Good Fruit, Good Root
A podcast dedicated to delving into scripture in order to find a rootedness which produces the fruits of the spirit.
Good Fruit, Good Root
Documentary Hypothesis
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Let us hear from you! Send us any questions or comments you may have.
Join hosts Denise and Kyla and special guest Erin as they explore the concept of the Documentary Hypothesis! How can we identify the different compilers of the Biblical text? How has scholarship on this subject developed over time? Are matters like authorship important to a layperson's understanding of scripture?
All of this and more as we delve into the communication between humanity and divinity that's displayed throughout the Biblical text! You don't want to miss this extra special episode!
Shalom and welcome back to another episode of Good Fruit, Good Root. I'm your host, Kyla. And I'm your host, Denise. And we're here for a very, very special episode. It's kind of unnerving to see my own face as we're recording. I'm not used to this. But I'll I'll start by how I always start at by asking, How are you doing today, Pastor?
SPEAKER_00I'm I'm doing good. It's a good day. It's a rainy day, but it's a good day.
SPEAKER_02It is a rainy day in Mount Union. Not a rainy day in New York, a rainy day in Mount Union. How are you? But it's I'm good. I'm good. I'm good to go. It's it's pleasant. I like the rain, me personally. So as Luke Bryan would say, rain is a good thing. And speaking of our southern roots and southern sentiments, uh, we have a very special guest on the pod today who I'm extremely excited to introduce. I told her she could write her introduction herself or otherwise be left at my mercy. So here today with us, we have noted scholar. Uh she's already giggling as I give her this introduction. But uh we have we have a very, very special guest who I'm gonna intro her by putting it this way. She has the sass and diligence of Mamie, she has the selflessness of Melanie, and she has the strength of one Scarlet O'Hara. Please join me in welcoming Erin Toomey. Hello, hello. How was how was that how was the how was the intro? That was that was good. That was very funny. Um the Sass part is so true. Oh yeah, happy to be here. Also, Erin Toomey Parton. I am married. Oh my the yeah, you are. And I'm I'm very glad that you are because I love Trent. But thank you.
unknownThank you.
SPEAKER_02Always and forever Aaron To me. It's like you know, like Emily Ray is Emily Ray. I know. I know. Well, it's I and I'm going by the three names to be like RBG. Yeah. Incredible. As you should have thought. Aaron To me Parton. I love it. Yeah, all right. Well, I'm so happy to be here, guys. Um, excited about the topic and honored to be the first guest. That's awesome. So the first guest and the first episode we're recording via video. So this is so special. This is just a new thing. It is. We're we're we're so glad to have you. Uh Aaron's name is spelled E-R-I-N, but I will be referring to her as if her name is A-R-R-O-N for the duration of the podcast. Also, Aaron, I need you to know I've been reading through the books of Leviticus and Numbers, and I have had to say your name so many times the past few days as I've been reading the scripture. So how does it feel to be named after the original high priest? I mean, you know, when I was prepping for today's podcast and I was reading through stuff, I I thought about that. I'm like, how interesting is it that these two different cultures developed a name that sounds so like phonetically similar, but are not like related at all. It's it's just interesting. So um, yeah, that's it's so cool to to read through and be like, as a kid, it kind of bothered me, you know, because I'm like, I'm not a boy. Why are they calling boy Aaron? Blah blah blah. Um it is, it is very neat. It's a very, very dignified name. It's also very fitting for you. I feel like you couldn't have any other name. Thank you. I agree. Um, are you guys one of those people that feel like you are like given your name and it like you become to fit your name, or that your name just inherently fits you? You know what I'm saying? Yeah, does wh which part is of the prophecy is the fulfillment? Like, is it that you are named that? Or yeah. I I don't know because I don't like my name. So I I really I I don't know. But I my name's meaning is fine. Allegedly, it means victorious. So, like the great television show of are you see?
SPEAKER_01I just that took me a second.
SPEAKER_02Um but Kyla, you you are Kyla. Like that that name is very fitting to you, I feel like. But am I Kyla because I'm the only Kyla that you knew for so long?
SPEAKER_01No, I just I think that you're Kyla.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_01I think the name just is yeah, it just fits.
SPEAKER_02Well is Nisi is Nisi, I'm presuming.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, niecy. You are Nisi.
SPEAKER_02I'm Nisi. That's true too. Um, in your in your family, the names are very fitting, I feel. Oh, yeah. I agree. I agree. Catherine's very much a Catherine. Caroline's a few. Caroline. 100%. For the listeners who are not aware, Caroline is my favorite to me, but Aaron is who had availability in her schedule. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. She's a very busy girl nowadays. She is. I can't keep up with her. I can't. All right. So before we dive into our central topic of the day, as always, at the top of our episodes, we ask some like general jumping off questions to thematically get us in the right headspace. But today we felt like it would be most important for our listeners to get a sense for who you are, your personality, your relationship to the biblical text. And so, in order to do that, I have some questions for you, specifically, Aaron. And I'm gonna begin by allowing you to share in one of our tried and true traditions here at Good Fruit, Good Root, which is at the start of every episode, we share our God wink of the week, which for those who are uninitiated, it's something that's happened in the past week that has made us feel like God Himself is attempting to wink at us. So you have something for us today, Erin? I do. Um, people in my everyday life are probably so tired of hearing about this company, but I finally got to quit my terrible job, and it is very much answered prayers.
SPEAKER_01Um, both my own, my husband's, my mom's, very many answered prayers.
SPEAKER_02So I've just been riding on cloud knots for uh um with that since Friday when I got to walk out the door. It was a very triumphant feeling.
SPEAKER_01Um just thankful to kind of be at the end of that season.
SPEAKER_02And and you know, we always hear like you're the prayers aren't being answered, like you're in the preparation stage kind of thing. And I felt like I was in that preparation stage for a very, very long time. Um, so happy to to finally have that prayer answered for sure. And I am very, very, very happy for you. I cannot tell you, I found out I think via your close friend's Instagram story. Um when I saw that you had been able to leave this job, I felt like I needed to praise the Lord because it is very much an answer to prayer. And I love I love that that's your Godwink because we've been discussing recently on the pod, we've been dealing with the narrative of Hagar and the idea of the God who sees, the God who hears, and now you're testifying of him specifically as the God who answers. Not only does he see and hear, but he responds to what he sees and hears from us. And so it's such a beautiful thing that he has answered your prayer in this way. And I do believe that he's been preparing you and you're gonna step into a season that you're fully prepared to accept your triumph in. Absolutely. And yeah, it's it's been a great feeling. Um, still kind of decompressing from that entire experience, but you know, things are looking up. We're it's looking good. Good, good. I'm glad to hear that. All right, so my next question for you is do you have a favorite scripture? Yes, I do. It's actually a a pair of favorite scriptures. So Leviticus uh 19, 18 and John 13, 34, both of which are um verses that are talking about um loving thy neighbor. And I've just been really like uh cleaving to that message recently. And um in fact, actually this morning I went to see the Odyssey, and that's the whole kind of premise of the movie. You saw the Odyssey this morning? I did in IMAX. Um, it was it was really awesome. Um it recommend to people to go see it. Um but yeah, so maybe that's also another goblin. Those are um, I like that you have an old testament version of that, and there's multiple New Testament throughout the Gospels, but I like the book of John. So, you know, it was it I like that they are, you know, a pair and they kind of bookend, you know. I like that. Okay, I have so many things to say in response to what you just said. First and foremost, when we're done recording, we've got to talk about the Odyssey. Okay, no didn't but you are right that yes, that is kind of like this one of the two primary themes of the work of Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey is this idea of hospitality and kindness to your neighbor, uh, which I was very, very struck by in the theater. Also, interestingly, last night in service, I haven't even shared this with Pastor yet, but last night when she was teaching, she was in the middle of her teaching, and I text someone in the congregation and said, Home girl is literally preaching the Odyssey right now. So the Odyssey is very relevant to everything. But yes, I love what you said about uh this notion kind of bookending the entirety of the biblical narrative. You know, we find it in the Levitical Code, we find it again being attested to by Jesus in his ministry constantly. I mean, that is the ministry of Jesus, right? He says, on this hang all the law and prophets. Everything is contingent upon this commandment, the two commandments, loving the Lord and loving your neighbor as yourself. So I think it's very interesting. I also think it's very topical to our conversation today because when we begin unpacking the themes of some of these, some of these alleged compilers and redactors, you know, there are some that deal more heavily and more readily with the concept of, you know, integrating the stranger and being kind to your neighbor and things like that. So so we'll get into that in due time. But you said specifically you really like the book of John. So is that your favorite gospel? I kind of go back and forth between um John and Mark, but at the current moment, yes. I do like the book of John. Um and then of the other book. We're gonna discuss my Mount Rushmore. Yeah, yeah, that's my that's my next question for Nisi and I have both had to do this on the pod where we constructed our Mount Rushmore of biblical books, the four books that uh I don't necessarily want to say are our favorites because as you just said, like it's at this current moment that John is appealing to you. And that's how I feel about all the biblical books, like in different seasons, different messages and themes, different writings just appeal to me and minister me, minister to me in different ways. But the the four books that you find yourself maybe most prevalently drawn to throughout your life thus far. Yeah, so I would have to say Exodus, Esther, John, and Romans. And Exodus and Esther, I have like those are pretty permanent, like they always stay there. Um, and then John kind of filters out with with the other gospels, and then I really like Romans, just I I took a a class that was on um the live letters of Paul and just Paul's different writing than everything. And I don't know, just throughout the whole thing, I felt more drawn to Romans than I did to to other um letters. I don't really know why, but I just go back and and read it um over and over.
SPEAKER_00So Romans is my favorite letter.
SPEAKER_02Okay, perfect. Romans to me feels perhaps the most all-encompassing of the epistles, not just because of its length, but because of like its thematic content. Like it feels as if it addresses everything. And maybe because of that, to me, it feels like it's more generally written to the church, whereas some of the other epistles are kind of hyper-specific to what's ever going on contextually in that place at that time. Yeah, agree. So, and then Romans also like to me has some of the most beautiful, like some of the most beautiful language of the dissemination of the gospel in terms of Paul taking the gospel and putting it in very concise, succinct terms that are so beautiful and so poetic and so moving. So Romans 5, Romans 3, Romans 5, and Romans 12 are all amongst like some of my favorite chapters. Romans 8. Yeah, yes, yes, Romans Romans 8, 28 is Nisi's overall lifetime favorite verse.
SPEAKER_00So really, I love that. Yeah. When I when I was a small child, I was in the hospital and I was six years old, and my pastor brought me a Bible, and he marked one verse in the entirety of scripture, and it told me he'd marked a verse, and that was so unfair because it took forever to find it. Right. When I found it, yeah, when I found, I mean it was just a little dot, okay. But when I found it, it was Romans 8 28, and that has been my life verse. And it's a scripture that means a whole lot to me.
