One of the elements involved in the approach known as the "higher criticism" of the Bible is the issue of dating the individual books and themes. Biblical scholars are divided as to at what point in history certain books were written. For example, some would say that the first half of the book of the prophet Isaiah was written prior to the Babylonian Exile, and that the second half was written after the Exile. Subsequently we end up with a "first Isaiah," and a "second Isaiah." In other words, we have either two writers named Isaiah, or another person using the name "Isaiah" for the second half of the book. Those who subscribe to the two Isaiah theory base themselves on two things:
1. The style of writing in the first half of the book is different from the second half.
2. The second half makes reference to situations that only someone living during or after the Exile would be familiar with.
The weakness of this assumption lies in thinking that a single individual is not capable of employing more than one style of writing. Another weakness is that those who think this way do not believe that God could enable the writer to foresee the social, economic, and political conditions of Israel after the Exile. In other words, the element of inspired predictive prophecy is rejected outright.
We encounter the same issue in the New Testament. Some scholars would say, for example, that John's Gospel account was written contemporaneously with the events described, i.e. during or shortly after the events. Other scholars would post-date the account into the second century. Those who believe the latter base themselves on the thrust of the book, which appears to mitigate against the influence of the Gnostics, a (supposedly) second-century group who believed that Jesus was not really a full human being.
A question for those who believe in the message of the Bible is the following: At the end of the day, does it really make any difference as to what point in history the individual books of the Bible were written? Does the date of writing affect our faith, our relationship to God, and to how we practice our religion? Does the date of writing affect how we think theologically?
Please share with us your thoughts on this matter. Tell us if, in your opinion, any of this makes any difference and why it does or doesn't.
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona
Carmona, it does make a difference when the books were written, in my opinion, to a certain extent. But we also need to understand oral tradition in ancient nations and cultures and that not many people knew how to read and write. I doubt Moses wrote his own book because he died and was buried in a secret place in Mount Nebo. But those around him continued the oral tradition until eventually it was put into writing. On the books of the New Testament it matters more when they were written. I support the scholarship that believes the earliest writings of the New Testament were the letter os Paul, I understand as early as 40 to 60 AD.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much Dr. Jurado for your contribution and for your engagement. I certainly appreciate your point on the oral tradition. Your point on Moses not writing how own book because he did raises the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Did he write any part of it before he died? Did he write part of it and then die? Was the Pentateuch a post-exilic literary production? Does it make any difference in the long run in terms of our relationship with God? Thank you for keeping this dialogue alive.
ReplyDelete