Hot answers tagged

6

Let's consider for a moment what the Farrer (Mt used Mk, Lk used Mk and Mt) and Wilke (Lk used Mk, Mt used Mk and Lk) theories suggest that the third evangelist in each case did. (For what it's worth, I would regard Kloppenborg's layered Q as a nuanced form of Wilke: he puts the sayings material in the Lucan order, then adds in some para-Marcan material.) ...


4

The almost universal consensus of critical scholars is that the two creation accounts are from two different sources. The account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a is generally attributed to an anonymous source now known as the Priestly Source. The second account, in Genesis 2:4b-25 is generally attributed to an anonymous source now known as the Yahwist. Leon R. Kass ...


2

Backdrop to explain my answer The opening chapters of Genesis provides an interesting framework for understanding the rest of the Bible. That is, the creation narrative of chapters 1-2 includes, within its own framework, the introduction of creation, and a "new" creation. That sounds confusing so let me explain. In Genesis 1 we're given an account of the ...


1

A belief in two independent sources leads to a modern study of Genesis along the lines described by Leon R Kass: “once we recognize the independence of the two creation stories, we are compelled to adopt a critical principle of reading if we mean to understand each story on its own terms.” (see Dick Harfield’s answer) The danger in this approach to Scripture ...


1

"El" is essentially the word/name "god." "Elohim" was the plural ("gods" or "the gods"). "Yahweh" is the name of a particular god. This makes more sense when you know that the religion of the Old Testament evolved from polytheistic religion (somewhat like the Greek and Roman gods, for example), with El as the lead god (like Zeus/Jupiter) and Yahweh as the ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible