“Don’t you think that JED and P might have been kept in separate books if the redactors thought there really was a conflict?”

Unlike Matthew and Luke (which were two texts and entire books in their own right), the same cannot be said of the two creation accounts. One can see that these number only a very few verses. As it is unclear when the original versions of Genesis came into being into its entirety, it is also unclear as to how many minor scrolls/narratives were drawn together to bring the “Book of Genesis” into being. The fact that the church fathers did not “interleave” the genealogies is because that would have meant heavy editing which I think we have already established was unacceptable. Genesis on the other hand is a collection of stories which runs from the creation of the world to the descent of the children of Israel into Egypt, tells the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, and the biblical Patriarchs. This is why you have the stories set one after the other in some chronological order. As to why they did not keep them in separate books, I do not know – logic would suggest that the canonisation occurred to prevent the loss of the traditions.

Regarding DH

“The actual claims of that theory include the claim that JE (let alone J) was extant on hard copies centuries before P. P would be in a state of oral ‘fluidity’ in a time when J was fixed. J was also in use by the author(s) of P.”

J was also in use by the author(s) of P? It may be true. There is however contrary evidence that the second chronology of Genesis was derived from Babylonian creation mythology due to its marked similarity. One thing we do see about DH is that where similar stories are told, the differing tradition or retelling is recorded also but without interleaving. Why? Because the editors were wont to play fast and loose with what they considered Holy Revelation.

I am not an advocate of DH. It is one of many theories about the composition of the OT – I am prepared to consider all possibilities and apply logical, rational and even skeptical thought to them. On an equal basis, the original inerrantist view, when it was presented to me in my youth just did not hold water as it was not logical and breaks down under rational questioning. One only has to study the history of any event to know how difficult it is to get to the truth – what is missing is, of course, all the events which were not recorded and hence lost. What each of the theories of the compilation of the bible do bring to the table is evidence of the piecemeal compilation and accretion of smaller units into the texts was we read them today. These harmonize quite well with approach I have advocated.

They don’t harmonize with the inerrantist approach which makes the claim that the OT (esp. the Pentateuch was written/edited by Moses).

On Interleaving

“Well, we don’t really know whether or how any of this redaction actually happened (it’s not like there are minutes to the Third Redactor’s Congress or some such). So we certainly do not know what kind of penalties were attached to editing or interleaving. That is entirely your conjecture…though I’m sure that you can cite reputable scholars who agree with you.”

Would you say the Bible itself is good authority?

Deuteronomy 4:2:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

Revelation 22:18-19:

“For I testify … If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city …”

Sound pretty damning to me. Much like yourself, if I had the time I could cite authorities, but would you accept them? It would also make for an uninteresting discussion. I have not asked for any evidence from you, I have simply accepted your position on the basis that you have arrived at you current understanding from having read from a variety of informed sources – some may be right and others just off the mark, some may even be fundamentalist claptrap. I am sure that you delineate between what seems right and wrong. Similarly, my interpretation comes from what I have read. I don’t claim they are totally correct, as any view point is only a single side of the coin. This is why it so interesting to talk with yourself as your viewpoint is different to mine.

What is actually telling is your admission that no-one actually knows how or when the redaction took place. Even those who advocate DH and its variants are not dogmatic, they forward their understanding for critical review, but their theories take into account history and are likely to be closer to reality than much of what I have heard from inerrantists. By the way do you believe in the DH? From your posts it is unclear what you believe. If you do believe in the DH it is incompatible with inerrancy.

On the rewriting of the NT

Yes, I have heard of the Jesus Seminar – They, however did not write a new version of the Jesus story to remove the inconsistencies within the different books of the NT. Rather they advocate a skeptical approach to the historical and mythological Christ. I don’t know why you are relying on them to bolster your argument. If any thing their position undermines your position considerably. So friend I think my original position still stands.

BTW, I did not think the LCMS held the view that the canons are open. Certainly there is evidence to suggest the contrary view. Much of the viewpoints espoused are very hard line fundamentalism, to the the extent that the Pope is demonised as the very “Anti-Christ” himself. You may not hold these views or you may, but I see no evidence that the LCMS has such liberal views as to the openness of the canons.

On the Ages

Sorry friend, I was being somewhat flippant. The Age of Denial, Apologetics and Reinterpretation are a summary of the positions of what the churches and its believers have adopted. The periods overlap and are not definate. What is true, however is that the early church denied any viewpoint that conflicted with its own. Many scientific minds were ridiculed and persecuted only for their scientific theories to be later accepted. Any interpretation of the Bible which did not concord with church dogma was equally brutally subjugated – hence the age of denial. I believe that is where the seeds for the LCMS actually started. The age of apologetics continues today with more fundamentalist scholars coming forward to bolster biblical inerrancy. It may well have started way back when biblical inconsistencies were originally discovered. Certainly the earliest form of apologetics can be found in the Talmud. The age of reinterpretation also continues today as it did throughout history. As we discover more and more of the laws of science and build upon theories till they become fundamental “facts”, the scripture has been looked at again and again to see if it fits with what we now know. Inerrantists have had to reintrepret the scripture to accord with these.

