The Documentary Theory or the Graf-Welhausen Theory (Part 3)...

In Part 1 and Part 2, I briefly described the history and exegetical landscape that led to the formulation of the GWDT. I will offer a sketch of the GWDT in this installment.

Having given a very brief survey of the historical and intellectual development upon which the GWDT was founded, the major premises and conclusions of the GWDT will be presented. The conclusions of the GWDT have far reaching ramifications. This is not simply about the literary development and formation of the Pentateuch as one historical text among many. The development of the entire religion and history of the Hebrew people is at stake. For if the dating of the Pentateuch is quite late, around 500 BC according to the GWDT, then the Pentateuch is a development of Judaism rather than its foundation. Are the Josiac reforms of the seventh century really a so-called pious fraud, as Wellhausen claims[1]? Is the Pentateuch really a compilation of a multitude of unrelated sources that were shaped into a story by countless, faceless redactors? What impact does that have on our notions of the inspiration of Scripture? The GWDT along with other types of criticism are looking to answer important questions about the text such as ‘who is the author?’, ‘what is the date of composition?’, and ‘how is one to explicate the various styles etc. that occur within the Pentateuch?’ to name a few. The Theory consists in the identification of different sources based on several broad categories: the use of different names for God, stylistic and vocabulary differences, and repetitions and doublets. The first and foundational criterion for the GWDT is based on the observation that different names are used for God as discovered by Witter and Astruc[2]. One of the sources exclusively used YHWH (J) when referring to God and the other Elohim (E) until the revelation of the name YHWH to Moses in Exodus 3:14[3]. Obviously, this criterion was only useful for Genesis. When the two sources were separated, it was observed that there were stylistic and vocabulary differences between the E and J and even within the E itself[4]. Based on these criteria, the Elohist was subsequently divided into two sources: the Elohist source and the Priestly (P) source. Due to the fact that Deuteronomy was so different stylistically, this was considered a separate source and named the Deuteronomist. This produced the basic and well known source divisions of J, E, P, and D of the GWDT. The figure below illustrates one conception of the interrelation of the sources.

Figure 1. The Scheme of Pentateuchal Sources Over Time[5]. One can see the obvious complexity of the sources as they are being redacted over a great number of centuries. Stylistic and vocabulary usage are a major, albeit secondary, criteria by which the sources are identified. Once the separation between J and E was made, it was noticed that there were obvious differences in style and word usage between J and E, as stated above. This allowed the exegetes to divide the rest of the Pentateuch according the J, E, P, and D model by correlating these differences with the sources delineated in Genesis. The figure below summarizes the major stylistic and vocabulary differences.

Yahwist (J)	Elohist (E)	Priestly (P)	Deuteronomist (D)
God is Yahweh	God is Elohim	God is Elohim	God is Yahweh
God walks and talks with us	God speaks in dreams, etc.	Cultic approach to God	Moralistic approach
Stress on blessing	Stress on fear of the Lord	Stress on law obeyed	Stress on Mosaic obedience
Earthy speech about God	Refined speech about God	Majestic speech about God	Speech recalling God’s work
Stresses the leaders	Stresses the prophetic	Stresses the cultic	Stresses fidelity to Jerusalem
Narrative and stories	Narrative and warnings	Dry lists and schemata	Long homiletic speeches
Stress on Judah	Stress on Northern Israel	Stress on Judah	Stress on whole land of Israel
Uses term “Sinai”	Uses term “Horeb”
Calls natives “Canaanites”	Calls natives “Amorites”
		Uses genealogy lists	Loves military imagery
			Has many fixed phrases

Table 1. Stylistic and Vocabulary Differences Between Pentateuchal Sources[6].

Furthermore, Table 1 above illustrates the so-called Criterion of Ideology. This criterion uses speech about God i.e., whether it is anthropomorphic or anthropopathic, to further delineate the sources. In other words, speaking about God in a lofty, spiritual way indicates a later, more developed theology such as P; whereas, more anthropomorphic or anthropopathic language is indicative of a different, earlier, and more crude source J. This is a striking example of the Hegelian model of progress that underlies the GWDT. Lastly, one can find multiple examples of doublets and repetitions throughout the Pentateuch. The GWDT considered these textual features to again indicate separate sources[7]. Examples include two stories of creation (Gn 1 and Gn 2), two stories of the flood (Gn 7, 7:31), Abraham sends Hagar away twice (Gn 16 and 21), and the Decalogue being given twice (Ex 20 and Dt 5). In sum, the GWDT is founded upon a characteristic of the Biblical text wherein one finds two different names used for God. These are considered to be different sources. When exegetes separated the passages using the names of God as their criteria, they were able to identify other criteria (style and vocabulary, doublets and repetitions, and the criterion of ideology) within the primary division that allowed them to resolve the rest of the Pentateuch into its putative sources. One quickly notices how subjective and artificial the entire structure of the GWDT is. There are no objective criteria to assess stylistic variations with any certitude. Furthermore, the entire system relies completely on the first division being true for if J and E are not actually different sources then the entire apparatus collapses.

