Post: Week 1

Bashore_Week 1

Bashore_Week 1

by Caroline Bashore -
Number of replies: 4

Hiebert uses source criticism throughout the first chapter on Genesis, but specifically points out how the sources have implications for modern times in the section beginning on page 5, The character of God. Hiebert claims that the two sources, P and J hold contrasting views on God. These contrasting views have implications for Christians today because the Bible is one of the main sources of where they form their own theology. Hiebert later explains that the P and J views are typically morphed together in classic or modern theologies (5). 

Hiebert, using examples from the two creation stories, drawn from P and J, supports his claim of contrasting character portraits of God by pointing out the emphases that each source highlights of God's nature. The P source portrays God as powerful and supreme, whereas the J source's God is more humanly relatable (5). God's power is emphasized as He commands a perfect world into existence or God has to create the world, specifically Adam's companion through trial and error, similar to how humankind navigates life. The relationship that Christians form with God are based on how relatable and connected they feel to either a God who remains at a distance, walks the Earth, or somewhere in-between. How these sources understand God’s character not only influences the divine-human relationship in Christianity, but it also creates a lens in which God is portrayed throughout the Bible.

In reply to Caroline Bashore

Re: Bashore_Week 1

by Gregg Kohlhepp -

Good morning! Well, since you bring us this lens and emphasize Hiebert's point that "both characteristics (P and J) of God are usually combined in any particular modern theology...depending on the... context, community, and contemporary challenges" (Hiebert 5), I will join with you. I honestly never appreciated how structurally blending of the P and J versions of God can have such lasting impact. And while there are still opportunities for one version or the other to take theological prominence, it seems more likely that God is constructed and "morphed together."

This is readily apparent in Fentress-Williams, as she sets aside source criticism to use God in the fullness of blended versions. Fentress-Williams speaks of African captives in America bound by slavery, embracing the power and supremacy of P's God in righting oppression and the "universal imbalance... that only the creator God can repair" (84). At other points, Fentress-Williams stresses the human relatability of J's God, as YHWH echoes the actions of Pharaoh's daughter with finding Moses - in seeing, hearing, and taking pity upon the people of Israel in Exodus 3:7 (83). Indeed, this blended theological interpretation of God continues to provide depth in exploring the formational roots of Israel. 

In reply to Gregg Kohlhepp

Re: Bashore_Week 1

by Julia O'Brien -

Gragg, your attempt to distinguish the two characteristics of God in Fentress-Williams' discussion is interesting.

It would also be interesting for you to look at the passages of Exodus she is discussing and to see if they follow the other characteristics of P and J. That is, do they match the source criteria?

In reply to Caroline Bashore

Re: Bashore_Week 1

by Julia O'Brien -

Caroline, you well described how Hiebert tries to tease apart characterizations of God that have been blended when P and J were edited together.

I'd like to hear more about where/how you think he brings the discussion forward to own communities--where/how he discusses why is it important for us to recognize the underlying diversity of the text. 

In reply to Caroline Bashore

Re: Bashore_Week 1

by Kevin Smith -

Caroline,

I enjoyed reading your post, and your points about how Hiebert points out how the J & P descriptors of God get morphed together.  This is very thought proving, and makes me pause about how much we take our notions of God for granted. So many Christians, me included, have taken a cursory glance at scripture, and come to conclusions that are probably more based on our own "world in front of the text" than the nuances and differences that the original authors intended. 

I find myself trying to apply my own traditional evaluation (Wesleyan quadrilateral - reason, scripture, experience and tradition) into theology, but you know what?  I keep getting in way.  Maybe that's to be expected.  By Hiebert breaking out the J & P differences, I think gives us a more well rounded view of God/theology, and helps me considered what I did see before.