SPEAKER_02I love that. I'm also very interested in Exodus and Esther. Okay. I am too. Esther, Esther, I mean, we're all we're all we're all just girls. So Esther appeals to us in specific ways, right? Um, I contend that Esther is the most cinematic of all the biblical books. Like the story just feels like it should be an epic drama, a film, something of that nature. Like it just lends itself to gets my creative juices flowing in a specific way. Um, and then also like the idea of you know exalting someone from an ordinary station in order that they can bring about salvation for others. You know, it's just it's a beautiful book to me in that way. What about it specifically appeals to you? So a couple of different things. Um, like you said, I do find it to be a very cinematic story. Um my first kind of like memory of the book of Esther's was the veggie tailing. The veggie tailing.
SPEAKER_01When they tickle a Haman. I just think that's that is funny. That is objectively funny.
SPEAKER_02Um and yeah, so it's always kind of stood out to me for for that reason. I just remember the veggie tales so like clearly in my brain. Um, but as I've gotten older, I've appreciated it for different reasons. Um I think like you said, we are all just girls here, and there is something very special about um so my favorite movie is still Magnolias, and I love just like anything that shows that there is strength and femininity. And I think Esther portrays that very well as like using her station as a woman to bring about massive change um of that, and then also um I like it in a in kind of a spiritual sense because nowhere in the book of Esther does it say God at all. And I I think that's so interesting because it's part of the canon and it's showing God moving in our lives in maybe ways that resonate with the modern experience, you know, of like you don't always hear God, you're not talking about God in every single conversation that you have, but there's always movement there and there's always influence. Um, and so I love that. And then in terms of Exodus, I just love the story of Exodus. Also, um, you know, The Prince of Egypt, what a fantastic movie. Um yeah, I love the story. I love the significance it it has to both the Jewish and the Christian faith. Um, the different traditions it's brought about. Um, yeah, I love it as a historical text and as a literary text on top of the fact that it's scripture, you know? So yeah. Those both of those books are very cinematic. You know, I'm glad you brought up the Prince of Egypt. I have been fiend to re-watch both The Prince of Egypt and Joseph, King of Dreams, lately. So I'm gonna have to gonna have to revisit those. Uh, but something you said about the book of Esther, like I I was obviously thinking of the fact that it's the only biblical book that doesn't mention God. I believe Song of Solomon like doesn't explicitly mention the name of God in a similar way. But the I love that you brought that um out in the sense of comparing it to like modernity and how, you know, we might not hear from God in the same ways that God was heard from throughout the biblical canon, and we might not be able to trace like manifest presence in specific ways, like in Theophany and things that maybe happened in times of old, but the omnipresence of God, that He is constantly moving and working on behalf of people. And I I think that's really beautiful. So I'm really, really glad you brought that out.
SPEAKER_00Well, thank you. Along with um us always saying God, God is everywhere. We can see God in everything. You can you can hear God in different ways, other than just the traditional expected ways, but you can always see him and you can always hear him. And he's uh he's not mentioned, but he's everywhere in the book of Esther.
SPEAKER_02Absolutely, right. And when you look for God, you will find God. That's right. Yeah, absolutely. Um, yeah, also glad you brought up the veggie tail because that was a very formative experience. I have some I have some TikTok edits about Queen Esther to send you later, the Veggie Tale Persuasion. Please do. You brought up Steel Magnolias, and I need you to know I I considered including Steel Magnolias in your intro, um, but I didn't know how I could in a complimentary way compare you to all of the characters. So I went with I went with Gone with the Wind instead. I appreciate, you know, I do uh strongly identify with Annelle, so she is my character.
SPEAKER_01Um but anyhow.
SPEAKER_02Also, as part of your intro before we move on to our next little bit of discussion, I was going to share your degree with the people. Can you tell the people what you have a degree in? Um yeah, so one of my degrees is in religion. Um I I have a bachelor's in religion, and um most of my studies were kind of focused on the New Testament, um, religious history, primarily like the development of religion in America and and that sort of thing. Um, but I did take a class on Old Testament um and was taught by kind of a giant in the field. Um, and speaking about Prince of Egypt, he was the consulting um biblical scholar on the Prince of Egypt.
SPEAKER_01So that's really cool. That's a fun fact.
SPEAKER_02Um, and so I I got to learn about today's topic through him and read some of his works. Um, and so that's how I became knowledgeable on the hypothesis and and kind of learned to see it through my New Testament studies. Fascinating. So, all right, before before we dive into the documentary hypothesis, though, I actually have had the distinct honor and privilege of knowing Erin well before her performance. Pursuit of her religious studies degree. And so I thought it would be interesting to try to share with the people the story of our friendship, Erin. How how did we meet? Yeah. Uh so did we meet on the White Club trip or like right before the White Club trip? I think I think we met on the White Club trip. This is my experience though. In like in like all the friendships that like really, really, really matter in life, it's almost impossible to trace their inception. You're like, where did this begin? Yeah. And and also like I feel like I was friends with a lot of people that you were friends with. You know what I mean? And so it's like we've been running kind of in the same circles for quite some time and just somehow had never met. I don't know. That's weird, um, especially in such a small town.
SPEAKER_01But anywho, we were on a Y Club trip, and I was, I think I was probably talking to like Emily Betts, Anna, Haley, all of them, and I mentioned something about Anne Boleyn, and Kyla like stopped what she was doing and whipped around. And I was like, what did you say about Anne Boleyn?
SPEAKER_02And the friendship just flourished from there. Um, yeah. What's your take on the story? I do, I do recall that very vividly. You mentioning Anne Boleyn and me being like, who just said Anne Boleyn? Like it summoned me, like a sleeper agent. And then I also have a very distinct memory of on the same trip, like a day or two later, the whole group of us from Cook High School was out to eat. And we were, were we at hard rock? We were at some horrible novelty restaurant. Yeah. And it it had to be either hard rock or like the varsity or something. Yeah, but Bohemian Rhapsody started playing. Oh, yes. And both of us out of the entire group, for whatever reason, like did like a full performance of Bohemian Rhapsody. And that was that was the moment where it was like, oh, okay, like, yeah, this person's all right. We're we're gonna be good friends. We'll be friends, yeah. And then from there, we managed to repeatedly manage to not take classes so that we could spend time together in independent studies. Yes. And that was the that was the MO for the rest of our high school. Watch movies and go get Mexican food and battered fries. Um, yes, correct. Which we were not supposed to be doing. So sorry to Miss Beth and Miss Chris if you are listening. Of course, they knew what we were doing. They knew. I know, but don't you know that every time they check the cameras and they were like, there they go again. What are we gonna do about that with the box of battered fries? Yeah, it was it was hard to punish us. Our GPAs were were pretty good. Exactly. Sometimes I do think about the things that we got away with during those independent studies, and I'm like, my goodness. I know, and that's why Goff Cart guy got hired.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, like us in line.
SPEAKER_02Literally, us and Gavin. We were probably the reason for that. So, yes, very quickly after that Y Club trip, uh, we we became really, really, really close friends, and we're pretty much joined at the hip for the entirety of our high school experience. And part of that being joined at the hip meant meant that the Christmas of my senior year, uh to put some things in context, uh, our entire family was in Summiton, Alabama for that Christmas season because Aunt Pam was passing away from breast cancer. And I don't know why. Maybe you can shed light on this, Erin, because I feel like during high school you honestly knew me more than I knew myself at some points. But I don't know what possessed me. But for whatever reason, I was in Summiton, Alabama in the lead up to Christmas, and I was like, no, I must be in my house for Christmas Day. I truly don't know, girl, because you you really were determined.
SPEAKER_01I was like, you want to be by yourself on Christmas? That sounds depressing. Who wants to do that? Yes. Um and my my mama was not having it. Yes. She did not want you to be by yourself on Christmas. Um, so you got to experience a Toomy family Christmas midnight mass and all.
SPEAKER_02Which speaking of experiences and stories that are very cinematic, like one day there should be a film adaptation of the Toomy family Christmas and the epic Midnight Mass. Because what a time it was. So can you can you tell the story of my first mass experience? Yes. So the thing I'm assuming like a lot of your I don't know this, maybe I shouldn't assume, but I assume a lot of your listeners are Protestant, not Catholic. So um yeah, Midnight Mass is what it sounds like. It's mouse at midnight, but it's it's the first service on Christmas Day. Um and because of that, even though it's literally in the middle of the night, it is packed. Like there are a ton of people that come to Midnight Mass. And because of where we're located, where our hometown is, we're close to an Air Force base. So there are a lot of people from the north that are Catholic, um, whose families may be coming down to visit them. So they're there for midnight mass. We get a lot of travelers, it is so packed, like jam-packed in there, and so we roll up to midnight mass and people everywhere, and it's so hot in there. They have the heat on because it's December, um, so like naturally, but there are so many people in there, and the body heat is just oppressive, it's terrible. Um, and we're sitting kind of in the middle of a row. Um, again, for you know, people who grew up Protestant or don't really know a whole lot about a Catholic um church service, there's a lot of getting up and down too, which if you have pots, that'll bottom out your blood pressure really quick.
SPEAKER_01Especially if it's hot, which is what happened to me. So we're getting um, we're in the middle of of prayer, and also there's this priest on the hover round. How can I have the priest on a hover round?
SPEAKER_02There is this very old priest that is riding around mass with a hover round. Um, and so they're they're like, you know, up at the altar getting like preparing the Eucharist for consecration and like all of that. And I'm seeing spots. I'm sweating like crazy.
SPEAKER_01I'm about to pass out, and I'm like, Kyla, we gotta go. She's like, what do you mean? This is an important part. They rang the bells, and I'm like, no, we have got to leave right now. So we're like trying to escape the middle of this row while everyone is knelt down. They're having to like flap up their little kneelers and everything. We have rushed to the bathroom and like Kyla's wedding paper towels and like all this stuff to try to like get me to not pass out.
SPEAKER_02And finally, we were in there for a hot minute, and I'm pretty sure we were in there until service ended.
SPEAKER_01And we come out, and the priest on a hover round almost runs us over because he's also trying to get up out of there because it's so hot. It was a whole experience. It was it was wild. Um yeah, I try to sit towards the outside of the pew now because I don't ever want to be in that situation again.
SPEAKER_02That was my first mass experience, and what a memorable one to have as my but honestly, I loved going to a mass. Like I really appreciated like the liturgy and the tradition and everything. And it definitely helped that I had the color commentary of Catherine to me in one year. Um because I will never seriously, yeah. No, I will never forget she had two primary comments after the service. One being that her new life's calling was to become a priest because then she could imbibe all of the consecrated wine.
unknownRight.
SPEAKER_02And secondly, I don't even remember what brought this on. I don't know what you said or did, but she looked at you. Or was it you? Who did she tell they needed a lobotomy? Like right after. That was absolutely me.
SPEAKER_01She still tells me I need a lobotomy for several reasons. Um but she was like, girl, you've got to get it together. Learn to hydrate before you go to mass. Um, eat something before which you're really not supposed to do that if you're gonna receive communion.
SPEAKER_02But anywho, um Priest Catherine says it's okay.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. Priest Catherine says, eat an entire meal before you grow.
SPEAKER_02But it was such a special and hallowed experience to begin Christmas in this way at this mass service, and then equally consecrated and hallowed was the grilled cheese that Sonia Toomy made me immediately thereafter. So because no communion for you for me, no communion for me. So obviously, you have now attested to your Catholicism throughout this discussion. Um, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to discuss with the listeners your own personal journey in relationship to faith, because you have one of the most interesting faith journeys of any of my friends, because you talk talk about the manner in which you were raised, the two faith traditions of your parents, and how you chose your faith journey for yourself. Yeah, I think that's interesting that you like say it's so unique because my husband also thinks that it's like wild that I was raised at two ends of the spectrum, you know. Um, so my mom's side of the family is Baptist, Southern Baptist, and my dad's side of the family is Catholic. Um, we come from an Irish tradition, hence the name Aaron. Um yeah, so my parents were very intentional with us, like they wanted us to grow up um within a church, they wanted us to have kind of the moral teachings and and teachings of Christ and and that sort of thing, but they really kind of left the door open for us to figure out our own beliefs on theology and like where we stand with that. Um, and so they never really pressured us one way or the other to kind of like align ourselves with one denomination or or anything like that. Um but whenever I was in high school, I just kind of found myself feeling as if my idea of what I believed and what the scripture taught and and what I knew about scholarship and that sort of stuff just aligned more with the Catholic faith. Um and so yeah, that's how I I went through RCIA, which is um when you're converting, because my dad didn't have us um christened when we were babies. He also was like, I feel like you should make that decision if you decide that you want to be in like a different denomination. Baptism is like a whole decision coming forward and and professing in front of um the congregation. So he just didn't really want to like pigeonhole us in that way. Um, and so I went through RCIA, I went through confirmation and got baptized by senior year of high school. Um, so it is a really interesting story. I mean, Southern Baptists and Catholicism are very different. You don't say, very different. Um but I think what kind of drew me to Catholicism is there's just such a unity in confirmation and in the sacraments. Um and then Kylo, you saw this when you went to mass with us, but everyone's experiencing like the same mass. You know what I mean? Like the homilies are different, the the sermon is different, but you're going through the same scripture, and it there's just such a unity in that. A you and it's it's about being part of the body of Christ and and feeling that unity with um your fellow Christians, your fellow Catholics. So I think it's awesome. I also like that um in the profession of faith, like even though it says like I believe in one um Catholic church, it it encompasses like all denominations, even though it says like one Catholic church, because essentially like we all come through like the apostolic faith and blah blah blah blah blah.
SPEAKER_01So I just I like that. I like the unity aspect of it all.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I I agree. That was something that I was so struck by. I think I like even asked you, I was like, wait, is everyone hearing like this same thing because of the way it was like printed in the what's it called that they hand out?
SPEAKER_01Gosh, I don't know. Okay, okay, okay, okay.
SPEAKER_02Um, but uh the the notion of I am hearing the same scripture, the same recitation that is being heard in all corners of the earth right now. Like all manner of people that profess this specific branch of faith are hearing the exact same thing. And that's you know, over a billion people, right? Yeah. Like we're we're all enjoying the same scripture, the same specific type of revelation, and yet the Holy Spirit is also revealing things to each of us individually in the midst of this united hearing. So I think that that's that's really special. And it also, to me, as you know, someone who specifically enjoys scholarship in the Old Testament, like it it calls to mind to me like the revelation at Sinai and the belief in Judaism that like we were all present at Sinai. Like everyone who is under the authority of Yahweh and everyone who has a relationship with him, we all heard the same thing and we were all spiritually present there. And this idea of the tradition and the liturgy not only unifying us with everyone that's hearing the same thing in the same service on that date, but with all the believers who have ever come before who have set under the same authority of the church. Like I just I do I do think that the unity aspect of it is is so singular and so beautiful, and it's something that us Protestant denominations could could learn from just a little bit. Yeah, and I I do want to stick a pin in like the the Mount Sinai thing of like we were all present for that and it kind of being an outside of time thing. I want to stick a pin in that because I want to do a little callback later in the episode. Okay, once we kind of get into the weeds of documentary hypothesis. So I'm saying that out loud, so okay, okay. I do the exact same thing. I will look at Nisi and I'll be like, remind me this. And like it's not even that I need her to remind me, it's that I need to verbalize it so that it's spoken aloud. So my last question before we dive in and get into the weeds of the documentary hypothesis is if I ask you about your relationship to faith, but what can you say about your relationship to scripture? Yeah, um, so part of like growing up with two different kinds of approaches to scripture, you know, like Southern Baptists, they are all about Wednesday night church, and you need to memorize all of these Bible verses and that sort of thing, or your sword drills, yeah, and like awanas and and all of that.
SPEAKER_01Um it it's like a test. It's like you're in school or something.
SPEAKER_02Um, and then the Catholic side of thing of just um like we've already mentioned, like you're hearing the same scripture as people across the world um hearing mass and and you're kind of encouraged to read your Bible and and think about it through the lens of of you know all of the popes that the popes and bishops before that have kind of interpreted the text um and offered some kind of guidance. And so I I feel like I've taken seeds from both of those, you know. I I don't feel as if we as individuals have to view scripture through the lens of another person, another scholar at all times. But I do think that there's wisdom and and looking at the way people before us have interpreted the text, and then doing it ourselves after that, you know, or even the reverse, reading something ourselves, kind of formulating an opinion and then going back and and seeing, okay, well what do other people think about this? What have I missed? Yada yada. Um and so whenever I went to school and decided that I wanted to add religion as well, first I added it as a minor and then bumped it up to a major, but whenever I decided I wanted to study religion, um, I kind of took those thoughts with me and um was learning from my professors, and I feel as if having those formal teachings on top of my own perception of scripture has just like strengthened my faith. You know, I feel like you hear about people that um maybe study religion in a secular institute, and I had professors that said all the time that they would have students that felt as if the teachings that they were doing were trying to challenge their faith by by revealing different like theories or or different ideas of scholarship. And that's just not in my experience. In a way, it's it's strengthened it, it's made me look at things in a different way and kind of understand that my interpretation or somebody else's interpretation both can have merits, even though they're conflicting. Um, so yeah, I feel like that was kind of a rambling mess of nonsense. But yeah, that was not nonsense at all. I I love that. And I I completely agree with you that that's been my experience, and that's also my conclusion as well. Is I just I wish that people would look at scriptural interpretation as a both and scenario instead of a scenario in which there is absolute. You know, it doesn't have to be either or it doesn't have to be one person is correct. It can be these are all perspectives that when we put them together, it creates like this beautiful mosaic picture of what God is trying to communicate with us. Because why would we want to restrict what God is trying to communicate to be one simple thing? Right. And I think, you know, what I'm saying is such a perfect like lead-in to what we're gonna be talking about today because we're gonna be talking about a bunch of different perspectives all converging into what we know to be the Bible. So I just I think that's beautiful. Um anywho, yeah. All right, so without further ado, let's let's go ahead and jump in. So we're here to discuss the documentary hypothesis. So, first and foremost, I want to give you the floor to attempt to explain in layman's terms, or to someone who's maybe never encountered this theorem before, what is the documentary hypothesis? So the way I was kind of introduced to it is growing up, or whenever you first kind of learn about the Bible, you hear that the first five books were written by Moses.
SPEAKER_01Um and then you start reading the first five books, and you're like, wait a minute, how is this written by Moses when it talks about Moses' death and like events that occurred after Moses died?
SPEAKER_02That's not really adding up.
SPEAKER_01And then you start looking at other pieces and you're like, wait, didn't we just hear this story like two chapters ago and it's being repeated with like a slight detail change?
SPEAKER_02That's interesting, that's weird. Um, so you have this question of like, okay, Moses is supposed to have written this, but how is that physically possible? And also, I'm noticing some contradictions or like some stories that seem almost identical but just slightly different. Um and it kind of begs the question of like who wrote this and did they not notice that there were contradictions? And how did we get the idea that Moses wrote this when it's talking about his death? Like, where did this idea come from? So um I took a class on Old Testament um scholarship, and my professor was Dr. Richard Elliott Friedman, um, who is an Old Testament scholar who has spent a majority of his career, he's retired now, but spent a majority of his career um looking into the documentary hypothesis, which is determining who wrote the Bible.
SPEAKER_01And I have a book here with me called Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman.
SPEAKER_02Um and then Basically, Dr. Friedman is not the only person that has studied this. This has been studied for years and years and years. Um and it comes down to there are two writers, J and E. And we know that there are two writers based off of what name was used for God in the original text. So either Yahweh or L slash Elohim. And then as you progress throughout, there are other things that don't really line up with J or with E. And that's where we get the sources P and D. D is um Deuteronomy and the next uh five six books after that, six, next six books. And P is from a priest um who kind of wrote an alternative to the J N E text that we have. So that's kind of a high-level overview without getting into the leads of like each individual author and like their motives behind writing each of their sections and how they got compiled together and and all of that.
SPEAKER_01But yeah, did I explain that well, Carla? You want to add on anything? No, no, no.
SPEAKER_02I I think that you did it really. But to put it in layman's terms, I think you did a phenomenal job. I really, really do. Um, like you, I first encountered the documentary hypothesis in a classroom um with Dr. Christopher Ralston at GW. And the first time I heard this, I never like I'll never forget it. It's like it unlocked something in my brain. I'm like, wow, this makes so much sense, actually. Because the notion in terms of like just viewing things through a lens of historicity, the notion that Moses wrote all of these scrolls that were allegedly preserved well enough for us to continue to transcribe and translate throughout, you know, millennia. Like, like you said, the thing that always bothered me as a child, always was Moses dies within the narrative of Deuteronomy. Like, and then and then I I have heard pastors stand in pulpits and try to validate that by being like, well, Joshua wrote a postscript. And I'm like, well, if we can affirm that that happened, can we not affirm that other people maybe had some contributions to what was going on through here? Also, like the the fact that the documents begin, like they predate Moses so far, you know, like so I um I I always struggled with the notion of Moses being the sole author of the Torah. Um, and so when I first heard this, like I said, it's like it unlocked something in me because I was one of those readers that personally struggled with, you know, the flood narrative. Why are there two? Why are there two entirely separate narratives of the exact same event? Similarly with creation, you know, we have creation as presented through a lens about the entirety of it, and then we have creation specifically through this very intimate lens of the creation of humanity, right? And so when I first encountered this theory, like I said, it's just like it's like a light bulb went off, this moment of epiphany of, oh my goodness, absolutely there had to be compilers and redactors and people who worked on the text. And then being able to delve into the theorem and discovering, you know, some of the emergent themes of what appealed to different compilers, right? I I hesitate to call them authors because we we, the three of us here, understand, and I'm hoping that our readers will come to understand. I'm not claiming that these people were the originators of these narratives, right? Because these narratives existed as oral traditions and they likely were even written down prior to these transcriptions. But these are the transcribers, the compilers, the people that formulated them in the manner in which they were preserved to later become the biblical text as we know it today, right? And so it it makes sense to me based on certain themes that you see prevailing in different passages of scripture, that, oh, as I'm reading, I'm like, oh my goodness, like the Deuteronomist must have must have had a hand in this. Oh my goodness, the priestly source had a hand in this. And so it it honestly also appeals to me as someone who enjoys puzzles as I'm reading, to be like, wait, what's going on here? How does this all fit together? So before we like really try to get into the nitty-gritty of like the historicity of how these things were compiled and written down, I wanted to first start with like the thematic overview of of each of these sources and these compilers, because um, the person who first posited the documentary hypothesis specifically of you know, this is how the document came to be, and there were these four primary compilers of J, E, D, P, J being Yaoist because there is no there's no J in the Hebrew language, but Yahweh was rendered Jehovah in translation. So we refer to the Yaoist with the J, E, B. And in German, the the Y makes a J sound. Anyway, I interrupt you. I'm sorry. No, no, you're good. You're good. Throw it in there. I always think of the scene in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade when Indy has to spell the name of God and he wants to go to have you not seen it, Erin. Aaron. Okay. I'm not a big action movie girl. But but purely as someone who's interested in theology and biblical history, you should watch Indiana Jones and the last crusade. It's my favorite of the Indiana Jones movies. Um, anyways, also living in DC, you know, there's no J Street because there's not a J in so many of these classic languages. Anyways, um, the J being how we refer to the Yaoist, the E being how we refer to the one who refers to God as L or Elohim, the Elohist, D being Deuteronomist. I love that word for whatever reason, Deuteronomist. It just appeals to me. And the P being the priestly source, the the first person to posit this theorem was a scholar by the name of Julius Wellhausen. Um, and part of the reason that I want us to begin with talking about the emergent themes that we see from each compiler is I want us to play in the sandbox that Julius Wellhausen has given us before we start stomping through it and kicking down some of his sandcastles, right? Okay. So um I uh I don't know if either of you want to jump in and offer, like, have you have you ever been reading the biblical text, specifically, you know, these first five books, and been like, oh, I can kind of tell this seems to be coming from the Yaoist, or this seems to be coming from the Deuteronomist. Well, funny you should say that because I have another book, which is uh the Bible with sources revealed. So it I have the first five books showing like who wrote each verse, um, which is really interesting. And and later on, I really do want to like delve into the um you guys talked about Genesis 15 on the last podcast, and I'm assuming you're gonna be talking about 16 and 17 on the next one. And so I think it would be fun for us to like read those two stories in particular, um, because one is written by Jay and one is written by P, I believe. Maybe that would make that that would make sense to me. Yeah, so I think that's fun, and and I would love to do that at some point. But yeah, I have been reading um specifically the uh creation story. Um has always kind of stood out in my mind where I'm like, okay, why are we telling this again? We just did this. Um but the I think the first time I remember kind of being confused is with um uh Noah in the art and hearing, you know, he got two of each animal.
SPEAKER_01But wait, no, if they were a clean animal, he got seven pairs.
SPEAKER_02And then now, like through documentary hypothesis, I can tell like which which author like wrote those sections down and what the intention behind that was, you know. I'm pretty sure that the seven pairs comes from the priestly source, and it's to kind of highlight sacrifice because if you sacrifice the two that you know you brought on, then you don't have that animal anymore. So I I just think that's really um interesting. So that's the first time I kind of picked up on it.
SPEAKER_00Um niecy, do you have one? Well, it used to stand out to me before I ever had this explanation, okay, that from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2, if you're reading an English translation, it goes from God to Lord God. When you get into Genesis 2, it's Lord God, Lord God. Genesis 1 is God. And so when I was a teenager reading the Bible, I used to wonder, why is this different? Okay. And so, and with you and Kyla and some of the things that you you have brought out, they're things that as a kid reading the Bible, I didn't, you know, I was like, why is this different? I wanted to know why Moses was dead and still writing, you know, and that kind of stuff. And so, and I got the same explanation Kyla got. And so those are those are texts that I struggled with, you know. I'm not gonna date myself right now, but I struggled in the 70s, 60s, 70s with, okay. And so it's such an amazing thing to have this knowledge, to have these scholars, and to be able to look at it now and under understand Genesis 1, you know, with the Elohist being written, you understand why it's God. And then with a Yallist writing Genesis 2, you understand the Lord God. And so those are rudimentary, but those are things that stood out to me years ago. And so, and I'm I'm I'm loving this, taking my notes, and so um, but it's neat to hear two young ladies who have studied behind people who understand this, and we understand it's a hypothesis, but there's so much that we can take from it. There's something that y'all have already said. Just because you have two differing thoughts or differing um sources or whatever, it doesn't mean you can't take from these sources and gain so much from them. And that's my experience since I've had this explained to me.
SPEAKER_02It's just like Erin's entire faith journey, you know, taking from two seemingly opposed viewpoints and learning to to synergize them and to compile them and to redact them and make that into her own personal belief system that she has worked out, you know. Right. Um so I uh I think Erin, I love your idea of let's look at these specific stories and try to unpack maybe who was compiling and redacting them. So, in order to do that, I want to just share very briefly the emergent themes that I see from each of the compilers. Like as I'm reading, these are the things that when I mentally flag them, I'm like, oh, I'm probably dealing with J, or I'm probably dealing with D here. So from the Yaoist, I see this real emphasis on the relationship between humanity and the soil or humanity and the earth. Like the humble beginnings of humanity is very much emphasized by the Yaoist. And then the Yaoist is also very concerned with progressing from that theme, this idea of the separation from divinity and humanity, the separation that occurs because of the original sin, and then the progressive corruption of humanity as a result. So the Yaoist hate to put him on blast here, but you know, he just tends to be a little bit more negative towards humanity as a whole, right? Humanity is wicked from its inception, and that the heart of man is only you know concerned with evil. That that is a very Yaoist perspective. So kind of total depravity as a theological concept seems to take its root in Yaoist writings to me. Whereas the Elohist is uh interestingly very concerned with the division between Israel and Judah, and this this favor towards Israel, that Israel is the elect, Israel is the chosen. Um, and because of that, because of the emphasis on Israel as a kingdom specifically, the Elohist is very concerned with narratives dealing with heroes of Israel. So, like Joseph, Joshua, people who are heroes to the nation. Um also interestingly, I I love this because I love to remember that the people through whom the biblical text was was communicated were humans, just like us. And we see that attested to to be in the Elohist uh and the priestly source kind of seem to be arguing throughout the eons because the Elohist has a negative view towards Aaron. The Elohist is the one that's like, and Aaron made this golden calf. Let's not forget Aaron really, really, really messed up. Um, whereas the priestly source obviously is very reverent and respectful towards Aaron. So we see that in the Elohist. We also see uh the Elohist is very concerned with like this abstract conception of God. The Elohist is not likely to anthropomorphize God in ways that the other sources may be more likely to. And then just like some geographic things. The the Elohist like refers to to the mountain and the region of the wilderness as Horeb instead of Sinai. Um the Deuteronomist is, I think, in my reading, seems to be the most prominent of the sources in terms of just the most material finds its root in the Deuteronomistic um compiler. So the Deuteronomist is really concerned with this notion of covenant, of a treaty between the Israelite people and Yahweh. Uh it places extreme emphasis on the elect nature of the Israelites, their chosenness from God. And then the requirements and the law, because of that chosenness, right? They have to abide by these rules and regulations of the theocracy of Israel, right? The idea of the Deuteronomist is that God reigns supreme over Israel. And that's why we see, you know, the Deuteronomist is the one who compiles uh the book of Judges. You know, this idea that the ruler of Israel was always intended to be divinity itself, not a human exalted to the position of king. Um, the Deuteronomist also expresses the theme that Aaron was so concerned with in her favorite scriptures, this idea of concern for the poor, for the disenfranchised, this um, this preferential and good treatment of your neighbor. Um, and so the Deuteronomist uh says that humanity and empathy and all these concepts should be extended to the stranger in your midst. And then finally, the priestly source um is by scholars often referred to as the most all-encompassing, the most far-reaching. Uh, it has the progression of the covenant traced from Adam to Abraham to with Noah in between and Moses ultimately, the progression of the revelation of God through his different names. So God begins as El, and then he becomes El Shaddai, and then he becomes Yahweh. And the priestly source, surprise, surprise, is deeply concerned with the theological concept of holiness, right? How what does holiness mean? How is holiness maintained? And the priestly source really seeks to exalt Aaron. So the other sources are likely to note that the Levites as a whole, as a tribe, um, are exalted by God to be the ones to commune directly with him and handle the ordinances of the tabernacle. But the priestly source is like, no, no, no, no, no. They can do certain things, but it's Aaron and Aaron's direct descendants that have access to the holy of holies. That is something that emerges specifically from the priestly source. So those are like thematically the things that appeal to me in each source. We'll talk about like dating and historicity and everything in a few moments. But in light of those themes, I think that those are each things that maybe maybe someone who's never encountered this theory before, if they want to begin to examine the text for themselves and try to see, man, who was the primary compiler here in this verse or in this passage, those are the themes that I think allow you to most readily come to conclusions about the compilers. Yeah, and I I'd also say that um kind of the mnemonic device that helped me whenever I was learning. As I was reading through, um, you kind of already mentioned that the e-source is really concerned with Israel. And conversely, the J source is really concerned with Judah. So like J, Judah, E, Israel.
SPEAKER_01It makes sense to me.
SPEAKER_02Um, so that's something else I just I wanted to point out for anyone that's like wanting to to read it themselves and see if they can pick it apart, that that's a good way to kind of tell what source you're looking at. Because um we are working with English translations, you know, we don't have the original text, and so it's not always as obvious. Um, you know, if God is being called Yahweh or if God is being called Elohim, you can't really see it all the time. So I think that's just a helpful way to discern through the English versions that we're that we have. Um but yeah, I think, you know, your thematic overview is is pretty spot on um as we get into the history of it and kind of the timeline. Um, I think it becomes kind of apparent why those themes are so present, you know, based on who the compiler was or or what group um of people were the compilers. So great synopsis, Kyla. Good job. Thank you. I got a gold star from Aaron today. All right, so um I I would love to to embark on your little your little exercise here, Aaron. Let's let's look at Genesis 15 and 16 and try to see what we're what we're dealing with here. Okay, one second, please. Yeah. Okay. So this book that I'm pulling from the translation um was done by Dr. Friedman. Um, so this is not like a King James version or or anything like that. This is Dang it, we can't use it.
SPEAKER_00Why?
SPEAKER_01Oh that's like why no age.
SPEAKER_00He's being facetious, you know.
SPEAKER_01Um, so okay. After these things, this is Genesis chapter 15.
SPEAKER_02No, um, after these things, Yahweh's word came to Abram in a vision, saying, Don't fear Abram, I'm a shield for you. Your reward is very much. And Abram said, My Lord Yahweh, what would you give me when I go childless? And my household is an acquired person. And Abram said, Here you haven't given me seed, and here a member of my household is taking possession of what is mine. And here Yahweh's word came to him, saying, This one won't take possession from you, but rather one who will come out of your insides, he will take possession from you. And he brought him outside and said, Look at the skies and count the stars if you'll be able to count them. And he said to him, That is how your seed will be. And he trusted in Yahweh, and he considered it for him as virtue. And he said to him, I am Yahweh who brought you out of your of the child. Chaldees? I don't know how to pronounce that one. Anyway, um to give you this land to possess it. And he said, My Lord Yahweh, how will I know that I'll possess it? And he said to him, Take a three year old heifer and a three year old she goat and a three year old ram and a dove and a pigeon for me. And he took all of these for him. And split them up the middle, and set each half opposite its other half, but he did not split the birds. And birds of prey came down on the carcasses, and Abram retrieved them. And the sun was about to set, and a slumber had come over Abram, and here a big dark terror was coming over him. And he said to Abram, You shall know that your seed will be an alien in a land that is not theirs, and they will serve them, and they will degrade them for they will degrade them four hundred years. But I'll judge the nation whom they'll serve as well. And after that they'll go out with much property, and you you'll come to your fathers in peace. You'll be buried at a good old age, and a fourth generation will come back here, because the Amorites' crime is not yet complete. And the sun was setting, and there was darkness, and here was an oven of smoke and a flame of fire that went between these pieces. In that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying, I'll give this land to your seed, from the river of Egypt to the big river, the river Euphrates. The Canaanites and the Kinesites and the Kodamites and the Hittites and the Parasites and the Refer how do you say it? Referim. Yeah, very good.
SPEAKER_00That's good.
SPEAKER_02And the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Gergeshites and the Jebisites. So that's chapter 15. Um there are two notes that Dr. Freeman has left. Um because I don't know if you can see on the screen, but it denotes who has wrote what. So Dr. Freeman is showing that chapter 15 is primarily written by the J source or compiled by the J Source with some inserts from a redactor. He has comments on what the redactor has um put into the text, which is chapter 15, verses 13 through 17. And it says these verses appear to be an addition to the story because one, it is enclosed by a resumptive repetition. The sun is about to set in verse 12, and then is reported to set in verse 17. Two, the prediction of the future that God gives Abram has nothing to do with this covenant ceremony that is taking place. And three, these lines merge terms that are characteristic of each of the sources. The phrase alien in a land is reminiscent of J. The phrase will degrade them is reminiscent of E. And the word for property otherwise occurs only in P and once in the separate source of Genesis 14. The reference to 400 years of slavery in Egypt may relate to the 30 years and 400 years in P, Exodus 12, verse 40. So, yeah, any comments on that chapter before we go to the chapter 17? I think um I as you were reading, I was I was thinking about the fact that, you know, seemingly this is uh a passage that would be naturally attributed to the Yahwehist because that's how it's referring to God. And we discussed that in the episode dealing with this passage, was that this is seemingly anachronistic, right? Because God has not introduced himself as A asher AA in order to give us the simplification of Yahweh yet. And so we discussed that in the episode. But as you were reading, even though I was mindful of the fact that this seemingly should be the Yahweh, as we got further into it and we got to the matter of the sacrifice and the covenant specifically being stricken through action, there were things that I was like, wait, now that sounds priestly. Wait, now that potentially sounds like it's coming from the Deuteronomist. And so to hear from you specifically that what Dr. Friedman has concluded is that potentially all of the compilers maybe are present here in this one text is fascinating and so exciting to me because in our thematic discussion of this passage, we discussed how in these sacrifices we kind of see the entirety of scripture being attested to. Because, you know, we compared the heifer to the kingdom of Egypt, and we compare, we went through and compared them each to all these kingdoms that, you know, maybe called Israelite, the Israelites into subjugation over different periods of time. And then we compared each of the sacrifices to their theological significances of what was this sacrifice offered in order to purge. And in so doing, we came to the conclusion that this one narrative kind of testifies to the entirety of scripture and specifically is already prophetically anticipating the gospel, right? And so the fact that you have potentially all of the compilers present in order to bring all of scripture to in into one singular passage, like I just think that that it undergirds and strengthens our conclusion of what's going on theologically here. It's being attested to historically by the fact that all of the people who are touching the biblical text are touching this narrative, which reflects the whole of the biblical text. Yes, and yeah, I just love that. I I love that we can see different people hundreds of years apart talking about the same story, having different interpretations and inserted in it creating something that is so impactful for millennia to come. You know, it it completely frames the way that Christians view the New Testament just from just from this covenant, right? And I think that that's so special. Um, that these people most likely knew nothing about the other, you know, like they didn't know these people, they did not have conversations with them to, and it's pieced together in a way that's like completely, like I said, framing the way that we view the gospels, the covenant, all of it. I think that's I think it's beautiful. I think it's really, really beautiful. Um so moving on to chapter chapter 17, what we're about to read is what is kind of it's called a doublet. Um, so doublets are for the listeners that maybe don't know, doublets are um sections that seem to repeat the same story. And there are quite a few doublets throughout the Old Testament. Um, just I think I have those noted somewhere. So just in Genesis, um the creation story is a doublet, uh, the genealogy from Adam we see is a doublet, the flood, uh genealogy from Shem, uh Abraham's migration, the wife sister story, the covenant, Hagar and Ishmael, um prophecy of Isaac's birth, on and on and on. There's tons of doublets. Um, so this is just one example of those doublets, and I think it's I'm not gonna tell you what source that Dr. Friedman has this marked as I want to see if you can figure it out. So this is Genesis chapter 17. And Abram was 90 years and nine years old, and Yahweh appeared to Abram and said to him, I am El Shede, walk before me and be unblemished, and let me place my covenant between me and you, and I'll make you very, very numerous. And Abraham fell on his face, and God spoke sorry, and Abram fell on his face, and God spoke with him, saying, I hear, my covenant is with you, and you'll become a father of a mass of nations, and your name will not be called Abram anymore, but your name will be Abraham, because I've set you to be a father of a mass of nations, and I'll make you very, very fruitful and make you into nations, and kings will come out of you, and I'll establish my covenant between me and you, and your seed after you, for their generations as an eternal covenant, to become God to you and to your seed after you, and I'll give you and your seed after you the land where you're residing, all the land of Canaan as an eternal possession, and I'll become a god to them. And God said to Abraham, and you shall observe my covenant, you and your seed after you through their generations. This is my covenant that you shall observe between me and you and your seed after you. Every male is to be circumcised among you, and you shall be circumcised at the flesh of your foreskin, and it will become a sign of covenant between me and you. And at eight days old every male shall be circumcised among you through your generations, homeborn or purchased with money from any foreigner who is not from your seed. Your homeborn and the one purchased with your money will be circumcised, and my covenant will become an eternal covenant in your flesh, and an uncircumcised, a male, the flesh of whose foreskin, will not be circumcised. That person will be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant. And God said to Abraham, Sorry, is that how you say Sarah's name before? Sarah's Sarai. It doesn't really Sarah. Okay. Sarai, your wife. You shall not call her Sarai, because her name is Sarah, and I'll bless her, and I'll also give you a son from her, and I'll bless her, and she'll become nations. Kings of people will be from her. And Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said in his heart, Will he be born to someone who's a hundred years old? And will Sarah, who's 90 years old, give birth? And Abraham said to God, If only Ishmael will live before you. And God said, But Sarah, your wife, is giving birth to a son for you, and you shall call his name Isaac. And I'll establish my covenant with him as an eternal covenant for his seed after him. And I've listened to you about Ishmael. Here I've blessed him, and I'll make him fruitful, and make him very, very numerous. He'll father twelve chieftains, and I'll make him into a big nation, but I'll establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear for you at this appointed time in the next year. And he finished speaking with him, and God went up from Abraham. And Abraham took Ishmael, his son, and all his homeborn, and everyone purchased with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in that very day, as God had spoken with him. And Abraham, who was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, the flesh of his foreskin, and Ishmael, his son, was thirteen years old when he was circumcised at the flesh of his foreskin. And that very day Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael, his son, and all the men of his house, homeborn and purchased with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him. So who do we think that takes us from? Do you have something that you can write on so that we can like both hold them up at the same time? Because like I don't, or do you want to go first, or do you want me to go first?
SPEAKER_00I'll I'll I'll go first.
SPEAKER_02Okay, I promise I won't change my answer. My answer is locked in. I could be wrong.
SPEAKER_00When you started with the first first, okay, I thought Yallist. Okay. But then as the text was developing, I thought Deuteronomist. Okay.
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_00And so, but I just couldn't help but wonder if there's not some priestly in there too. But that's just that's just me. Okay. Okay. And so that's that's that's what I'm saying.
SPEAKER_02Okay. If I I'm guessing one like the one primary one, right? Okay. I am gonna go priestly. The answer, according to Dr. Friedman, is priestly.
SPEAKER_03Priestly.
SPEAKER_02And and kind of what I think stands out as being so priestly to me is the emphasis on true the tradition of circumcision.
SPEAKER_03Right.
SPEAKER_02Um that just seems like something a priest would be really concerned. You know what I mean? Like that just seems like to me, I don't think the Deuteronomist, while he the Deuteronomist cares about law and and all of those things, I I feel like the the traditional um what's the word I'm looking for? Not sacramental, that's that's not what I mean. But you know, like the the the traditional aspect of of circumcision just seems like something to me a priest would be very concerned with. But the the preservation of the covenant in that specific way seems seems priestly. Um so yeah, that's that's an example of a doublet, um, something that's probably kind of fresh on on your listeners' brains from last week and in your next podcast. Um I think that I I just find it very interesting. You know, we've we've already made the covenant.
SPEAKER_01Why are we going back to the covenant?