Next time we will forward arguments against the GWDT...
-----------------------------------------------

---

[1] http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Deuteronomy - The so-called "Pious Fraud is Wellhausen's hypothesis that there was a "prophet" that wrote Deuteronomy who was interested in reforming Jewish worship especially relegating it to Jerusalem. This unknown prophet wrote Deuteronomy and hid it within the Temple where he knew that it would be found. Hilkiah the high priest found the law and brought it to king Josiah. The discovery of the law led to a great period of reform (cf. 2 Samuel 22-23). Deuteronomy, then, would have been written in about 622 BC.

[2] Boadt, L., Reading the Old Testament: an Introduction, New York: Paulist Press, 1984, pg. 93; Weiser, 77.

[3] Segal, M.H., The Documentary Theory in the Composition of the Pentateuch, pg. 3.

[4] Boadt, 93.

[5] Reproduced from Boadt, 94.

[6] Reproduced from Boadt, 97.

[7] Robert and Feuillet, 75.

Lee Altar Servers....The Next Generation...

(click on image to enlarge)

Zach served Mass for the first time today. He looks so tiny in that cassock and surplice. It was a blessed day!!

HAPPY FEAST DAY!!

Oh...er....that's right...American Catholics can't be bothered to go to Mass another day in addition to Sunday...sorry! ;-)

Anyway, today it the Solemnity of Corpus Christi (Body and Blood of Christ). It is a national holiday and holy day of obligation in Austria. We celebrated Mass outside in a park and then participated in a Eucharistic Procession through town back to the Church. The Cross led the way, followed by the fire dept., brass band, then children dropping flower petals before the Monstrance. There are a lot of pictures here. I hope you enjoy!!

Click on images to enlarge.

Outside Altar

Lining up...

Monstrance

Front of procession

Just aft of the picture above

Monstrance

Inside the village church

It was marvelous! (I have a few more pictures of the church I will post at a later date.)

Da boy done got big and fat! (not like his Dad, though ;-))

If Jesus came today...

We have all thought about what it would be like if Jesus came today.

I think there are many right now who think he would come with the 1962 Missal in one hand, a sword in the other, while solely speaking Latin.

There are others that think he would come as a woman or Buddha or a goddess telling us all the religions are exactly the same.

The next bunch thinks he would come only to the poor and would never even look at the rich at all. In fact, he would condemn them with fire and hell.

Some think that he will come pat them on the head, tell them that he loves them, and tells them to keep doing what they are doing 'cause they are a "good person".

How long could I go on here?? My point is this: It is our tendency, whoever we are, to read our concerns, likes, dislikes, and our very self into a false portrait of Jesus. He was completely free with a divine freedom. Jesus wasn't concerned about expectations and didn't fulfill them. He didn't care what people thought of him, nor did he try to please anyone on this earth. His one and only concern was to do the Father's will to the point of calling it his food:

Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work. Jn 4:34

The Father, completely sovereign, does whatever he pleases. More often than not, the move of God is a scandal by doing exactly opposite of what we think he ought to do:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Is 55:8-9

The way we can worship in the Spirit and truth is to know Jesus, the Truth, as he is rather than as we want him. Then, and only then, can we move toward a deeper relationship with him.

On this most Solemn Feast of the Holy Trinity, let us pray for the grace to set aside ourselves so that we might receive him in fullness. In his day, the ones who missed him were the ones who couldn't see past their preconceived notions. Let us embrace him as he is: Lord, Master, Brother, Lover, Eternal Priest, and King...

The Documentary Theory or the Graf-Welhausen Theory (Part 2)...

In this part of coming to understand the Documentary Theory, we continue briefly tracing its historical background. It important to have this knowledge because it gives us the context to help evaluate whether the GWDT is valid or not.

