Source Seperation
The richness of the Bible manifests itself not least in the fact that the biblical storytellers were able to draw from a wide variety of sources. In some passages of the Bible, this is palpable, for example, in the two creation accounts and in the account of the Flood. This fact is also not disputed between conservative and liberal theology. The sources are called after using the name of God Jahvist (Delitzsch still calls him “Jehovist” after the artificial word Jehovah) and Elohist, as well as the priestly writing and in some texts the so-called Deuteronomist. The different designation of God as יהוה (Yahweh) and אלוהים (Elohim) had attracted the attention of textual research. (Of course, the two words next to each other also have somewhat different meanings. Elohim tends to be the deity; pagan Baale was also worshiped as Elohim. Yahweh is the revealed God from Sinai. So Gen. 28, 13: I am יהוה Yahweh, the אלוהים Elohim of your father Abraham).
The genealogies (הולדות’: toledoth: gender register) also stand out quite clearly from the rest of the texts. They run like a thread through Genesis, certainly once belonged together, and are attributed to the source P.
The assumption of different sources can greatly facilitate the understanding of the Bible in some places. An informative summary about the most different source hypotheses is given by Sellin – Fohrer (p. 118ff). However, the more concrete the statements about individual passages are made, the more hypothetical they become and can then also make the understanding of the Bible more difficult.
For some theologians overshoot the mark considerably: If an OT text is declared to be a patchwork quilt of a handful of different sources and redactional layers, then such an attempt to distinguish sources obscures more than it illuminates. This also applies to the assumption of a multitude of further sources or the assumed Deuteronomistic revision of many OT texts. A puzzle-like assignment of individual verses to hypothetical sources sometimes appears as a glass bead game. Instead, the alternation of the names of God can be a key to understanding that is quite important for interpretation (e.g., Gen. 22). A sad example of a failed source distinction is the attempt to make Ps. 19 an Elohistic and a Yahvistic psalm. This only destroys its inner context, and the psalm loses its deeper meaning.
In any case, it remains to be said that a clear distinction must be made between faith on the one hand and scientific theories on the other. Scientific theories, also from theologians, do changeThis is no harm, but should not affect the faith. Westermann, for example, has since corrected his initial view that the story of Joseph is composed of several sources, and now holds the opinion that it is from a single cast. This can be discussed controversially without denying each other’s faith.
The greatest and often underestimated danger of the source-oriented approach, however, is that one unwittingly gets into literary-scientific waters from which it is difficult to get out. A biblical text is then viewed almost exclusively from a literary-historical perspective. The pastor becomes a scripture scholar and classical philologist who juggles with text modules instead of interpreting the Scriptures. Thus, a biblical text is widely regarded by university theology as nothing more than a literary product, and it is examined for literary dependencies. However, the events reported in the Bible are really lived lives and actual encounters with God and not literary dependencies. One should not simply demonize source discernment; it can be very helpful. However, one should be very vigilant that one does not get stuck in a rut from which it is difficult to get out. More about this will be explained below on Gen. 6-9.
The discussion of the university theology deals to a large extent only with the differentiated theology of the assumed source layers, i.e. for example of the Jahvist, Elohist or their different pre-stages. Thereby it easily happens that the Bible is cut up unnoticed like in dissecting and in the end only dead material remains.
The speech of a top politician is of course not written by him, but by one of his scribes and then edited. No sensible person, however, would not take the politician’s words seriously, but instead discuss which of his scribblers wrote which part of the speech.