\nFirst, if the\u00a01)\u00a0<\/strong>methods,\u00a02)\u00a0<\/strong>assumptions,\u00a03)\u00a0<\/strong>conclusions, and\u00a04)<\/strong>philosophical underpinnings of the seminal works for both of these theories are questioned by virtually all contemporary biblical scholarship,\u00a0why do we still refer to them as if they represent scholarly consensus or as if they are the only way to understand the composition of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets?<\/strong><\/p>\nSecond,\u00a0how can any non-confessional scholar look an evangelical in the eye and claim objectivity of method and conclusion when<\/strong>\u00a0a) neutral objectivity is an Enlightenment myth and b) the supposedly objective methods and conclusions are claimed by their own peers to be arbitrary and contradictory?<\/p>\nOne final comment: I named this post \u201cThe Silliness of (Some) Source Criticism\u201d because I do not want to suggest that source criticism is of no value. It does have value. But when it is appropriated and used in service of \u201cobjectivity\u201d and German philosophy, and then left to its own devices by subsequent scholarship, it devolves into self-contradictory silliness.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I don\u2019t know anyone who thinks that source criticism is the only way to approach the Pentateuch, and I haven\u2019t encountered anyone who suggested that at any point in my lifetime. By the time I was first getting started as an undergraduate, literary approaches which focus on the final form were already commonplace.<\/p>\n
I also don\u2019t know anyone who would claim that scholarly methods provide objectivity. What they provide is a useful counterbalance to our biases, a way to try not to simply read in ways that are so shaped by our assumptions that the evidence cannot challenge us to draw unexpected conclusions. And many of us reject both the modernist assumption that certainty is attainable and the postmodern assumption that everything is just bias and nothing else, seeking a middle ground, a critical realist approach, which is chastened by postmodern critique and yet finds it worth trying to see beyond the framework of our biases, even if the attempt can never be completely successful. It is rather like learning a new language as an adult \u2013\u00a0it may be impossible to ever\u00a0speak so perfectly and with such precise pronunciation as to be indistinguishable from a native speaker. But that doesn\u2019t mean that it is not worth trying, nor that the attempt cannot bring us closer to that out-of-reach goal than we would ever come by simply dismissing it as an impossibility.<\/p>\n
There is, I think, a certain irony about Emerson\u2019s\u00a0post, which frames the discussion in precisely the sort of modernist terms that some confessional approaches still favor \u2013 seeking absolute certainty even when the sources and methods cannot provide it \u2013 while complaining that mainstream scholarship is allegedly doing that.<\/p>\n
But I think the question of why source criticism remains so useful \u2013 despite it having emerged on the basis of\u00a0problematic assumptions, and having been applied in problematic ways \u2013 is a good one.<\/p>\n
The short answer is that source criticism itself \u2013 like many other developments in other academic fields \u2013 is separable from the cultural and philosophical context that gave birth to it, and even more importantly, it makes good sense of the data. We may not be able to precisely delineate sources in the\u00a0manner that the Enlightenment project hoped to. But that does not mean that source criticism ceases to make better sense of the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 than an approach which regards them as the work of a single author. So too with the view that Deuteronomy has a separate origin from other pentateuchal material.<\/p>\n
Perhaps one can make a useful comparison with evolutionary biology. There is \u2013 and will probably always be \u2013 debate and discussion about a wide array of details, and new discoveries can require the revision of longstanding assumptions. But the overall framework of evolution \u2013 even in today\u2019s context in which the practice of science is very different than it was in the 19th century \u2013 still fits the evidence so well that there is consensus about the big picture, even as small details of that picture are capable of more than one interpretation.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Matt Emerson wrote a blog post about source criticism, much of which he finds problematic. The post concludes with the following questions: First, if the\u00a01)\u00a0methods,\u00a02)\u00a0assumptions,\u00a03)\u00a0conclusions, and\u00a04)philosophical underpinnings of the seminal works for both of these theories are questioned by virtually all contemporary biblical scholarship,\u00a0why do we still refer to them as if they represent scholarly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":26537,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[2145,2775,8907,11621],"class_list":["post-31732","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible","tag-consensus","tag-documentary-hypothesis","tag-pentateuch","tag-source-criticism"],"yoast_head":"\n