The Reformation was the event that shook the Christian world to its core. It is interesting that Robert and Feuillet don’t even mention the Reformation[1] (even though they are obviously Catholic writers), and Harrison (a Protestant) briefly mentions the Reformation by discussing the position of the main reformers in relation to the Old Testament[2]. He makes a single comment that in this writer’s opinion is extremely important. He says,

The importance of the Reformation for Biblical criticism lay not so much in concern for the historical or literary processes involved in the formulation of the Biblical canon as in a continued insistence upon the primacy of the simple grammatical meaning of the text in its own right, independent of any interpretation by ecclesiastical authority[3].

In my opinion, Harrison drastically underestimates (and misunderstands or misrepresents) the true impact of the Protestant Reformation upon Biblical criticism and exegesis. He doesn’t mention that for fifteen centuries of Church history Biblical interpretation did rely on ecclesiastical authority just as the Lord Jesus Christ intended it. In contrast to Harrison and Robert and Feuillet, I believe the Protestant Reformation was the crucial event in modern Biblical scholarship and formation of the GWDT because it was Luther’s rejection of the authority of the Ecumenical Councils in Leipzig in 1519[4] and his rejection of the Magisterium’s role in Scriptural interpretation[5] in An Open Letter to The Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate that set the stage for the Enlightenment. The rejection of the Magisterium as sole interpreter of Scripture[6] and the personal interpretation that follows from that position completely changed the landscape of Biblical exegesis. The protection that the Magisterium affords would have ensured a more measured approach to Biblical criticism. Many may disagree and state that it was exactly the fact that exegesis could be separated from ecclesial authority that led to many advances. True, the advances may have come much more quickly. However, the damage done is still being felt as so many have had their faith in the Scriptures destroyed by modern exegesis. Once one divides exegesis from the authority of the Church, exegesis will move into error and a plenitude of hypotheses. Nevertheless, the Reformation did occur and, although there were definitely many positive developments in Scripture studies, there were many grave difficulties that can be referred back to the Reformation as a cause and principle.

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw more developed approaches to Pentateuchal criticism in the latter part of the period which began with much confusion and wild speculations where Pentateuchal criticism was concerned[7]. Hobbes (+1679), a Deistic philosopher, and Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher, used internal evidence from the text to deny Mosaic authorship[8]. Spinoza is considered one of the fathers of modern Biblical criticism[9].

The GWDT started to take shape in the early 18^th century when Witter in 1711 was the first to forward the usage of the different names of God, doublets and stylistic considerations to support the hypothesis that Moses compiled the Pentateuch from earlier traditions[10]. Jean Astruc, a French physician, used the same criteria to argue for different sources in Genesis[11] (what the particular the criteria that comprises the GWDT will be discussed later). Astruc divided Genesis into columns that corresponded to the usage of different names for God in Genesis (YHWH and Elohim)[12]. This was the age of the Enlightenment when, partially due to the seemingly endless religious conflicts, reason become the one measure of the truth with a concomitant rejection of external authority especially ecclesial authority[13]. The rationalism that characterized the Enlightenment affected approaches to Biblical criticism. This meant that the Scriptures should be subject to exactly the same principles of study as any other text. Furthermore, the rejection of authority enshrined in the Enlightenment spilled over to the approach to Biblical criticism. There was “the feeling that such as investigation should be able to be pursued independently of ecclesiastical authority, religious dogmas, or church traditions of any sort”[14]. Eichhorn applied these principles when he took up Astruc’s work but rather than attempting to maintain Mosaic authorship, as did Astruc, he rejected Mosaic authorship[15]. Furthermore, Eichhorn included additional criteria such as differences in literary style and vocabulary as means to distinguish the sources[16]. There was an ensuing flurry of activity as many others expanded the beginning work of Astruc.

This activity led to a number of different hypotheses concerning Pentateuchal source criticism: Early Documentary Hypothesis, Fragmentary Hypothesis, Supplementary Hypothesis, and the New Documentary hypothesis[17]. The Early Documentary Hypothesis was held by Astruc, Eichhorn, and others. They restricted their theories to Genesis. It posited that the ‘author’ of Genesis simply put together a series of ‘documents’ that made up the book. A closer scrutiny of the Pentateuch suggested much smaller independent fragments that were places alongside each other without any internal connection which led to the Fragmentary Hypothesis forwarded by Vater among others. Ewald posited the Supplementary Hypothesis in which there exists a homogenous Elohist basic document as a core which is supplemented by “Yahwist passages”. The New Documentary Hypothesis (referred to in this paper as the GWDT) found its primordial and decisive formulation via von Graf and Wellhausen in the late 19^th century. They combined parts of the Early Documentary Hypothesis and the Supplementary Hypothesis with additional ideas about further sources. Thus, rather than just the two sources posited earlier (Elohist (E) and Yahwist (J)), a Priestly (P) and Deuteronomist (D) were posited. Weiser summarizes Wellhausen’s contributions to the formulation of the GWDT thusly:

