Mormon scholars tend to be ambivalent towards the Documentary Hypothesis, the model of current biblical scholarship. <\/span>The basic idea behind the Documentary Hypothesis \u2013 that the Bible is a composition of several sources which were developed over many years and then redacted into a single work \u2013 has definite implications for the way we view the Bible. <\/span>Moreover, the Documentary Hypothesis poses a challenge to traditional claims about LDS scripture.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For example, the cosmogony (explanation of how the world was formed) from the Book of Abraham treats two literary sources as though they were originally paired together. <\/span>That is the opposite of what we would expect if, A) the two sources were first distinct narrations and only later redacted into one work, as the Documentary Hypothesis claims, and B) Joseph Smith restored the ancient and original text of Genesis 1-3.<\/p>\n <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/span>Anthony Hutchinson deals with these issues by recasting the Book of Abraham as \u201cMormon Midrash.\u201d <\/span>The Book of Abraham is Joseph Smith\u2019s interpretation of the Bible; it is not historically true, but is nonetheless valid in some sense. <\/span>Kevin Barney wisely avoided taking a specific stance, although he admits that the Documentary Hypothesis rules out the possibility that Smith translated from a source dating to the time of Abraham. These are just two examples of the kinds of reactions LDS scholars give to the Documentary Hypothesis.<\/p>\n <\/span> There are inconsistencies between the Documentary Hypothesis and a literal view of the Book of Abraham just as there are inconsistencies between the Genesis\u2019 cosmogony and science. <\/span>This post is just scratching the surface. <\/span>I hope that other bloggers will continue to treat the problems that arise from our knowledge of the Documentary Hypothesis. <\/span>What I would like to see right now is your opinions of the theory\u2019s overall conclusions. <\/span>Is it a valid representation of the formation of the Bible? <\/span>Do you accept the major conclusions of the Documentary Hypothesis? <\/span>And, if so, how have you had to reformulate your beliefs to keep in line with the DH? <\/span>Or, put another way, how have you had to reformulate your views of the DH in order to keep them in line with your faith?<\/p>\n \n<\/p> (Note: the answer \u201cI see no problem at all\u201d may help you sleep better at night, but it will make for a boring post). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Mormon scholars tend to be ambivalent towards the Documentary Hypothesis, the model of current biblical scholarship. The basic idea behind the Documentary Hypothesis \u2013 that the Bible is a composition of several sources which were developed over many years and then redacted into a single work \u2013 has definite implications for the way we view […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n