Biblical Scholarship Applied to the Pentateuch

1. What were the historical contexts for the composition of the J Source, the E Source, the D Source (briefly) and the P Source?

Based on their different styles, biblical scholars original believed that Moses combined two different sources to write the early chapters of Genesis, 200 years of research by 539 BCE determined that there were four different authors, termed J (Yahwist which describes as "primitive anthropomorphic view of God), E (Elohist which "shows a deeper awareness of God's distance), D (Deuteronomist which "reflects the later and more sensitive concern of the prophets to the ethical demands and oneness of God over the whole world") and P (Priestly which "brings together the complex institutional, cultic, and legal aspects of Israelite faith") (p. 97), respectively, a system that is still followed today.

2.  How did that affect the content and message of each?

The four different authors of the early chapters of Genesis used different and sometimes unique approaches to their reporting that distinguished their works from the others, with the names for God differing and one chapter being characterized as being concerned with historical traditions, others are more focused on priestly matters or long speeches and sermons.

3. How would you describe the Form Critics' perception of the composition of the Pentateuch?

The Form Critics' perception of the composition of the Pentateuch is criticized by Broadt because it "often leads to tearing the biblical passages down to their smallest units thereby making it much more difficult for the reader to build them back up to the full story" (p. 87).

4. Do the stances of the Source Critics and the Form Critics oppose each other, enhance each other, peacefully co-exist?

In contrast to Form Critics, Source Critics adopt a more holistic approach to exegesis that takes into account the duplicated and repeated passages that can be used to differentiate each source; however, Source Critics has also discerned more than one source in a single chapter based on changes in particular words.

5. Is one right?

Although he does not categorically make the claim, Broadt makes a good case for the legitimacy of the approach adopted by the Source Critics over the methods used by the Form Critics. For instance, Broadt states that, "By examining the numerous cases of repeated stories and duplicated passages, they can be easily separated from one another" (p. 93).

6. Are both right at the same time?

Shakespeare emphasized that even "the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," and it is reasonable to suggest that given the antiquity of these writings and their lack of claimed authorship, both Form and Source Critics can provide valuable insights into the meanings and purposes of the chapters of the Pentateuch.

7. What do each give us in the context of opening up the message of the text for preaching?

Although Source and Form criticisms adopt different research strategies, both approaches can help improve the overall understanding of the underlying messages contained in the Pentateuch. For instance, an encyclical letter issued by Pope Piux XII in 1943 encouraged Catholic biblical scholars to use both Form and Source criticism to "deepen their understanding of the sacred texts" (p. 87).