[Wellhausen] proved by means of comparison with the information in the rest of the Old Testament that the historical place of the ‘Mosaic law’ (P) is not at the beginning, but at the end of the development of the Old Testament religion, and that the Yahwist source must be considered to be the oldest document in the Pentateuch[18].

The dating of the different sources according to Wellhausen is J ninth century, E eighth century, D seventh century, and P fifth century. The GWDT continued to be developed over time by other exegetes.

In summary, there have always been certain questions concerning the author, date of composition, and other aspects of the Pentateuch and the Scriptures as a whole. The questions and challenges are remarkably similar across the centuries. Moreover, I find it especially interesting that the main challengers and their answers that veer farthest from the traditional understandings of the Pentateuch come from individuals (for the most part) that are outside of what would be considered orthodox Catholicism. Much of the criticism flowed from an underlying willful rejection of Church authority and focused on individual, rationalistic philosophical presuppositions. One wonders how this may have colored their conclusions.

Next time, we'll dig into the GWDT itself...

[1] Ibid.

[2] Harrison, 9.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Bedouelle, Guy. The History of the Church. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc., 2003, pg. 98.

[5] Luther, Martin. An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, 1520. April 8, 2007, .

[6] Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, # 12. “For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.”

[7] Robert and Feuillet, 81.

[8] Harrison, 9-10.

[9] Livingstone 544.

[10] Robert and Feuillet, 82; Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, New York: Association Press, 1961, pg. 75.

[11] Weiser, 75.

[12] Harrison ,13; Astruc actually divided Genesis into four columns of text using other criteria in addition to the names designating God.

[13] Livingstone, 191.

[14] Harrison, 13.

[15] Weiser, 75.

[16] Harrison, 14.

[17] Weiser, 75-77.

[18] Weiser, 77.

The Documentary Theory or the Graf-Welhausen Theory (Part 1)...

I am doing a little cross-posting of this particular series of blogs between here and the Into the Deep blog. Yeah. Yeah. I'm lazy :-P (I hope you enjoy...)

ADDENDUM: I realized that I used names for the theory that most people might not be familiar with (I wasn't). You might know it under a type of source criticism or, more likely, as the JEPD Theory. Yep, this is the one where there are different sources for the books of the Pentateuch commonly known as the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (E), and Deuteronomic (D) editors. I hope that helps bring it to your mind as we discuss it.

I am always reluctant to post anything directly from the classes that I am taking at the ITI mainly due to the fact that one class does not an expert make :). It takes a heckuva lot more than one class to really get a grasp of the subject and to understand the subject that one writes about. The blogosphere is packed full of people going off half-cocked about which they know just enough to be dangerous. In some ways, this next series of posts falls into that category. I am not an Old Testament scholar in any way, shape, or form. However, I feel the importance of the subject is such that, at the minimum, I should pass on the information. Of course, I won't be able to help adding some commentary and thoughts of my own along the way. :-) Since I am not an Old Testament scholar, I will not be able to forward an alternative theory from my own work. I will, however, present an alternative from someone who is a scholar. My intention is not to solve the problem as much as cast substantial doubt on the theory as such. Furthermore, I want to explore and attempt some analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of the theory. I think a critical reflection on these philosophical foundations will help us understand how the theory developed and hopefully will shed light on the philosophical presuppositions we have about Scripture. We all have them. NO ONE IS COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE. Thus, we must identify and understand them so that we can be as objective as possible. (I DO NOT hold that to be objective one must set aside faith. In fact, I firmly believe that theism (specifically the fullness of Catholic orthodoxy) is the only true, objective position since it is the one that corresponds with reality. I'll have more to say on this later...). So let's jump in!

