exists and is important, but I just don't want to get into it in this article.

I've tried amend the article to answer your points, but I'm wondering know if I'm on the right track. Perhaps the section on the Pentateuchal problem should be explaining why the problem exists, rather than its history - after all, there's a history section a bit further down. That means getting into names of God and all that stuff.

There's some good early history stuff in the documentary hypothesis article - perhaps it could be cut from there and pasted in here, in the History section. And the History section could be a survey of major scholars - more on Eichhorn and De Wette, and Gunkel and other 20th century people.

When I started this, I really wanted to concentrate on the post-1970 period, because I felt, and still feel, that far too much attention is being given to the DH. I still want to do that, but I'm coming to think that I can't just skip over the earlier period.

Please keep on keeping an eye on the article :) - add some ref-tags!. PiCo (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Meredith Kline supervised my supervisor's thesis, I guess that would make him my academic grandfather (if I complete my work). I like the other names you mention as well -- the most cited scholars in the area. I agree that talking about why rather than when is really important. Of course, the two interact. I think it is true to say that it was "progressive" elements within Christian scholarship during the 19th century that really put Pentateuchal criticism on the map. However, I'm unclear as to how much was motivated by withdrawl from the concept of divine inspiration, in a growing separation between sacred and secular through the Enlightenment era, and how much to believers seeking to harmonize the scriptures, after the analogy of considerations of the Synoptic problem. I guess it doesn't really matter if we can't answer the question from sources readily to hand, I'm just shy of presuming that those who believe in divine inspiration wouldn't entertain source critical questions, even ancient literature shows that to be false. In contrast to the ancient world, 19th century literature shows more comfort than discomfort in believers and unbelievers discussing the same questions. Even unbelievers had substantial biblical education and often even attended church, that's how it was in those days. Our own times are also unique, perhaps in a dangerous way. My impression is that due to some traditional religious background, many westerners still think they understand Christianity, and are willing to speak on it in the same way 19th and 20th century non-Christians did, however, the fact is that they don't have anywhere near the same backgrounding as those writers. Hume's (long ago), Russell's (more recent) and Dawkin's oppositions to Christianity are progressively less informed and less respectful (a rather inappropriate parallel).

Where I find the classic believer v educated unbeliever discussion most evident is in conversation with Jewish people. As culture, Judaism continues to be steeped in Tanakh and even participation at synagogue. Their internal debates involve unbelievers with unbelievably (sorry) deep knowledge of the Tanakh. Additionally, Jewish Christian dialogue often involves people with great degrees of shared knowledge, and massive overlap in commonality of interpretation. This Jewish/Christian version of opponents with great depth of common ground is highly relevant to the academic context in which PC has evolved.

But, to bring this back to the article, I think that casting the discussion as an amorphous congregation of scholars addressing the same questions is better than casting it as a formal debate between sceptics and believers to settle who's right and who's wrong once and for all. To be honest, I'm not sure some of the best writers would even be clear which camp they actually belonged to! Indeed, sometimes that kind of personal angst has led to refreshing, constructive insights. We don't need to work out who were the heretics here at Wiki, nor determine which side was right. I'm not saying you are doing this, but other Wiki pages seem to be Southern-Baptists-v-Democrats-whoever-is-not-for-us-is-againsts-us kind of articles. Wiki needs more Australians! Alastair Haines (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)