Highlights from Session Five
Our session began with highlighting three points that came up during Session Five. Ken mentioned that one of the things he likes about this gathering, it’s an opportunity to express yourself, to get involved with the things and to make … to get out of your box … to express yourself and still believe.
The second point was not so much what Mike said as what he did. In our discussion on the meaning of us being created in the image of God, Mike went back to the account in the Bible to observe that it doesn’t say that God made the animals or the plants or anything else in his image. He went back to the actual words and that really takes discipline.
Finally Diana, also in the context of our discussion on the image of God, reminded us that Christ is the very Word of God and, therefore, the very image of God in the flesh. As Christians we are bound to read the Hebrew Scriptures from that point of view. At the same time, our faith is the lens, as it were, through which we read the Hebrew Scripture; a lens not shared by others.
The Documentary Theory
I presented a summary of the book, Who Wrote the Bible?, by Richard Friedman. As a result of historical studies begun in Germany in the 18th century, there is a general consensus that the First Five Books of the Bible were the result of four different authors written at different times under different circumstances. These four authors or perhaps schools are identified by four letters: J, E, P, and D. Each of the authors have a certain internal range of consistency. J identifies the author who consistently addresses God as YHWH Elohim which we translate as the Lord God. E, on the other hand, does not address God in terms of YHWH but only as Elohim. P represents the author whose focus of concern would represent the Priestly issues or concerns. While D stands for the author of Deuteronomy. There was a final redactor, someone who wove these four traditions into one, so successfully that it wasn’t until the 18th century that these different traditions began to be recognized. A time frame for these authors is presented in our handout: History of Ancient Israel and its Book, http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=94.
After reading Who Wrote the Bible? Tim remarked. It makes more sense now. … It kind of like opens your eyes and now I have the background … I can look at it in a different light. Ken commented. One of the things that really helped me … how the investigators identified two different biblical authors’ accounts in one story, sort of tore them apart, and allowed me to read them separately. And it was really amazing after reading the two separated accounts, how much better they seemed to flow.
The Second Story of Creation
You are now invited to read Gen: 2:4b – 25 at http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2. It is especially important that you would read the editors’ notes.
It is seems to me that we have a difficult time appreciating that these passages, like all of the scripture, are written by people of faith to people of faith to support their faith. Because they were written by human beings though, they cannot avoid revealing the thoughts, world view, and literature of their authors’ historical times. At the same time, they are not written as history as we expect historical writings to be written. There is more to truth than historical truth; a story can express truth, very profound truth without the story being historically true. This struggle came up in our group and might be what you too will struggle with.
As you read this passage what struck you, caught your attention, and raised a question, something that you were awed by. And perhaps you might want to share it.
The group’s discussion ranged far and wide.
One of our struggles was with the story of the woman being made from the rib of the man. Ken had heard but didn’t know if were true that men had on less rib than woman. Valerie who is a nurse assured us that men and women have the same number of ribs. Nonetheless, we continued to offer ways to account for woman being made from the rib of the man as though that account was historically true. It was quite difficult to recognize the truth of the story without the need to make the story historical, an actual account of something that happened in historical times.
What is your opinion of this segment of the story? What do you think is its meaning?
Our group then took up the question of the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad. This, of course, raises for many contemporary Catholics and Christians of other traditions as well, questions of historical fact, was there a garden, where was it located, etc.
What is your opinion on these questions? How would you answer them? What does it mean to “Rise to the Level of our Times” with regard to a “Tree of Knowledge of good and bad?” If you haven’t read the notes on this point, please do so.
What is your opinion on the positions expressed in the notes?