SPEAKER_02But it makes sense, you know, when you're when you're looking at it through the lens of, oh, these are different people compiling the same story, different tellings of the same story. Um, and the emphasis is on different things, right? For um, for Jay, we have the emphasis of um the sacrifices and and kind of setting up that that cosmic relationship between God and Abram. And then with the priestly source, we have um the the preservation of tradition that's going through the Abraham's line to to modern day, um, modern being the the priestly people's um modern day version of of the covenant. So I find it fun. I find it fun to read through those things. Yeah. It it definitely is fun. What tipped me off, what what set me over on being like I'm pretty confident that I can guess Priestly on this was um, first of all, the the use of El Shaddai. Like that name typically sets off alarm bells for Priestly in my brain. But also, like you said, the the idea that like rules and regulations for the preservation of the covenant seem to primarily be a concern of of the priestly source. And the priestly source loves to to extrapolate on this idea of the covenant being passed, like it there being a covenant with Adam, but then there being a covenant with Noah, but then there being a covenant with Abraham. And because this narrative seems so so concerned with the passage of the covenant, right? This idea that as much as Abraham may intercede on behalf of Ishmael, the covenant is going to pass primarily through Isaac and through the line of Sarah. That just, I was like, that that feels priestly. But it did feel like you were psyching us out when the very first verse has Yahweh. Right, right. Yeah, I just, yeah, I love it. I think it's so so interesting. And um, you know. Are we are we gonna get into the the hypothesis is so huge, right? Like I took an entire semester on it. Um, and I could probably do their whole careers on documentary hypothesis, but we can't really cover everything in in one podcast, but um, there's so many like historical things that factor into why the sources are are compiling the stories in the way that they're doing, or why the redactors are are piecing everything together and and putting one story in this order and one story in this order. Um yeah, it's just there's so much to it. It's such a huge thing. And and I really do encourage anyone that's listening to kind of do their own research on it and and read up on kind of the history of of each of the compilers and redactors for sure. Yeah, well, that's actually exactly where I wanted to head next in our conversation is the the historicity of these compilers' existence. And primarily let's start from this point because as I said, we are gonna like kick down some of the sand castles that Julius Wellhazlin has built for us in just a moment. But before we do that, let's let's talk about if these compilers all were literal humans that existed, when are we dating their compilation to? Like when are we saying that they would have been compiling these? And obviously, again, you know, we're dealing with a theory. Everything is theorized, everything is postulation here. But when does it seem to us, as we're reading the text, when does it seem like the Yowist is emerging? Yeah, I don't remember exact dates. I reread the book earlier this week, but I've been I'm not remembering exact dates, but I can kind of speak to kind of historical circumstances that were emerging, and maybe if you remember the dates, you can plug it in. Um but we there's kind of this idea that there was um the the group that was leaving Egypt through the Exodus meeting up with the other tribes and kind of merging their stories because it's the same god, right? And that's why there are two different names that are being used, but they're calling the same god, the same deity that they're worshiping by two different names, and that's where the emergence kind of happens. Um so yeah, Tyler, do you have exact dates on that? Um, I I do know. I mean, like obviously, again, we're dealing with a theory and there's not necessarily concrete dates, but I do know that according to like Julius Wellhausen, when he was initially like putting pen to paper for this theory, he posited that the Yaoist was being formally written down during um during the monarchy, like of Israel. So during like the United Kingdom, so Saul, David, Solomon, so around the 10th century BC is when he posited that this was being formally written down. But you are absolutely right that the primary scholarly theory of the idea of Yahweh as a term emerging as how we are going to now be referring, how we are now going to primarily refer to the monotheistic god of Israel, which, you know, whether or not Yahweh initially was a god of monotheism is a whole other podcast that we will do at some point. You you'll have to come back on for that one. But um, the idea is that potentially the term Yahweh might have emerged from the land of Midian, the land in which Moses was exiled after his killing of um the slave, the slave, uh, the person who was beating the Hebrew slave in Egypt, because you know, Jethro is described as being a priest, and it's while he's in the land of Midian that God introduces himself through the name Aasher Aeah to Moses. And so the idea is whether it's through God's introduction or whether it's through integration of a separate monotheistic tradition, the term Yahweh comes from the land of Midian through which the people travel during the Exodus from Egypt. And so that's where the term comes from. And then allegedly this compiler is writing during the united monarchy of the kingdom of Israel. Now, I will say part of the reason that it's really difficult to date the Yaoist is the Yaoist is probably the most contentious source among scholars in terms of does this source actually exist as an independent source? Because a lot of the texts that can be attributed to the Yaoist could equally be attributed to potentially the Deuteronomy. Or the priestly source. So we'll talk more about that in a few moments. But I think that's why out of the four pro the sources of the documentary hypothesis, this seems to be the most difficult one to pin down in an era of history and be like, this must be where this came from. Yeah. Right. And then with with the e-source, um that I'm looking back through my notes. My brain's blanking all of a sudden. With the e-source, yeah, I think um that's most likely written by by the other tribes that were there, Israel and and and the other tribes, and there is kind of a um emphasis on matters pertaining to Israel, right? And we've kind of already touched on that. And in Dr. Friedman's book, he kind of discusses, you know, where different um like places of worship were set up in Judah and in Israel, and how they're through that there were kind of um competing ideologies, and that that's maybe why the redactor decided to put these two works together to bring those tribes together and and remind them that they're worshiping the same God, right? Like they're just reading things slightly different. But because we have this group that's very familiar with one source and this group that's very familiar with another source, you can't just fully get rid of it, right? Or else one group's gonna be mad and say, why did you decide to use their source instead of my source? And that's why we get the redactor combining J and E into one source, one body of work for people to read and learn about um the the Pentateuch. So yeah. Isn't it so funny that human nature has like not changed at all over time that you essentially have two denominations of the exact same religion being like, no, my my tradition must be upheld, my tradition must be respected. And so we have a redactor coming along and trying to bring to their remembrance, we are worshiping the same God here. You might primarily refer to him as Elohim, and you might primarily refer to this God as Yahweh, but we are part of the same faith tradition. And, you know, that's we see that so constantly in our modern world, people that just can't get over this slight difference in nomenclature, this slight difference in, you know, how how we walk through liturgy that's referring to the exact same deity. Like, what is it, what does it matter that our tradition is slightly different? We're all worshiping the same being. But yeah, so human nature has not changed at all. But you're you're exactly right that the the primary scholarship of the Elohist is that it likely emerges um as a field of thought and as a as a compiler sitting down to to formulate this text, probably around the ninth century, so just beyond the Yaoist when when we see the division, right? Because if the Yaoist is being dated to the United Kingdom, then the Elohist is writing once the kingdom splits during the reigns of Rehboam and Jeroboam, and now suddenly we have a northern tradition that is in opposition to the southern tradition. And so because of that, the northern tradition needs its own, you know, set of scrolls, its own set of the biblical texts, and the northern kingdoms are going to be the ones that are primarily referring to God as Elohim. Yeah, and something else I um just wanted to kind of touch on a little bit is we talked about kind of you have these competing thoughts, right? Historically, it was easier for these polytheistic groups to kind of converge together and and morph their religions together, right? Like the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans have a god of wind, right? The Greeks just call him Zeus. Um, I forget what he's called in in Egyptian. Um yeah, I forget what he's called in in Egypt, but it's easier to conve to converge these things. But when you have a monotheistic religion and and you're calling them by different names, it's like, no, my God is the one true God. Okay, well, my God is also the one true God, and that's difficult to bring together. So what we have with the redactor is is really phenomenal. You know, it's it's the redactor is is reminding these two groups of people that, like Kylo said, you may call them by different names, but you are worshiping the one true God, regardless of what name you're referring to him as. You know, I think we call we call God God. We don't always go around calling him El or Yahweh, we call him God, same God, though, right? I I just think that's interesting um to point out that it's it's easier to do in a in a polytheistic religion than in a monotheistic one. Absolutely. And you saying that immediately calls to mind uh Paul delivering the gospel to the Athenians and taking their pantheon of 12 gods and saying, Let me present the 13th to you. And he specifically says, What you worship in ignorance, I now proclaim to you, right? And so the idea is it doesn't matter what you call him, like you can be in ignorance as to his name, but you can still acknowledge and worship him even prior to knowing his name. You know, it wasn't until I was 19 or 20 years old when I discovered that the way God introduces himself is AA ash or a right. And when I heard that name, again, that was another lightable moment for me of like, oh, like that, that sounds like the name of God. You know, I love I love proclaiming God as I was what I was, I am what I am, I will be what I will be. But I still worshiped him sincerely even before I knew that that was the name that I like most like to attribute to him, you know. And so absolutely, I do think that the redactor, you know, we throw this terminology around a lot. We say people are doing God's work, but the redactor absolutely was doing God's work. Trying to unify people and and get them to accept your traditions may look slightly different, but we're we're all worshiping and we're all proclaiming the same God. Yeah. Um now the Deuteronom the Deuteronomist and the priestly source, these are more easily dated, I feel like, because both of them you can trace to the exilic period, to the Babylonian captivity. And they're pretty easily traced because as we said, the first two are the ones that come into scholarly contention quite often. Of there's, I forget which scholar it is specifically. Uh, it might be Chris Note that, like, specifically when he talks about the Yaoist in his writing, he'll be like the so-called Yaoist, because like he doesn't believe that the Yaoist actually exists. But the the Deuteronomist and the priestly source, like these we can pretty readily trace because they're dated later. And as I said, they're dated to the Babylonian exile. Um, one thing that I wanted to make mention of is this is something that uh Professor Ralston posited to our class. And try as I might, I can't find formal scholarship on it. I'm like, dude, were you just throwing like noodles at the wall and seeing if anything would stick? But he posited to us a potential theory that Hilkiah, the high priest himself might have been the one of the compilers, because the idea is that, you know, surprise, surprise, the Deuteronomist wrote Deuteronomy. I know that that's really hard for people to grasp. Um, but you know, if you if you know if you're familiar with the narratives of the kings of Israel, you'll know that during the reign of Josiah, a book was uncovered in the midst of the temple. And that book we now uh affirm to be Deuteronomy, that it was discovered in the temple, and that that is the basis for the reforms that Josiah enacted as king, right? But this theory that Dr. Ralston, which again, I'm like, did he pull this out of nowhere? I have no idea because I can't find articles or anything. But he was like, well, there he he claimed that there were scholars who had posited before that Hilkiah may have actually formally written down the reforms that he wanted to see enacted in the kingdom in order to bring the people back into genuine worship of the God of Israel. And so the idea that instead of the book being found, it may have actually been written and then claimed that it was found. I've always found that really fascinating ever since I heard that. Well, I I sound like I'm sponsored by this man, but if you read what's I think you are. It actually is in this book. Um, Dr. Friedman has a little bit of a different um theory around who actually wrote it down and commits what he calls pious fraud. Um but he Dr. Friedman believes that it was either Jeremiah or Jeremiah's scribe because um the language that's used in Jeremiah is very similar to Deuteronomy. Um so yeah, similar theory, just kind of um different, different uh final thoughts on the on that. Well, Jeremiah, interestingly, you know, as as you pointed out earlier, the Deuteronomist is primarily writing the books that are concentrated in that order of the biblical canon. You know, it's Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, um, and then Samuel and Kings, even. Uh, but then Jeremiah is not concentrated within the canon right there within, you know, the table of contents, but Jeremiah clearly has the same language as the Deuteronomist. And so I I would I would be willing to to look into that theory as well, that it that it could be Jeremiah. I do think it's interesting that whoever it is, we all seemingly are trying to theorize who within the kingdom later is trying to call the kingdom towards repentance and towards a return to a prior way of life, and in so doing is writing down this this book of Deuteronomy. And and whoever it is is very clearly pro-Josiah, right? Yes, yeah, yeah. You know, um, because it kind of it kind of culminates with Josiah's reign. So um yeah, I think it's again very interesting to see how the events that are occurring in in the compiler's world, as they're putting it, pen to paper or quilt to parchment, if you will, um that is like uh coloring the stories that they're telling. And it's that's not to say that the coloring is less true one way or the other, but it's it's it's making the implications a little bit different. It's it's framing it a little bit different. I