Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gen 17:1-5"
From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | I am uncomfortable with the discussion related to E and J and the Deuteronomist reformers in the exegesis. Here are my concerns:
| |
| − | * Is it really true that most biblical scholars today hold to the idea of a separate E & J traditions?
| |
| − | * Is the idea of Deuteronomist reformers fully re-editing the Bible taken for granted by scholars so much that we can state it so matter of factly?
| |
| | | | |
| − | --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 15:59, 7 Feb 2006 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis this Wikipedia article], there was a study by the Vatican that found 90% of biblical scholars supporting the E and J theory (which is part of the ''documentary hypothesis''). Notice the study is not referenced though, so there's no hint given as to who the sample group was exactly or any other details.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Perhaps the "most biblical scholars" phrase in the first exegesis bullet should be replaced by "''many'' biblical scholars". More importantly, I think the phraseology in the last exegesis bullet should be softened: "before the Bible was fully re-edited by the Deuteronomist reformers" should be replaced by "before the Bible was allegedly re-edited by the Deuteronomist reformers" or something else that reflects the fact that at least some scholars disagree with this theory.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Also, I think several of the exegesis comments here might be more appropriate as lexical notes, keeping the exegesis more focused on the text itself that are not dependent on theories about the evolution of the text.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 19:51, 7 Feb 2006 (UTC)
| |
Latest revision as of 16:04, 9 December 2013
