Two versions of two stories

D

Dondi

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,615
Reaction score
10
Points
36
Location
Southern Maryland
If this has been discussed, please direct me to the proper thread.

In another post, I was engaged in discussion with wil, who pointed out a conversation he had with to Jewish aquaintances which wil describes the following:

"They discussed the existense of Jerusalem Bible and a Bethelem Bible and the differences between the two (one JHVH/YHWH the other Elohist origins) and then discussions/arguments regarding combining the books. And how we ended up with the two versions of creation and Noah to appease both parties."

The two accounts of creation (particularly with regard to Man) is in Genesis 1 & 2 and the two accounts of Noah bringing two of every animal vs seven of every animal is in Genesis 6 & 7. What wil tells me that one version is in one bible and the other version is in the other bible, but neither combine the two.

Is there an explanation to this?
 
Hi Dondi. :)

I think what wil might have been referring to is the idea that's generally accepted in modern biblical scholarship that there are four sources for the Torah we have today, each written or compiled by a different person or group of people, over different periods of time, and thus each reflecting a different voice, but later all combined together. These sources are the Jahwist/Yahwist or J, Elohist or E, Priestly or P, and Deuteronomic or D. I was actually going to supply this link in the other thread, but I can place it here as well. This shows the story of Noah divided up into J and P. You can see, for example, that the Priestly sections of the text are much more concerned with specifities like time and length because those are things that were of concern to the kohanim, with their focus on the rituals of the beit hamikdash.

The Story of Noah, Marked According to Source (RSV)

Dauer
 
Namaste Dauer,

Ah, dawn slowly breaking over marblehead...

So we got the J and the E and they were combined. Then the P, and the D. And R came along and combined them all, but in the process added some lines to link them together or make it flow better when they were combined?

Now I know another shuffle of sort occured when they left the Torah and became the old testament...not in particular lines of text but in the order of the books...

When it comes to the scholarship today, it is my understanding that the Orthodox maintain Moses wrote the books...So is it possible to define the lines between Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, Reconstruction and Renewal?
 
wil,

So we got the J and the E and they were combined. Then the P, and the D. And R came along and combined them all, but in the process added some lines to link them together or make it flow better when they were combined?
Click to expand...

You probably know about as much if not more about documentary hypothesis than I do. I think the way it overlapped I was just able to fill in a couple gaps. But I've yet to do anything terribly intensive with it. One of the wonderful things I find, however, is that studying via modern methods for me can be as spiritually enriching as studying in more traditional ways.

Now I know another shuffle of sort occured when they left the Torah and became the old testament...not in particular lines of text but in the order of the books...
Click to expand...

That's more of a Christian question, and to be more precise, the Tanach is not quite the same as the Old Testament, both as you said because of the ordering of books (and in that same vein the numbering of lines and chapters) and also because the OT is based on the septuagint and vulgate, whereas the Tanach is the masoretic text. So because of that there are also some differences in language due I think mostly to dealing with the translation of a translation but also there are of course interpretational differences between Judaism and Christianity than be pretty significant, even as to the traditional plain meaning of the text.

When it comes to the scholarship today, it is my understanding that the Orthodox maintain Moses wrote the books...So is it possible to define the lines between Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, Reconstruction and Renewal?
Click to expand...

Orthodoxy generally holds that the Torah was received on Sinai, written and oral. There's some room for variation of opinion within and at the edges of that.

All of the liberal denominations accept modern scholarship.

Conservative and Reform generally hold the Torah to be Divinely inspired in some way. However, this can be taken for one person very loosely, and for another person very tightly.

Reconstructionism states that the Torah is, I don't remember how they put it, but going along with their view that Judaism is an evolving religious civilization, it's almost like the stew that's sat and, well, you know what a good stew does when you leave it to simmer for thousands of years. lol. But nonetheless they see it as a contribution of the Jewish religious civilization. This is also influenced by their generally naturalist view of God.

Renewal isn't a denomination but rather a transdenominational or post-denominational movement, and as such there are viewpoints reflecting within Renewal about this issue which echo any of the above denominations, or a combination of them, or go in a different direction entirely. For example, a good question that I know has been addressed by some in the Renewal community although I have not had the chance to read their writing, "How do you do Integral Torah Study?" And the immediate answer is of course by making sure you're covering all quadrants, all lines, etc.

Dauer
 
Hi Guys:

In Harold Bloom's book, The Book of J, he tells the story (his version of course) of how the redactor wove the threads of the stories of Genesis into a coherent whole about 1,000 bce. He and several sources that he references posit that the redactor was likely a woman member of King Solomon's court.

flow....;)
 
you may be interested in the following threads:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/torah_torah_torah/
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/documents-hypothesis-redaction-theory-874.html
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/tilting-at-windmills-a-response-369.html

in which bob_x and i bump heads none too conclusively over this issue, despite his impressive scholarship and my bloodymindedness.

it is probably worth mentioning, however, that nobody has yet produced any of these documents from which the Torah was supposedly redacted. it is, naturally, fairly obvious to me at least why this is. in fact, it is hard to identify an element of the DH which does not at least rest in part on some conjectured - and entirely spurious - personality, whether J, E, P, D, R or whoever. none of these personalities have ever been identified with any degree of even reasonably credible reliability and it is hard to imagine that such a thing could ever take place. after all, the basic contention is that the styles utilised could not possibly be the work of one individual because they're all different. to which theory i will point you at two interesting literary individuals:

Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is anyone seriously suggesting that the author of the "lays of ancient rome", the "indian criminal code" and the "history of england" are three different people? i might also point you at the following eminent portuguese author:

Fernando Pessoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

who actually used heteronymy as a literary device.

finally, to give you one interesting example of the way the bible critics argue, it is often said that one persuasive piece of evidence for the late authorship of D or P (i forget which, but it's the "author" who was concerned with observance of the sabbath) is that the Tanakh itself records the widespread immorality and sinfulness of the israelites. this is then taken as proof that the laws of the sabbath could not have existed at the time the Torah was written, since they were so widely disregarded. this is like suggesting that the bootlegging industry was evidence that "prohibition" laws of the 1920s never existed. it is similar daft reasoning that underpins all of the arguments that i've ever read of these so-called scholars.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
BB:

Thanks for your astute analysis, especially your last paragraph. I'll bet there was plenty of unauthorized "diddling around" going on at the time of King Solomon, and would be very surprised if there weren't. Besides, I myself have always found Harold Bloom to be way too full of himself much of the time.

flow....;)
 
well, that's really what turned me off the DH in the first place - actually looking into it and its proponents - and back towards a traditional theological viewpoint, albeit one that considers critical thinking when expressing positions.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top