...
== I would also add that all presuppositions, not just theological ones, in one way or the other "sets the limits as to what a scripture can and cannot say. For example, if one comes to the Torah with a Documentary Hypothesis presupposition, then the statements in Torah which lay claim to Mosaic authorship are discounted.
But this is discounted, first and foremost, by the fact that Deuteronomy presents us with Moses' obituary. So we know beyond a doubt that Moses didn't write this much of it, so the burden of proof rests on those who insist Moses wrote all of it. ...
... I this undermines "tradition" moreso than theology, I think. The thesis that Moses authored the entire book is also belied by the fact that Deuteronomy, which was miraculously (and conveniently I might add) "discovered" by Josiahn temple priests, ...
... and that it contradicts many of the things taught in subsequent books of Moses, and happens to support teh reforming ideas of Josiah. It isn't some devious atheistic plot to throw a wrench into the traditional (mis)understanding of the OT authorship. I am a Christian. I can accept the Bible for what it is. It doesn't hinder my theology in the slightest to know that tradition sometimes gets it wrong.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.