On Different Versions

“What? Because a book is translated a lot it somehow becomes less reliable? You have got to be kidding.”

I agree with you that as more translations come into being, more light is shed on how to interpret the Scripture. However, in my many discussions I have often had those speaking to me reject various translations as “not worth the paper they are printed on”. They stick to the one which suits them. Now what is important is when one translation omits passages which appear in another. Why would they do that unless the passages where not authentic? And that is the nub of the point of different versions. If you place your entire faith on a certain passage and then find out it is fabrication, well that should make you both question your faith and the infallibility of the Bible.

Bear in mind that a translation is not a literal word by word transliteration and so there remains much scope for re-invention to suit the translator’s own preconceptions and prejudices.

On the State of the Manuscripts

“…as far as the NT goes, since there’s a fragment of a copy of Matthew that dates to about AD 65, your poet would have to have written quite a long time ago, but not very long after the actual events.”

Okay, let’s say that this view is correct. But that only accounts for one book out of 66. And since you have already admitted that you have no idea who, when or how the OT came into existence, Matthew’s compiltaion does not really affect my argument, as its not even in the OT.

If Matthew was written circa 65-70AD, it is highly likely that the author of Matthew was not even alive at the time of Jesus’s ministry. That then makes the author a second hand witness. Someone who only knows about Jesus what he has been taught, not what he himself had witnessed. That does not mean that I refuse to also consider the contrary view that he was alive during Christ’s three year ministry. I just think it is unlikely.

On Divine Infallibility

You did not answer any of my questions. Why? Too difficult? Or perhaps you don’t want to consider the implications of such a viewpoint?

My question to you was why couldn’t an omniscient God not get the order of his own creation correct whilst still revealing his omnipotence? Unless of course the story of revelation is not God-inspired.

It does not require the Bible to be idiot-proof, just correct.

Thank you again friend for taking time to respond as you have.

Here are some remarks on some of your points. They are not in any particular order except that they seemed the easiest to craft a well-worded response. It’s all I have time for. No doubt I will miss some of your points.

——————————

On the Genealogies

“Intriguing – did you miss the entire paragraph I wrote about the controversy concerning the genealogies of Christ and the fact that both don’t match? How in earth did they get into the final “authorised” version of the NT?”

I didn’t respond to this for two reasons. First, because there’s already been a thread on it on this very blog. (A thread, I might add, where I did a very poor job arguing for inerrancy. You might like to look at it for a good laugh.)

Second, did you notice how the Church Councils didn’t put the Matthew and Luke genealogies right next to each other but kept them in their separate books. Even the books aren’t next to each other. I’m not saying that the genealogies are incompatible. But I think that we are dealing with a case of the church fathers wanting to avoid the appearance of conflict. Don’t you think that JED and P might have been kept in separate books if the redactors thought there really was a conflict?

——————————

On the Difficulty of P Assuming an Incompatible J

“One thing you overlook friend, regularly, is that these traditions arose from oral traditions before finally being written down. Many traditions were centuries old before the made it to animal hide, papyrus, clay tablets etc. Centuries old before they came to be considered before any council of Rabbis made up of Rabbi Jedidiah and Priestly.”

But you see, the DH is an actual theory that makes actual claims. It is not merely something to be used to club ‘stupid traditionalists’ over the head with. The actual claims of that theory include the claim that JE (let alone J) was extant on hard copies centuries before P. P would be in a state of oral ‘fluidity’ in a time when J was fixed. J was also in use by the author(s) of P. Gen 2 is pure J, and Gen 1 is pure P. So I’m not ignoring anything. I’m relying on this dynamic of DH. If anything it seems that you are ignoring the consequences of the theory.

——————————

On Interleaving

“As to the suggestion of “artful interleaving” -again you miss the point entirely. Editing in the manner you are suggesting was punishable by death and/or eternal damnation. This is why there exists much literature about the texts.”

Well, we don’t really know whether or how any of this redaction actually happened (it’s not like there are minutes to the Third Redactor’s Congress or some such). So we certainly do not know what kind of penalties were attached to editing or interleaving. That is entirely your conjecture…though I’m sure that you can cite reputable scholars who agree with you.

One thing we do know, though, is that if the DH is true, there are all sorts of artful interleavings in the Torah. Again, DH is a real theory, not a totem against fundamentalism.

——————————

On the the Councils

“Why hasn’t any clever body of eucumenical clergy got together with the best brains of humanity, relooked at the Bible and published a scientifically, historically correct version with the verses cleverly juggled around to get over the controversies? It is certainly possible isn’t it? Would it be accepted by the God-fearing believers who number in the many millions? Not on your nelly.”

Heard of the Jesus Seminar? I don’t agree with them, but there are more than a few mainline denominations that at least accept their project (though some may not accept their conclusions). My own denomination, the LCMS, holds the view that the canon is open. Books might still be added or removed based on the criterion of apostolicity.

——————————

On Re-Writing Scripture

“But let us also not forget that many attempts have been made to re-write the Bible to minimise these inconsistencies. First there arose the Age of Denial, followed by the Age of Apologetics and today we have the Age of Reintrepretation.”

I honestly don’t know what you are talking about here. What are these Ages? When did they occur? What are these attempts to re-write the Bible you are talking about?

——————————

On Translations

“There are hundreds of different translations. In English alone we have the Tisdale Version, the Douay Version, the King James Version, the Authorised Version, the Revised Version, the NSV, the RSV, the Living Bible, the Gideons Bible, the Seventh Day Adventist Bible … need I go on? Which version do you trust?”

What? Because a book is translated a lot it somehow becomes less reliable? You have got to be kidding.

Obviously, the same criteria that go into ‘choosing’ any translated work would go into ‘choosing’ a Bible translation. This is not deep intellectual difficulty. There are a lot of translations of Plato’s Republic. How would that be a problem if I was trying to determine what Plato really said? If I know no Greek, aren’t multiple translations actually very helpful?

BTW:

- There is no such thing as the Gideons Bible.

- There is no such thing as the Tisdale Bible (there is a Tyndale Bible).

- There is no such thing as the Seventh day Adventist Version of the Bible.

- The Authorized Version is the same thing as the KJV.

- The Revised Version is a modernized version of the KJV (from the 19th century).

- The Living Bible is not a translation of the Bible and does not claim to be.

- The RSV and Douay are real translations of the Bible distinct from the KJV.

But I don’t deny that we do have a wealth of translations in English. Many of them are quite good.

——————————

On the State of the Manuscripts

“And by the way did you know that none of the original manuscripts remain extant? So there is no way of knowing if what is considered Holy isn’t just really a good story told by a poet long ago!”

Of course I knew that. But as far as the NT goes, since there’s a fragment of a copy of Matthew that dates to about AD 65, your poet would have to have written quite a long time ago, but not very long after the actual events.

——————————

On Divine Infallibility

“I give God far more credit…Why couldn’t God reveal Genesis so that believers don’t have to resort to irrational thought?”

There are a couple things to say about this passage.

1) It seems that you are back to requiring an idiot-proof Bible.

2) Since my claim (from post one I think) is that God was never trying to write a science book, he cannot have had two tries at a scientifically correct account and “gotten it wrong” both times. The idea that God mucked anything up comes from your assumption that He was trying to give a scientific account. A view that I reject and that is not implied by the texts.

——————————

On King Bob

“I have read your King Bob analogy and whilst this is a clever rationalisation about edicts from human beings, it does not apply to the Creator who I reiterate is Omniscient etc. etc.”

The problem is that Gen 1 is arguing toward Omnipotence, Omniscience etc. Those are not premises in the argument of Gen 1, they are the conclusions of the argument.

——————————

On the Ant/Hamburger Analogy

“Yes the poor chap was a goner the day he ate that hamburger, but he got to live for another 50 years. In such an analysis thought the prime cause for his death was that fateful hamburger, he actually died 50 years later. From the point of view of any outside observer this gentleman actually died the day his heart gave up, not the day he ate the hamburger.”

Just as a point of clarification, you are assuming that had our poor fellow not eaten the burger he would not have had the heart attack 50 years later. If not, your case does not map to mine (that’s what all that talk about inevitability was about)

Even with that assumption, of course everyone would say that he died 50 years later. I say that. But the death is comparable in my analogy to the created order’s coming into existence. The issue is not when he died, but when he inadvertently killed himself, that’s what God’s act of creation would be analogous to.

So, when did our poor coronary victim inadvertently kill himself? When he ate the hamburger, or 50 years later? I think you could make a case either way, but I’m inclined to think that it’s when he ate the burger. And I think a lot of folks would agree with me. I don’t know whether this gives my account of the inadvertent suicide the ever elusive property of ‘naturalness’.

——————————

On Your Evaluation

“You postulate an interpretative account which concentrates only on God revealing that He started the universe and all life, and inspired the writers to faithfully record His words – you ignore history, science, rationality to shore up your position.”