just I don't know, it's very interesting. I'm a I'm a researcher in my nine to five job, and that's kind of my whole thing is um looking at data and and framing it in a way that's digestible or that meets um this the narrative that I'm trying to tell. And I think we can we can see that specifically with the um with both D and P. We can see that what they're putting together is really um a product of their world and a product of their circumstances. It's interesting because it kind of testifies to me as the reader that the compilers themselves were doing precisely what I do with scripture, which is to bring a measure of eegesis to it and to take my perspective, my context, my lived experience, and when I encounter the text, allow both to inform one another, right? It's impossible for me as Kyla Percival to read the biblical text and be an entirely objective source, right? I am naturally certain verses are going to appeal to me because of my lived experience. Certain narratives are going to minister to me in a specific way because of who I am as a human being and because of the context of the world in which I live, you know, I didn't fall out of a coconut tree. I do exist within a very specific context. And because of that, you know, as a woman, certain texts we we all said, the book of Esther, we're just girls, right? It appeals to us. And so the idea that, you know, we've said it multiple times now in this recording, but like human nature hasn't changed. And even those who were compiling and then eventually redacting the text were bringing their lived experience to it because that's the point of scripture, is this synergistic relationship between God inscripturated and God indwelling in each of us. And when we interact with scripture, whether through transcription, through translation, or simply through reading and studying, we are pulling into alignment the God in the text and the God in me, and they begin to communicate with one another. And so the fact that the compilers had that experience as they were compiling, just as I have that experience when I'm reading, it goes back to kind of what we were saying with your Catholic traditions, Aaron, of this notion of I am joined with everyone who has come before me in the faith. God is moving upon me in precisely the same way that he was moving upon the priestly source. And because of that, he can bring revelation to me that he brought to the priestly source, and he can bring an individual revelation to me, just as he did for them. And I just, it's it's such a beautiful thing. And I'm I'm glad you kind of circled back to that because um I was gonna save this kind of towards the end, but I think it's a great place to put it in. Um when I was learning about this, we had a couple of people in my class that this really challenged their belief system, and they kind of had a crises of faith throughout that semester. One guy, he was just straight up mean to Dr. Friedman. I don't know what his deal was, but he was he was really having a hard time. He really needed to talk to his pastor or priest or whoever. Um and I think it's because people struggle with the idea that if these uh compilers and redactors are doing this, like writing it down through the lens of their lived experience or or piecing things together and making those conscious decisions, that it challenges their idea of the text being divinely revealed. And I just disagree with that, right? Like I think that's God's hand moving in what they're doing. That's right. And I don't know Dr. Friedman's belief system. He was very intentional, intentional about not telling us he had been to rabbinical school and to seminary. So I don't know. And I think that's how it should be with professors. I think yeah, that it's it's very important that they, you know, they have their own lived experience, but I don't think that they need to inform their students of precisely what their belief system is. I agree. But at the end of his book in the in the synthesis section, there are two passages that have stood out to me since the first time I've read them. And anytime I explain documentary hypothesis to someone, um, or or even just touch on it, I kind of go back to it. So the first is is this, and so we have, in a sense, come a full cycle back to dealing with the Bible as a whole. That is perhaps what has been lacking in much of the research on the authors of the Bible thus far. It has often been tearing down without putting back together. And that may be in part why this sort of analysis so offended the faithful Christians, uh, the faithful of Christianity and Judaism. For a long time, it appeared that the aim of the enterprise was to take the Bible apart and arrive at numerous pieces, none of which was the Bible any longer. Perhaps that was as far as the enterprise could go in its early stages. However, we are now at a point at which our discoveries concerning the Bible's origin can mean an enhanced understanding and appreciation of the Bible in its final developed form. That's the first one. And then the second one is those who write on the Bible as literature and those who whose interest has been the religious study of the Bible, i.e., the Bible as a sacred literature, have rarely put this knowledge to use. This was due in part to a perception that this kind of analysis would be threatening to their religion. It was also due to the fact that the analysis was incomplete. There were large gaps in our knowledge about the authors when they lived, what they wrote, the relationship between what they wrote and the events of their world. But the situation has changed. The threat to religion never really materialized. Bellhausen said that he resigned from teaching his subject to theology students because he was incapacitating them for their office. But the experience of subsequent generations has apparently proved him wrong. Many, probably most, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish clergy have now been learning and teaching the subject for over a century and have managed to reconcile it with their beliefs and traditions. So yeah, I just I just wanted to pull that in because I I think that people can hear this and think that we're kind like to deconstruct a sacred text and and piece it apart and make it fully human. And that's not the point of what we're doing, right? We're talking about the the novelty and the marvelousness of how these people, spanning generations, came together to write a text that we find so holy, you know. So anyway, I just wanted to to bring that in while we were on the topic. Yeah, absolutely. And we're we're all gonna gonna draw our conclusions in just a few moments. And I I'm so excited as you were as you were reading, Aaron, like just it was so exciting to me because of of the conclusion that I do draw from this, which spoiler alert, you know, I don't see this as tearing apart the biblical text at all. If anything, what I see is this allowing the biblical text to tear me apart and stitch me back together because it's forcing me to reckon with a revelation about the nature of God and how vast he is and how infinite he is and how he can bring goodness and perfection, even out of something that's been communicated by imperfect vessels, right? And like there's no more beautiful message than that because that that is the the nature of the relationship between divinity and humanity is he in his perfection chooses to allow us as imperfection to be a conduit for his nature, for his word, for his truth, for his grace, you know. And so it's I I see this as strengthening faith, not not trying to tear away or tear down any matter of faith. Before, though, we we venture towards conclusions. I did want to briefly mention the supplementary hypothesis because the documentary hypothesis, you know, as we as we've said, it's it's the brainchild of Julius Wellhausen, and it's something that has been written about extensively by all of these different scholars. And as with all scholarship, it has changed over time in the sense that when other scholars come to it and approach it, they either expand upon the theory or maybe, maybe, you know, through through the passage of time, we've become more aware of things that are historically true. And so the supplementary hypothesis is essentially somewhat of an offshoot of the documentary hypothesis that uh takes the the D source, the J source, and the P source and attempts to align them in terms of when they occurred in time and how they supplemented each other, right? Because we've been talking about these sources as having been in conversation with one another across different centuries and in different geographic locations. And so the supplementary hypothesis posits that essentially originally you had the D source, you had the Deuteronomist that was concerned with not just the book of Deuteronomy and not just these reforms, but also this these historical tellings about the events of the kingdom of Israel, right? And then from the D source, the J source took and then wrote and compiled their their narratives, and then from the J source, the P source came. And so that each of these sources was relying upon the foundational texts that came before it, and then bringing their own lived experience to it and writing the narratives through a specific lens, and that the through these three sources, the Being in concert and in conversation with one another, that's how we eventually arrive at the Torah as we have it. Um, and so this this source does, or this theory does um do away with the e-source because it sees the e-source as kind of being an amalgamation of the other sources instead of being a credible source in its own right. Um, but I I do find this this theory to be to be fascinating as well. Um, I'm not necessarily as an individual prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say there is no e-source just because it's an amalgamation. I still think that that it likely exists. Um, but I do think that that this is the theory that I wanted to put out there for listeners to potentially be able to research on their own because it more readily deals with the concept of these sources building upon each other, them being um like a framework of sorts that builds its way up into eventually being the Torah as we know it. Yeah, that's interesting. I'd never heard of the supplementary hypothesis. I'm kind of like you though. I don't think I want to throw out E. I yeah, I like E. I'm like, that's a homie. Yeah, I don't think. I don't know. Maybe I need to read more into that before I formulate a full opinion. But I don't know. There's something about J and E coming together. And I guess it could be kind of E could really be kind of grouped in together with the P source, but just think that P came so much later. Right. And P uh according to the the supplementary hypothesis, it dates the P source, understandably, to the formation of the second temple. And when the priesthood is being restored at the second temple, now suddenly we need this historical validation for this line being installed once again as the only ones who are allowed to um partake of these sacred duties. And so that makes sense historically for the P to come into existence then. And as you said, if that's when we're dating the P2, of course these texts have been written down prior to that. So why would we throw the E out entirely? Um so yeah, I I agree with you in that vein. So now that we have discussed, you know, very generally, as you said, it would take so many episodes to unpack the entirety of this theory. But I have one more question though before we do that. Go ahead. Who do you think the final redactor was after J E D and P? Do you have thoughts? I have thoughts. You have thoughts? Okay. So I was, I was, I was prepared for this question. Okay. Um, because you know, in in Jewish tradition, uh it is held that there was the great assembly, the Knesset Haggadullah, where all of these uh men of renown and scholarship, uh, according to the Jewish tradition, came together and they they set aside what is the biblical canon um out of the attendance of there, I don't necessarily strongly hold to one being the the primary redactor. Of course, there had to have been the person who was actually as you so perfectly put it, putting uh well, how did you say it putting quill to parchment? Quill to parchment. I liked that earlier. Um but out of out of those, I don't know that I'm prepared to say like definitively that I think that it's one, but I was I'm very interested to hear who you think it was. I think it was Ezra. Yeah, I think kind of again, I'm going back to to Dr. Friedman, um, but also just kind of like what I've kind of looked into. Um really the the the final thesis of Dr. Friedman's who wrote the Bible is if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it was Ezra that redacted the whole thing. So like that's kind of his conclusions that he reached uh reaches, but um yeah, I really what kind of pulls me to that is he was a scribe, he was an Arionic priest, um, he had authority, he had all the sort access to the whole sources. Um he had resources to help him with continuity. So um the book of generations, stations of the wilderness, um, and then the plague wording through um the sources that he has. So I just I think it was Ezra. I can think, you know, it's all all lecture. But I like that theory. Have you have you been to the Museum of the Bible? Okay, well, they have a walkthrough of the of the Hebrew scriptures and it culminates in a spoiler alert. If you haven't been and like you're don't want it to be spoiled for you listeners, you can mute right here. But um, you don't know who it is that's narrating the biblical text to you the entire time. But when you come to the final room, it's revealed that it's Ezra who's telling you the entire biblical story, and he talks about his work, um, you know, pinning it and uh, you know, putting it together in in the canon as we know it today. And I like the idea because Ezra in Hebrew means helper, and that's such a beautiful, such a beautiful picture of Ezra being the one to help us understand the biblical text. So I could get behind, I could get behind that theorem.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_01Just something I wanted to, I just wanted to hear your thoughts. Um, but anywho.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. So before we we formally conclude, I wanted to just have like a general brief discussion here on textual criticism and on the importance of authorship, you know, because as you've pointed out, Aaron, like there are probably listeners who maybe their hackles went up when we started discussing uh who compiled, who redacted, who actually authored these things because they're so, you know, committed to their tradition of this is who wrote this, this is who I've heard, you know, from a pulpit that this is the person who wrote this. And I think that people, it's to the it's to the detriment of the modern church that textual criticism is something that a lot of people want to dismiss out of hand because I think that it it only enhances our understanding of and our relationship to the biblical text to try to understand it in its original form as much as possible, right? Obviously, I, as someone who does understand biblical Hebrew, understand that not everyone has that understanding, right? But as much as it is possible for us to read the text as closely as it existed to the original manuscript, you know, I think that it's incumbent upon us as believers to want to do that, to have that desire. Like I said, I don't expect everyone to go learn Hebrew, but I do think that trying to to use discernment in order to ascertain, like, is this what this was originally trying to communicate? That that's important for us, right? Um but on the subject of authorship, do we think that it's ultimately all that important for a reader of the biblical text to be aware of the authorship?