Sources and Silliness<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Matt Emerson wrote a blog post about source criticism, much of which he finds problematic. The post concludes with the following questions: First, if\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sources and Silliness\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Matt Emerson wrote a blog post about source criticism, much of which he finds problematic. The post concludes with the following questions: First, if\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/religionprof\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-09-11T13:16:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"James F. McGrath\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ReligionProf\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"James F. McGrath\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html\",\"name\":\"Sources and Silliness\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-09-11T13:16:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T13:16:54+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#\/schema\/person\/78342576667b872e3d259c153ce4c5bf\"},\"description\":\"Matt Emerson wrote a blog post about source criticism, much of which he finds problematic. The post concludes with the following questions: First, if\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sources and Silliness\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/\",\"name\":\"Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath\",\"description\":\"The Blog of Dr. James F. McGrath, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, Indianapolis\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#\/schema\/person\/78342576667b872e3d259c153ce4c5bf\",\"name\":\"James F. McGrath\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88ca096942acd474313f7ef4227a49da?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88ca096942acd474313f7ef4227a49da?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"James F. McGrath\"},\"description\":\"Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. BD University of London, PhD Durham University. Author of John's Apologetic Christology, The Only True God, Theology and Science Fiction, and The Burial of Jesus, as well as (with Charles Haberl of Rutgers University) the two-volume Mandaean Book of John critical edition, translation, and commentary. Also author of numerous articles (and a few science fiction short stories) and the editor or co-editor of several volumes.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3Ge8ul5\",\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/religionprof\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/jamesfmcgrath\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/jfmcgrat\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ReligionProf\",\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/religionprof\",\"https:\/\/soundcloud.com\/religionprof\",\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/James_F._McGrath\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/author\/james-f-mcgrath\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sources and Silliness","description":"Matt Emerson wrote a blog post about source criticism, much of which he finds problematic. The post concludes with the following questions: First, if","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sources and Silliness","og_description":"Matt Emerson wrote a blog post about source criticism, much of which he finds problematic. The post concludes with the following questions: First, if","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html","og_site_name":"Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath","article_author":"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/religionprof\/","article_published_time":"2015-09-11T13:16:54+00:00","author":"James F. McGrath","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ReligionProf","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"James F. McGrath","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html","name":"Sources and Silliness","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-09-11T13:16:54+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T13:16:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#\/schema\/person\/78342576667b872e3d259c153ce4c5bf"},"description":"Matt Emerson wrote a blog post about source criticism, much of which he finds problematic. The post concludes with the following questions: First, if","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2015\/09\/sources-and-silliness.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sources and Silliness"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/","name":"Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath","description":"The Blog of Dr. James F. McGrath, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, Indianapolis","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#\/schema\/person\/78342576667b872e3d259c153ce4c5bf","name":"James F. McGrath","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88ca096942acd474313f7ef4227a49da?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88ca096942acd474313f7ef4227a49da?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"James F. McGrath"},"description":"Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. BD University of London, PhD Durham University. Author of John's Apologetic Christology, The Only True God, Theology and Science Fiction, and The Burial of Jesus, as well as (with Charles Haberl of Rutgers University) the two-volume Mandaean Book of John critical edition, translation, and commentary. Also author of numerous articles (and a few science fiction short stories) and the editor or co-editor of several volumes.","sameAs":["https:\/\/amzn.to\/3Ge8ul5","http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/religionprof\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/jamesfmcgrath\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/jfmcgrat\/","https:\/\/twitter.com\/ReligionProf","http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/religionprof","https:\/\/soundcloud.com\/religionprof","https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/James_F._McGrath"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/author\/james-f-mcgrath"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31732","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/136"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31732"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31732\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31732"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31732"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}