On the first half of your evaluation. Yes, my interpretation of Gen 1 does have that concentration. I hold the radical view that the Bible is about God, so perhaps I don’t view this as a defect.

As for the second half of your evaluation, when did I ignore history or science? According to you I was twisting the text in order to make it fit with an old earth hypothesis. Wouldn’t that be the opposite of ignoring history and science?

And I’m not sure how one ignores rationality, unless one does not argue but appeals to feelings to get his/her point across. I don’t believe I did this very much if at all. I think I’ve generally argued for what I’ve said here. I may, of course, have made mistakes in my reasoning. Nothing is more likely. But I don’t think that amounts to ignoring rationality.

——————————

On the Status of this Discussion

At this point, I am quite content to let the conversation lie. Though if you’d like to have the last word, I promise to read whatever you choose to write.

Intriguing – did you miss the entire paragraph I wrote about the controversy concerning the genealogies of Christ and the fact that both don’t match? How in earth did they get into the final “authorised” version of the NT?

Maybe there was a war? Who knows – there is certainly a lot of infighting amongst the hebrew (as recorded in the OT). Maybe the only compromise was to say “well we don’t actually know which version is right but as we are pulling together the traditions let us record them one after the other and let God guide us and future generations”?

One thing you overlook friend, regularly, is that these traditions arose from oral traditions before finally being written down. Many traditions were centuries old before the made it to animal hide, papyrus, clay tablets etc. Centuries old before they came to be considered before any council of Rabbis made up of Rabbi Jedidiah and Priestly. Now think of this carefully. If one of the tribes did not have access to the other tradition then as far as they are concerned it IS a CHRONOLOGICAL account. As far as they are concerned Rabbi J and Rabbi P both believe they have the story of creation. The only time it becomes a problem is when the two are bought side by side. As to the suggestion of “artful interleaving” -again you miss the point entirely. Editing in the manner you are suggesting was punishable by death and/or eternal damnation. This is why there exists much literature about the texts.

Let us bring the story forward to today and give an analogy. We are now able to look at the Bible in the light of science and amazing insights into the processes of creation, evolution, physics, mathematics and after having discovered many ‘lost traditions’ etc.. Why hasn’t any clever body of eucumenical clergy got together with the best brains of humanity, relooked at the Bible and published a scientifically, historically correct version with the verses cleverly juggled around to get over the controversies? It is certainly possible isn’t it? Would it be accepted by the God-fearing believers who number in the many millions? Not on your nelly. Such a council would be laughed out of existence today – a few centuries ago they would have been burnt at the stake. This is why there was no “artful interleaving”. But let us also not forget that many attempts have been made to re-write the Bible to minimise these inconsistencies. First there arose the Age of Denial, followed by the Age of Apologetics and today we have the Age of Reintrepretation. There are hundreds of differents translations. In English alone we have the Tisdale Version, the Douay Version, the King James Version, the Authorised Version, the Revised Version, the NSV, the RSV, the Living Bible, the Gideons Bible, the Seventh Day Adventist Bible … need I go on? Which version do you trust? Which version is an accurate translation of the manuscripts which remain? And by the way did you know that none of the original manuscripts remain extant? So there is no way of knowing if what is considered Holy isn’t just really a good story told by a poet long ago!

You wrote “As I said, to Amtiskaw’s great consternation, I’m perfectly comfortable with what he considers an outrageous view about the history of the world (that God created it with the appearance of age, then warned us, through Gen 1, not to let appearances deceive us).”

I’d be very interested in you pointing out the passages in the OT where God makes that statement. Or perhaps you are suggesting that God is a bit of a practical joker and decided to throw in dinosaur bones just for a laugh?

I suppose we could go around the houses with this all night and never really come to any consensus. You read Gen as an analogy of God’s ability to create the universe. What is intriguing in this interpretative approach, is the fact that the Supreme Creator (as far as you are concerned) actually couldn’t be bothered enough to get the story of his own creation right!?

This is where we part ways friend, because I give God far more credit. If we are to be led to believe that God “inspired” the writers of the Bible so that every jot and tittle is His words with the writers themselves having no say in the matter, then any possibility of His getting His revelation recorded incorrectly makes a mockery of that belief. What you are also saying is, is that God is so limited in his writing ability that He cannot relate a believable, scientifically correct account of His Creation and that he has to have two stabs at it and still gets it wrong!

Why couldn’t an All-Knowing God reveal the Creation order in a manner which would not lead so many of His sheep astray?

You really expect people to believe that God is incapable of revelation which can’t tell us about His power first, the order of creation and Man’s place in His creation without mucking it up?

Why couldn’t God reveal Genesis so that believers don’t have to resort to irrational thought?

I have read your King Bob analogy and whilst this is a clever rationalisation about edicts from human beings, it does not apply to the Creator who I reiterate is Omniscient etc. etc.