SPEAKER_00Before I answer, Nisi, did you have something that you wanted to say? I just want to go back to Sinai. We were gonna put a pen in that. Do you remember?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, that was kind of that was the main thing that I wanted about us all being kind of present.
SPEAKER_01And and I think maybe yeah, this kind of goes into this question a little bit.
SPEAKER_02So I don't think that the individual per se is is necessary, but I do think that understanding the world in which they were writing is necessary. I think it offers contextualization and and with that going back to Mount Sinai, um and kind of what I've talked about about the people that got their hackles up in my undergrad class and like all of that. Who are we to say that God was not moving and all of that? Who are we to say that all of these things weren't happening outside of time and space? You know?
SPEAKER_01Um that we are just mere humans. We are not privy to the mind of God and and how he's working.
SPEAKER_02Um and yeah, so I don't think the individual is necessary with that, but I do think the world is necessary for the wording and the contextualization of what wording is being used. Uh and it can help us understand the message that God was trying to reveal at that moment in time as it relates to a message that he was trying to convey at a different moment in time.
SPEAKER_01Um and knowing that our conception of time is not necessarily his conception of time, you know? So like these things could have been occurring simultaneously for him.
SPEAKER_02We're we're not privy to that, we're not supposed to be privy to that. So I think yeah, it all just kind of circles back to the unity of the church, the omnipresence of God, and um we don't we don't need to know the individual, even though it's interesting to try to piece the puzzle together. But I do think we need to understand what was happening around said individual, um, and and what that means for the message that God was trying to convey. And and the redactors piecing all of that together to make the overall message that God was producing outside of time, outside of the limits of time. Nisi, do you have a contribution before I monologue for just a second?
SPEAKER_00I'm gonna be very, very short, okay, but I've come up with my own hypothesis. Okay. It's the complimentary. It's the complementary hypothesis. I love that. Where they all come, they've all come together and it's a complete work overseen by the Almighty. Preserved and and brought to us in this form. I love what Aaron just said, that the fact that the specific individual is not so important, but we would be um ignorant and oblivious to a approach what we have and not recognize that there had to be other contributors other than Moses himself or the different ones who we've always contributed. That's why there's such confusion. We have to be willing to visit these places so that we can understand and so we can communicate the glory of the word of God to others. And because it was a complimentary work because they all came together and completed this in the one who is complete, who is Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim himself, and we give him glory for his inspired word. God breathed, man wrote, and we have God's word.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I I I like I like the idea of the complimentary hypothesis. I like you using the specific language of him completing it, because you know, we of course, as Christians, embrace that the logos, the word is Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is the author and the completer of our faith, right? And I agree with your assertion, Aaron, that like the individual authorship is not all that important. I'm reminded of as a child, I love the Nancy Drew books, right? They were my favorite series. Never knew who wrote them because Carolyn Keane is a pen name, and I don't know who wrote each individual book, but I have a relationship with each individual book, and it impacted me and it influenced me as a child. I don't think that in order for me to have a sincere relationship with scripture, I have to have an understanding of who wrote each individual book or further each individual passage or chapter or word, right? What matters is that it is divinely inspired, that God is moving in the midst of it constantly, and that he's still moving in the midst of it when I read it. And so the reality is who who put quill to parchment matters so much less than from whom the inspiration came. And the inspiration clearly came from Almighty God, Almighty God who moved upon the person who first orally told the story, Almighty God who moved upon the person who compiled the story, Almighty God who moved upon the person who redacted the story, and Almighty God who moves upon me as I read the story. And so the reality is God is moving in all things, just as we talked about at the beginning of the episode, God's movement in the midst of Esther, even when he's not expressly named, right? God is moving in all things at all times, and what a beautiful picture it is that God communicates a perfect message through imperfect vessels. And I don't need to know who each individual imperfect vessel was to receive and glean revelation from the perfect message that is being communicated. And I think that's the beauty of scripture, that it's a conversation of divinity with humanity, and it's a conversation between humans over the course of eons, humans that would never hope to interact, right? I get to exist in conversation with Ezra, potentially, and with Moses, potentially, and with all of these people with whom I am in relationship because we are each in relationship with God, right? And so now we communicate across time, across space. And I love what you said, Aaron, about it existing outside of the confines of time, that God is not constrained by time. Because, you know, as as we said, with the narrative of the striking of the covenant, it's seemingly anachronistic, but it's not because it's God communicating. And so God communicates across time, God communicates across individuals, and what a beautiful thing it is that Almighty God, enthroned in glory, enshrined in immense power, longs to communicate with us, mere humans. Yes, and and yeah, I love everything both of y'all said. Um and also something that I was just thinking about earlier today is like the people that do kind of take the the hypothesis and and see it, I don't know, kind of like a way to break down the Bible into individual pieces and and make it a little bit more humanistic or less divine in some way, like if that's somebody's perception of it. I don't know. I it just kind of I've been thinking about, you know, no matter what somebody's faith is, no matter what their faith journey is, I identify as as a Christian. Somebody else might not be, but I think we're all in our own kind of way getting trying in this lifetime to like get closer to the divine, right? And whatever our perception of that is. And I think we see that with J and E. They're telling their stories, getting closer to the divine. We see P telling their story getting closer to the divine, D doing the same thing through legal matters. Um, and just all together, we're just traveling on that rabula, just inching, inching closer and closer to the divine through that. And whether you see this as an actual book of history or a piece of literature, or you see it as the sacred text the way the three of us do, um I think it tells a story of people on that path, inching closer and closer and just trying to have a human understanding of something that we cannot conceptualize because we ourselves are not God.
SPEAKER_01So, like, you know.
SPEAKER_02And on the on the subject of doublets, on the subject of ideas that are reflected in text, right? If we accept the documentary hypothesis, if we accept that there are four primary compilers, four primary, you know, fields of thought presentations of the relationship between humanity and divinity. And if we accept what you just said, Erin, that these are different versions of humanity attempting to inch closer to touching divinity or enjoying relationship or communion with divinity, then we see the reflection of that at the inception of the New Testament that we have four primary authors, four canonized sources that give us the story of the gospel, which is essentially divinity coming to commune with humanity.
SPEAKER_01Yes, what a what a neat way to package that up, Kyla. That was so good.
SPEAKER_02Thank you. Thank you. I I like talking about the Bible. Don't know if anybody's noticed. It's kind of cool. Um, any any conclusions from you guys before we we wrap up and move the priceless pulpit? No. All right, Aaron, do you have anything to offer us for priceless pulpit? So this is a segment we do wherein we just tell a story of something really funny, priceless, that's happened to us within a faith-based setting. So something funny that's been said from a pulpit, something funny that's been said, you know, in a biblical studies classroom, anything that you can think of that's been said in a faith-based setting that's made you kind of laugh and be like, man, that was priceless. You guys go first. Let me think. I mean, you've you've already offered us the the math story today, which was was very, very priceless. Um I do think Trent and I were Trent's my husband for those listening. Trent and I were listening to one of y'all's podcasts last night, uh, where you were talking about was it you or was I listening to an audiobook? I don't know. Somebody uh was telling the story of um the Moabite or the Midianite. They change. I can't remember what the final version is. Um woman in in the temple outside of the the tabernacle.
SPEAKER_01Um and they're speared or whatever, and whoever I was listening to was like, we can use our imaginations to figure out how they were speared at one time. And I just thought that was hilarious.
SPEAKER_02That's so funny that that's the story you told because that was in my Bible reading this morning, and I literally thought I was like, Man, he got them in a fit of passion to see them both at one time. That's so funny.
SPEAKER_01I just thought it was funny if like we can use our imaginations to figure it out.
SPEAKER_02I'm like, you could have just said that's um, I don't know if this was your experience with Dr. Friedman, but man, nobody loves to put things in a more convoluted or funny way than biblical scholars in my experience, because Dr. Rolston would always say conjugal relations every time he was referring to to sexual interaction. And so without fail, he'd be like, Yeah, and so on, we get the term onanism because when he had conjugal relations, he wouldn't, you know, see it through to completion. I'm like, buddy, we're a bunch of 21-year-olds. Please put this in a different way.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. I I just thought it was funny.
SPEAKER_02Um, but do you guys have some funny ones to share? Nisi, you got a priceless pulpit for us. You don't have one prepared. You don't have one prepared. It's okay. Neither do I formally right now. We're we're putting all we're putting all the burden on you as our guest today, Erin. Nisi, have you ever said anything while you were at the pulpit that afterwards you were like many times. Many, many, many times. Nasi is on this kick right now, Erin, where she keeps quoting SNL sketches in the pulpit unintentionally, and then she catches herself after the fact. And it's so funny to watch her face. That's so funny. I sound like demon. She does a cannon Thompson impression. He did this for you. Whenever she's talking about Jesus on Calvary, he's like, and she did he did this for you, for you. And I'm like, okay, Macy. Like, yeah, I'm like, cut it, cut the cameras. Lauren Michael is gonna send us a cease and desist.
SPEAKER_01I know. He's like, please stop.
SPEAKER_02Well, Aaron, thank you so much for being our first guest and our first video podcast. This has been so, so encouraging and so fun. Oh, well, thank you guys for having me.
SPEAKER_01Um, I know the ADHD brain makes me go back and forth all the time, but I just appreciate you bringing it back on track.
SPEAKER_02Um, we have the same brand of ADHD brain, don't worry. So this has been fun. I've really enjoyed being able to like revisit this. Um, I've kind of since grad school gotten away from like the scholarship side of the Bible and everything.
SPEAKER_01So it's fun to go back and and read my old notes and stuff.
SPEAKER_02Um because I found my notebook too from that class, which is wild because I usually throw that stuff away. But my notes are sitting right here from the course of look at God, which is cool. Yeah, I know. So cool. So anyway, this was fun, guys. Um, if you ever want me on for something else, I don't know what else I can chat about, but it was absolutely we're gonna we're gonna have you back on. We're gonna talk about the concept of biblical womanhood with you one day for sure. Oh, that's fun. I wrote a paper on Jezebel one time, so that's perfect. That would be good. We will we will certainly have you back on. You are a friend of the pod at this point, Aaron. Well, this has been good fruit, good root. Shalom, you can't see it.
People on this episode
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
The Holy Post
Phil Vischer