As you’ll note from the comments on my last post, Dr. Hunter Baker (fiend in human shape that he is) heartlessly refuses to engage in a public exchange of insults with me, appealing, apparently, to some principle of non-retaliation or something. Thus am I stymied in my ploy to try to raise interest in my books through a blog feud.
I need to find somebody to fight with. Somebody who’s actually a published author, but not so venerable (like Dr. Gene Edward Veith) that my insulting him would seem impertinent. As my mama always told me, “Keep your hair combed, wear clean underwear, and always be pertinent.”
I suppose I could try to pick a fight with Michael Z. Williamson. He’s a friend.
But I’m afraid of Michael Z. Williamson.
In closing, buy my books. You can order them from the carousel over on the right.
Today on the radio, Michael Medved interviewed Eyal Rav-Noy and Gil Weinreich, authors of Who Really Wrote the Bible, which looks very interesting.
The book does not seem to be a comprehensive defense of Scriptural authority. It’s actually about the Torah, the five books of Moses. The authors point out that, although generations of religion majors and seminarians have been taught the “documentary hypothesis” (what seminarians like to call JEPD), a theory that the Torah is a compilation of at least five very different (even contradictory) original texts, there is in fact zero tangible evidence for that theory. In fact, they say, there is good reason to believe that the Torah is the work of a single author (whether Moses or someone else).
Why does the Bible seem to command less respect with each generation? How is it that scholars managed to turn the world’s best book into a meaningless mess?
WHO REALLY WROTE THE BIBLE? traces the assault on the Bible’s authority to an outmoded academic theory — the so-called “documentary hypothesis” — that claims the Five Books of Moses were composed by four different authors (called J, E, P, and D) writing hundreds of years apart.
Here’s the good news. The scholars are wrong, their “scholarship” two hundred and fifty years behind the times.
Using the most up-to-date methods of analysis, WHO REALLY WROTE THE BIBLE? shows as never before the pristine unity of the Bible in stunning literary patterns that had to have emanated from a single mind. It reveals how the multiple-authorship theory depends on a simple misconception of the Hebrew names for God.
Using examples from well-known narratives such as the stories of Creation and the Ten Plagues, authors Eyal Rav-Noy and Gil Weinreich introduce readers to unique literary patterns that show just how carefully planned and unified the Bible really is.
Reestablishing the literary unity of the Five Books of Moses, WHO REALLY WROTE THE BIBLE? encourages readers to take the Bible seriously again and to reverse the tide of relativism and academic fashion that serves to erode society’s moral foundation.
Doubtless this won’t close the discussion, but I’m delighted to see it brought up. For years people have told me that their embrace of the higher critical approach to Scripture does not mean that they reject the “essential teachings” of the Bible. But I’ve observed that these same people have consistently used that view of Scripture as an excuse to compromise with current fashions in thought, theology, and morals.
I’ve been saying this for years, and I say it here—I know of no instance where any church body has abandoned the principle of the inerrancy of Scripture, and has not gone on to abandon orthodoxy as well.
But the Torah contains multiple versions of what appears to be the same event, how could that happen? It’s like saying that the stories about the invasion of Russia from the West came from two different actual events, and that Napoleon and Hitler were not the same person. Or to pick another example, that the short term conquest of France by Germany (1871, 1914, and 1940) happened multiple times.
Ori, what events are you referring to? The one I can think of is in Genesis 1 & 2, where the creation of the universe is described and then the creation of the earth is described. I’ve heard that people believe the two chapters work against each other, but they appear to be normal for ancient storytelling to me. At times, I’ve wondered if the critic is very familiar with ancient literature, like Homer’s works and The Rubaiyat. Overlapping the story line is the way some tales are told.
I think (I’m pretty sure) Ori’s being sarcastic about the critics.
As for the creation story (stories), they addressed that directly in the Medved interview.
I’m sorry I misread his comment. Looking at it again, I don’t know why I did. Sorry, Ori.
What did they say about the creation account?
Phil, I wasn’t thinking about the creation account, although that’s also an example. I was thinking about the “patriarch and wife go somewhere, the local king takes the patriarch’s wife, not knowing she is married, and God tells him to give her back” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife-sister_narratives_in_Genesis ). It occurs three times, with two different kings (Pharaoh and Abimelech) and two different patriarchs (Abraham and Isaac). This is used by followers of the documentary hypothesis to establish that there were multiple versions of the same stories, which then got edited together into one narrative. I was comparing it to well documented history, which includes plenty of events that appear repetitive.
No problem about not recognizing my sarcasm. Sarcasm is a difficult tool, and I sometimes misuse it and get taken seriously. I need to learn how to do it better.
Medved appealed to the tradition (which I believe is a Jewish one) that God created Adam first as a hermaphrodite, and that the creation of Eve in the second account involves Man’s separation into two sexes, naturally drawn to reunite in matrimony. Nice story; I like it. I’m not sure I believe it.
I always took the first account as a general one, and the second as a more detailed one.
Ori, I don’t know enough about document hypothesis to see stuff like that. That’s crazy to me, but I guess it’s similar to what I have seen of people saying that stories in the Bible are close to pagan myths, so the Bible must have stolen the pagan stories for its own wicked purposes–the Bible being the worst bane of decent people worldwide.
Oh, that reminds me of news I heard this morning.
Phil, what news?
I had 11 years of Bible study in school. It was an Israeli secular public school, so we studied it as literature rather than binding religion. I learned a lot about the documentary hypothesis.
Note: There are three separate public school systems in Israel. One is the secular in Hebrew (for non-religious Jews), one is the national-religion in Hebrew (for religious Jews, unless they’re so religious they go independent so the government won’t tell them what to teach their kids), and one for Arabs (in Arabic).
Going to put that book on my list! Being a believer in unity of the Torah (and Isaiah and other books which JEDPers rip to shreds), I am anxious for current scholarship defending the traditional reading.
One of the biggest problems with so-called “redaction critics” is they get so caught up in when each piece was inserted that they miss the whole point of the narrative. Of course, if their point is to ignore the point, then they hit the nail on the head.
I’d bet their point is to miss the point, Frank.
Ori, I’ll post the news in several minutes.
Lars, I dare not feud with you, even in jest, for fear that some person might make the mistake of thinking that I REALLY don’t like you or your work when the exact reverse is true. I am practically a Lars Walker groupie. I could not STAND to have anyone believe I could be so dense as not to celebrate the entire L. Walker catalog.
He seems sincere, but we should “test” him to be sure for it. Cardinal, BRING OUT . . . THE COMFY CHAIR!
Nooo! Not the COMFY CHAIR!!!!!