I also find fault in your analogy about the killing of an ant. Its a good attempt at rationalising what if andd separating the two events by seconds falling on different days. It remains flawed however because the ant does not actually die until he gets squished. What if we were to change that to say someone eating a hamburger which five decades later is the cause of a thrombosis leading to heart failure. Yes the poor chap was a goner the day he ate that hamburger, but he got to live for another 50 years. In such an analysis thought the prime cause for his death was that fateful hamburger, he actually died 50 years later. From the point of view of any outside observer this gentleman actually died the day his heart gave up, not the day he ate the hamburger.

Of course I understand your rationale for abandoning the arguments against science, rationality etc. – it is simple – you know that that is a lost cause, so of course the only retreat is that of loose interpretation and the retreat into irrationality.

Friend, I think we have probably iterated our respective positions sufficiently for many readers to come to their own understanding of Gen 1 and 2. You postulate an interpretative account which concentrates only on God revealing that He started the universe and all life, and inspired the writers to faithfully record His words – you ignore history, science, rationality to shore up your position. It is eloquently delivered and you use a number of analogies which in themselves are very good, but which each have tragic flaws.

I on the other hand ask alot of awkward questions as I give God greater credence in His abilities as the Divine Creator. Hence, I reject your interpretation, as I feel it fails to address many shortcomings, which I have highlighted above. As far as I am concerned both the OT and the NT may well contain the Word of God, but they also contain much that isn’t.

I am happy to let this discussion lie and for each of us to hold our respected views. If your view does not give you sleepless nights – then I am happy for you, friend. I on the other hand don’t accept views which ignore both the qualities of God, history and science.

Also, before P was even written, the writers of P had JE, which, if chronological, would have already ruled out a contrary chronology. So the P-partisans would already have reconciled P with JE while P was still ‘fluid’ (if they felt any reconciliation was necessary).

Also, I do not think that the only way that the partisans could have resolved the chronology problem (if there ever was one…which I doubt) requires that the partisans edit the texts.

Look at it this way, if Rabbi Jedidiah is under the impression that Gen 2 is chronological and the very Word of God, and Rabbi Priestly is trying to convince him to include Gen 2, then Rabbi Jedidiah is just going to have to view Gen 1 as non-chronological if he agrees to include Gen 1. Otherwise he would be agreeing to include in the Word of God, something he would have to believe is not the Word of God (in virtue of being contrary to it). That is the very thing that would get you written out of the book of life.

By parity of reasoning, Rabbi Priestly, if he viewed Gen 1 as strictly chronological, would have to look at Gen 2 as non-chronological to even consider making the suggestion of merging the texts…even if he is so in the tank for P that he views P as the very Word of God and the text he looks at with suspicion is J.

Now, as I mentioned above, it is possible that both factions arrived at a modus vivendi where they agreed that one of the passages is not chronological and agreed that they don’t know (or, at least, would not declare) which one isn’t chronological.

So, no editing would occur in that case, but it just goes to show that it was OK with the redactors (who are way closer to the texts than any scholar will ever be) to view at least one of the accounts as non-chonological. Because of this, I take it as proven that a non-chronological reading of either passage cannot be unnatural simply because it is non-chronological. The redactors of the Torah themselves held the view that one account was non-chronological.

Furthermore, even if the accounts are both strictly chronological and, thus, inconsistent, and even if they both had to be included without editing, the redactors still could have placed the accounts differently or even artfully interleaved them (as, by the theory, they did with J, E, P and D all over the Torah) to lessen the impact of the contradiction.

Let’s now turn to the scientific issue. That really isn’t the main topic of the blog article that errancy posted way, way, up there somewhere. But it has surely been discussed. Here’s a pithy selection from your last post:

“Your first hypothesis is alluring – because there is a lot of God saying this and saying that. But there is also a lot of creating happening, taking place and being completed within one day. It seems convenient that you give more weight to the speaking but not the to actualization of the events.”

If by “convenient” you mean that it resolves the difficulty with an old earth hypothesis, I suppose that is true.

But I gather you mean to suggest that it is also a strained and unnatural reading adopted only for the sake of reconciling the view with science.

Let me first talk about my motivations for the view. I’ll start saying I am not a creationist, but I can assure you that my beef with a creationist interpretation of the passage is not that it conflicts with science. As I said, to Amtiskaw’s great consternation, I’m perfectly comfortable with what he considers an outrageous view about the history of the world (that God created it with the appearance of age, then warned us, through Gen 1, not to let appearances deceive us).

And I would hold that view if I really thought that Gen 1 read as a strict chronology. My reasons for believing the Bible to be inspired do not include its wonderful lessons in astrophysics or biology. As I’ve already mentioned, I do not believe that it tries to teach many lessons in those fields.

