-
January 28, 2013 by Jason Hood
Protestant Heresies and Buddhist History
Tomorrow night I begin another semester of teaching the Pentateuch. One of the first tasks is introducing students to critical approaches to Genesis-Deuteronomy. I’m not a plenary Mosaic Pentateuch guy (I doubt he mentioned his own death, or that “Dan” in Genesis 14:14 is original to him). But I do think Moses had a major hand in this material, and I have little regard for the critical reconstructions of Wellhausen and others (including the JEDP theory).
I’ve previously pointed out many of the flaws that haunted early reconstructions–flaws that haven’t always been rejected. One early view held that the Jahwist (or Yahwist), being very early, had a more pristine, natural (dare we say romantic-era Protestant) faith that was abandoned by D and P. You know, the usual bad guys: priests, lawmakers, and despotic kings, in contrast to prophets and the less powerful.
This, of course, is a peculiarly hyper-Lutheran, Enlightenment sort of heresy. But this lunacy wasn’t just directed at the Bible. Last summer’s Religious Studies Review contained a review of recent literature of scholarly approaches to Tibet’s demons. The review begins,
It was once common for Euro-Americans who came to the study of Tibetan religion to see its macabre rites and concern for demonic forces as corruptions, the result of deviation from true, pure Buddhism. The authentic Buddhism they imagined was, we know, largely shaped by their Protestant presuppositions.
This mythical pristine Buddhism–now widely rejected–was of course very much like the faith to which many Protestants in the 19th century aspired, which they forced on the Bible: a pure, “natural” faith unencumbered by overly supernatural approaches to religion, content to concentrate on personal feeling and internal sense, despising externals, constraints, and the demon of law. You can of course find that sort of religion in the Bible, provided you are willing to run it through a sieve a few times.
For those keeping score at home, these influences are still around today; note Sailhamer’s anti-Moses approach, where he favors prophets over priests and faith over law. It’s no accident that Sailhamer relies on German scholarship influenced by these dichotomies.
Leave A Comment
Welcome to the SAET blog. Herein you will find the theological/pastoral ramblings of the Rev. Matthew Mason, the good Doctor Jason Hood, and Pastor Gerald Hiestand. All three write under the premise that theology and the pastorate belong together, and that (at least some) pastors must once again function as writing theologians for the wider church, for the ecclesial renewal of theology and the theological renewal of the church.






Recent Comments
What reading would you recommend on the development of the documentary hypothesis and (most importantly) arguments against (which you would espouse)?
I am studying Exodus, and Wellhausen and the JEDP keep coming up in some papers, but I lack the discernment to understand why I should reject it (or theories supported by it).
Thanks for the discernment on Sailhamer.
01/28/13 3:58 PM | Comment Link
Of course the most important thing, if you really want a handle, would be to read primary sources (Wellhausen himself); an understanding of “history of religions” approach (with its “heretical Protestant” presuppositions) would also be helpful.
Mark Gignilliat has a good summary: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Old-Testament-Criticism/dp/0310325323. I highly recommend some of the essays in the Scripture and Hermeneutics project, esp vols 1 and 5.
01/29/13 4:04 PM | Comment Link
Ernest Nicholson’s ‘The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen’ is a good place to start. As is Joel Baden’s ‘The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis’. Also see ‘The Oxford Bible Commentary’ edited by John Barton and John Muddiman.
For a more persuasive position, try ‘An Introduction to the Old Testament: Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts of the Hebrew Bible’ by David M. Carr and his ‘Formation of the Hebrew Bible’. Also ‘The Old Testament: A Literary History’ by Konrad Schmid.
01/30/13 12:40 PM | Comment Link
FWIW see the interraction here: http://www.saet-online.org/why-moses-wrote-genesis/09/
01/30/13 2:03 PM | Comment Link
Haha, Jason…I had almost forgotten about this post – I had started writing a reply, but, in the course of things, just ended up compiling a massive bibliography/summary of modern Pentateuchal source crit: http://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/17jqwf/pentateuchal_source_criticism_a_preliminary/
01/30/13 4:29 PM | Comment Link
Wow. Thank you all. That gives me a lot to work on.
Richard — esp. thanks for the link back to Jason’s earlier post.
01/30/13 9:31 PM | Comment Link