My motivation for holding my view is that I think Gen 1 is not about science, but about the Power of God. Also, it reconciles Gen 1 and Gen 2.

At first, I wasn’t even sure that it would reconcile Gen 1 with evolution. My words were in post #1 were: “I’m not going to talk about creation v. evolution except to say that I don’t think that what I’ve said so far really does much to harmonize evolution with the Bible.”

It wasn’t until post #16 after Errancy and Amtiskaw had been going back and forth for a bit that I realized that you might use this interpretation to harmonize the text with an old earth hypothesis.

Enough about my motivations. They are really irrelevant to the question of whether the reading is a good one anyway. I could be giving a good reading for bad or even evil reasons. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve sinned right in the middle of doing something good.

The important question is whether this is a strained or unnatural reading. For reasons already given, I don’t think you can call it strained simply because it is non-chronological. Furthermore, considering my ‘King Bob’ analogy, it is not unnatural in its own right, but, in fact, quite plausible.

Why the emphasis on the Words of God rather than the coming to be of the created order? Because God is the important figure in the account; the creative order is there just to show God’s power. Just as Bob was the important figure in the King Bob story, the lights and the landfills were playing a supporting role. The passage is about God’s power first and earth and earthlings second.

Bear in mind we are talking about people who believed truly and frevently that their tradition was revealed by God. If you take the time to read the OT you will see that the punishments for editing were nothing short of brutal and terminal. Now if two traditions of creation were bought side by side and one authority was commanded to unite them whilst under the supervision of both parties, then there is little else that can be done other than write them one after the other. If editing were to openly take place there would have been war between the two camps who each held a different tradition with the edited camp declaring that their revelation was being dimissed or at worse belittled.

What evidence do I have for this view? Well look to Bible OT itself and to a similar passage in the NT which states that anyone adding to taking away from the Word of God would be written out of the Book of Life. The threat in the OT is far more severe. So these people took their holy texts very seriously. By the time of redaction, there would most certainly have been written scrolls carrying each tradition – hence the loss of fluidity in tradition which I alluded to earlier. So the redactor(s) had no choice but to compile both traditions together when bringing both traditions into one scroll. The final scroll would have been poured over by both parties to ensure that there was no editing and then copied with each party having one copy. And that is the point of editing – to edit you must have the ability to edit. The redactors had no choice – on pain of death and possible for fear of condemning their everlasting souls – but to transcribe the scrolls accurately.

If you doubt me take a look at the outcome of the Eucumenical councils which were held to debate the controversy over the genealogy of Jesus. Two genealogies exist and both do not agree! Why was one not edited to match the other? Well again the answer is pretty simple – those responsible for compiling the final version of the NT did not know which was right and which wrong. And so two inconsistent genealogies exist. Now by the time of compilation they were both written and had become tradition – some authorities cite the final compilation to have taken place some 400 years after the death of Christ. As the original authors had long since passed away, the councils could not question the “authenticity” of each of the Gospel traditions. There was no-one to question to say “Look here old boy, how did you arrive at this genealogy? Who told you this? What documents do you have to prove your version?” Matthew’s version is interesting because there is strong evidence that the author of Matthew had access to many of the scrolls of the OT. Anyone with an hour or so can sit and read Matthew’s version with a Strong’s Concordance and arrive at which scrolls the author had to refer from. Interestingly Matthew conveniently omits some generations to make his aesthetically pleasing 3 x 14 generations from Abraham to Jesus – which should make you question his rationale. Luke’s version differs significantly. So here again we have two different and contradictory narratives which the redactors could not/would not amend – except on pain of death, eternal damnation and possibly all out war. Today those who have little understanding of church history try to reconcile the two narratives by saying that one is the genealogy of Jesus from his “father” Joseph and the other from his mother Mary. It is a weak argument and it is why serious biblical scholars reject it – especially when you take into account history. I do not doubt there was not much heart-wrenching amongst the Church Fathers about the accounts and they may have sought to rationalise the contradictions in their own ways – but that does not men that there are no contradictions. It is these contradictions which has given rise to the entire science of apologetics.

So you see friend, you come to Genesis with an assumption. It is basically that the redactors would have the concerns of normal human writers and so would have sought to edit one version to make both agree if they believed the accounts to be chronological. But we are not talking about normal people or normal books – this is the BOOK OF GOD and you don’t play fast and loose with it. If you do – you’ll end up dead. Normal books no problem, but Holy Scripture – no. If you read any of the many apologetics written by Hebrew scholars which form the Talmud and other writings, you will witness a lively and interesting discussion about how to interpret the texts.

Let us for a moment accept your propositions:

1. That the account of Genesis is “(t)he story of the seven days of creation” and “gives a chronological account of God’s _speaking_. It is not intended to give a chronological account of how creation came to be as a result of God’s speaking.* To be sure it links the coming to be with the associated words of creation, so it is topically arranged in that way.”

2. That the authors viewed one account as chronological and the other as non-chronological.

3. That the you “believe the Bible is inspired and that God has all the properties that the Bible attributes to Him”

You still run into a problem – and that problem is the one of scientific forethought. I only barely touched on it, as so far I have been explaining why the two versions can exist side by side and be inconsistent. If anything, God should know how He put together creation. And since God cannot lie, it is strange that He seems to have got the order wrong in both accounts when looked at in the light of science. Whatever happened to omniscience?

Your first hypothesis is alluring – because there is a lot of God saying this and saying that. But there is also a lot of creating happening, taking place and being completed within one day. It seems convenient that you give more weight to the speaking but not the to actualization of the events. Shame the sequence of events breaks down half way throught the story, which is why I have problems with the narrative being God-inspired. I have no problem accepting it as the word of man. The original revelation/inspiration would have been right. The fact that it is wrong scientifically, gives far more weight to the DH and fluidity scenarios I have been postulating.

I don’t think we need to be. I will explain.

As a preamble, I will affirm the DH for the sake of argument. As I said before, it is probably true. Furthermore, the affirmation enables us to safely isolate and ignore a number of issues that, I think, lead away from the main topic of this thread. Accepting DH, does not automatically imply that inerrancy is false. Nor does it automatically imply that Scripture was not inspired. It does imply that the Redactors were inspired as well as the original authors of J, E, D and P.

Given this assumption, I think that the dominant DH view is that the Gen 1/Gen 2 kerfuffle arises from the final JED+P redaction that led, ultimately, to the Torah (circa 400 BC).

Now, to the standoff.

I think the cases you identify are different. To explain, let us identify this claim:

The Thesis of Double-Chronology:
Both Gen 1 and Gen 2 were strictly chronological accounts.

I will call this claim DC for short.

My problem with your position is that you seemed to be saying something like this:

The JED+P redactors might have rejected DC, but even if they did, they were wrong.

You argued that I hold a parallel yet opposed view. Thus the standoff. For the cases to be parallel, I’d have to hold something like the following view:

The JED+P redactors might have accepted DC, but even if they did, they were wrong.

The views can be broken down further. Thus the first view (the one I attribute to you) becomes:

TC-1) The JED+P redactors might have rejected DC.

TC-2) If JED+P redactors rejected DC, they were wrong.

And the second view (putatively mine) can be broken down like this:

WL-1) The JED+P redactors might have accepted DC.

WL-2) If JED+P redactors accepted DC, they were wrong.

But I don’t actually accept the views attributed to me.

Starting with item WL-2, I reject it completely. If the redactors of the Torah believed that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are both chronological, they would not be interpreting it wrongly. If the redactors did accept DC, that would be a very serious problem for inerrancy. We are probably in total agreement here, right? That is why I have been at great pains to argue that the redactors did not accept DC.

I will accept item #1 in a limited sense. Yes, that’s a possibility. Is it plausible? Probably not.

Why not? The reasons may look familiar.

Because the JED+P redactors would have a normal concerns about consistency and pious concerns about altering sacred text. Notice, that I am not arguing from inerrancy, nor even from the lesser (but implied assumption that DC is false). I’m basing my argument totally on the concerns of normal human writers. If both passages are read as strict chronologies, they are contradictory. The redactors would have been adding P to an already extant and well hardened JED that they viewed as sacred. Any contradictory doctrine in P would have to be harmonized. I am not saying that humans never err and contradict themselves. Of course they do. But the contradictions are usually more subtle than saying that Man came after the animals just a few lines prior to saying that Man came before the animals.

For similar reasons, it is also unlikely that the authors of P would have understood the Gen 1 account as contradictory with the Gen 2 account (thus they would be taking at least one account as non-chronological). It is true that the authors of P would have had only JE, but that is immaterial to the Gen 1/Gen 2 issue, since Gen 1 is pure P and Gen2 is pure J. So JE is as good as JED in this case. The priestly authors would not even have gotten started on a chronological account that conflicts with Gen 2 if they viewed Gen 2 as chronological.

There is this possibility. The JED+P redactors viewed Gen 2 as chronological and incorporated Gen 1 viewing it as non-chronological. While the P authors viewed Gen 2 as non-chronological and, as such, had no problem thinking of Gen 1 as chronological. So the Redactor’s views and the Priestly views are conflicting. Now, I don’t think this is a problem with inerrancy. If true it shows that even at the inception of the Torah, there were differences of opinion about how to interpret Gen 1 and Gen 2. But both interpretive schools held the view that at least one of the accounts is non-chronological. That view is enough to resolve the inconsistency.

At the end of one of your recent posts you stated “TC says both accounts are chronological and even the individuals who originally adopted those accounts as sacred writ cannot gainsay TC.”

Well the argument could be turned on it’s head and articulated as this “WL says the stories are not chronological and even evidence to the contrary cannot gainsay WL”

We are at a stand-off friend. Why? Because you adopt an a priori approach: that of inerrancy. On the other hand I do not hold such a fundamental belief. I am prepared to but the scripture to the test as advocated by 2 Timothy.

It is not my intention to be dismissive. But I cannot give you a long discussion on every question you ask or every point you raise. I wish I could, but I simply don’t have enough time. As such, I have to confine myself to what I take to be the highlights. And if I think I’d be repeating points I already expressed well, I’ll just refer you back to them.

Even my comment in April (I believe my ‘glib dismissal’ was actually in item #5, item #4 was by dr_mouse), was not meant as a glib dismissal. I honestly had no idea where dm was going with his comment and how it engaged with my argument. It seemed more like dm was trying to refute my argument by characterizing me as some sort of blind, pseudo-intellectual boob.

Now, it’s fine if dm has that opinion of me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and sometimes I think that about myself as well. But I simply don’t know how to answer it as an argument. On similar occasions, though not on this blog, I have pointed out that refutation by insult doesn’t actually work. Sometimes I’ve coated that reply in acid. But I didn’t do that this time, instead I drilled down in item #7 to those three questions.

I think those 3 questions have led to a lively debate here by a number of participants. Almost all of the comments since then have been useful. So I think that was a good move in this instance. Neither post #5 in reply to dm, nor post #7, nor my latest post in response to you were ever intended as a glib dismissal.

If I may, I would like to highlight what I think has happened so far. Since I’m doing the highlighting, I will, of course, appear in a good light in all respects ;-)

1. You charged me with having a naive view of how scripture was compiled and that is why I was having trouble seeing how two conflicting chronological accounts could be placed next to eachother. I haven’t yet convinced you that I do not have a naive view. Now, I am certainly no expert in this field. And your expertise probably far exceeds mine. So nothing is more likely than that my views are naive.

2. During this dialog, many important points about the compilation process postulated by the DH theory were clarified. For example, that the pieces of the OT were not gathered all together and put into the OT canon under the direction of a single editor or group of editors all at once. These points were largely brought forward under your guidance TC.

3. To avoid having my naivete about the process do undue harm to my arguments, I have tried to remain agnostic about the details of how the OT was compiled, I even left open the possibility that the DH was wrong and tradition was right all along about it being Moses I think there is still some confusion between us about this point (This is the whole “scorned tradition” thread where, I think, we have largely been talking past each other).

The only thing I have tried to maintain is that the human beings who did the compiling would (1) have an ordinary human concern about consistency and (2) believe that they were participating in the compilation of God’s Word. I want to maintain these two propositions whether the Torah was compiled over 2500 years by many editors (as is likely) or 25 years by 1 editor (as tradition teaches)*.

4. There was initially a charge of unnaturalness to my reading of Gen 1 that I think, at least in our discussion, can be put to rest on the basis of reasons that I won’t repeat here but which you can see in #52 (toward the end), #58, #59 (near the middle), #65 (toward the end) and #66 (near the middle). This seems to me, to be among the most important points we’ve been discussing. Because If my reading of Gen 1 can pass the ‘naturalness’ test, then there is really no reason at all to be troubled by the alleged contradiction posted above.

—————————–

* I know, I know tradition doesn’t really say how long it took Moses to write the Torah, let alone saying that it took 25 years. Poetic license, OK.

Your 9/11 analogy is flawed for two reasons. First, the conspiracy theorists are crackpots and everyone with sense knows this. So even now, that heresy is getting rooted out. Second, the Gen 1 account, according to DH, came along 400 years after the Gen 2 account (not 400 minutes).

“It is also conceivable that it became a tradition without it being deemed heretical. Now you do not seem to see any controversy in the verses of the two accounts. It is entirely possible that the Hebrews rationalised the same way as you.”

Yes. Exactly. Now, I don’t know that this is correct. As I said before, I don’t think its reasonable to take off the table the thesis that nobody has given anything resembling the correct account of what happened. But even you admit this as a possibility of how the newer account got included next to the old one.

But this last comment by you is quite telling:

“But that doesn’t make it right.”

If what the Hebrews themselves believed about the two accounts doesn’t establish what the accounts say. Then nothing can.

So we’re left in this situation. TC says both accounts are chronological and even the individuals who originally adopted those accounts as sacred writ cannot gainsay TC.