Anyone that has studied the Old Testament seriously, in any manner whether in the parish or in academia, has been exposed to the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Theory (from now on known as the GWDT). Most material, especially used in “popular” Bible studies, treats the GWDT as unassailable fact[1]. Most importantly, the introduction to the Pentateuch in the English translation of the New American Bible treats the GWDT as simple fact[2]. The presence of the GWDT in the “official” American Catholic Scripture translation raises it to the near magisterial level in the minds of most English speaking Catholics. It is interesting that the author(s) of the Navarre Commentary and The Consuming Fire readily admit that there is no physical or archaeological evidence whatsoever to corroborate the GWDT, and yet it is still treated as fact[3]. Even a brief perusal of the literature concerning Old Testament scholarship would make manifest the serious questions with regards to whether the GWDT has any correlation with the truth of the matter. Therefore, it is my intent within these several blogs to give the historical background of Old Testament scholarship, especially surrounding the formation of the GWDT, the major criteria on which it is founded, an alternate explanation concerning those criteria, an alternate view of Pentateuchal authorship and development, and, finally, I will offer some closing thoughts in the way of a summary focusing especially on the philosophical mindset whereby the GWDT came into existence and by which it has been propagated for nearly two centuries.

Old Testament criticism has been a feature of Christianity from its very beginnings. The Church Fathers understood the necessity to establish the text and to determine its meaning because the primordial Church found herself defending, not only her teaching, but the Jewish Scriptures from whence she was born and that she fulfilled[4]. Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was questioned already in the mid-second century by Ptolemy[5]. Ptolemy concluded that the books of the Pentateuch were compiled by Moses from sources that came from God and other Elders. The heretic Marcion (+160) posed the greatest early challenge to the Old Testament[6]. He rejected the entire Old Testament as describing a lesser evil god[7] that was “weak, unjust, lacking in prescience, and essentially fickle”[8]. This was the first of a long line of Scriptural critics who read their ideology into the Scriptures by using subjective criteria[9]. The first example of altering the traditional date of composition due to an anti-supernatural bias is attributed to Porphyry (+303)[10]. He asserted that Daniel did not write the Book of Daniel because Porphyry did not believe Daniel could predict the future in such minute detail. Thus, he believed that it was written during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.)[11] because it was contemporary with the events described in Daniel[12]. This isn’t to suggest that all Biblical criticism is somehow bad. St. Jerome used philology to discover the literal sense of Old Testament passages[13]. (It is interesting to note that the individuals mentioned so far , except for St. Jerome, were not Christians! Ptolemy was a gnostic heretic. Porphyry was a Greek pagan. In fact, Porphyry was vehemently anti-Catholic. Marcion was one of the worst early heretics.)

The middle ages saw a shift of attention from primarily an apologetic stance to searching the Scriptures for and commenting on allusions to the Church using allegorisms[14]. There were isolated occurrences of individuals calling into question the unity, and/or Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch throughout the Middle Ages. According to Robert and Feuillet, the movement of biblical criticism began with Ibn Ezra in the mid-twelfth century when in his commentary on the Pentateuch he called into question several aspect of the Biblical texts due to their apparent contradictions e.g., the iron bed of the Og the King of Bashan[15]. Ibn Ezra and Bishop Tostatus of Avila (15^th Century) agree that Moses couldn’t have known about the iron bed since he was Og’s contemporary; thus, Moses couldn’t have written that particular passage[16]. In addition, Bishop Tostatus (as with others) believed that Moses obviously couldn’t have written about his own death.

Next time, well continue with the Protestant Reformation and should get through the positing of the GWDT...

---

[1] The Navarre Bible: Pentateuch, Princeton, NJ: Scepter Publishers, Inc. 1997, 19-21.; Duggan, Michael, The Consuming Fire, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991, pg. 58.

[2] The New American Bible: The Pentateuch, Washington, D.C.: The Confraternity if Christian Doctrine, 1970

[3] Duggan, 58; The author does state in a parenthetical sentence. “We must admit, however, that archaeologists have not discovered written sources of the Pentateuch. Thus we have only a hypothetical model constructed by scholars to explain the formation of the Pentateuch (Duggan,59, emphasis mine).” However, the author never mentions any of the serious disagreements or concerns about the GWDT.

[4] Robert, A. and Feuillet, A., Introduction to the Old Testament, New York: Desclee Co., 1968, pg. 79.

[5] Harrison, R.K., Introduction to the Old Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 1969, pg. 4.

[6] Ibid

[7] Livingstone, E.A., Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pg. 360.

[8] Harrison, 4.

[9] Ibid

[10] Livingstone, 459.

[11] Harrison, 6.

[12] I note that the introductory note to the NAB dates Daniel to the same time for the essentially the same exact reasons as Porphry does.

[13] Robert and Feuillet, 80.

[14] Ibid

[15] Robert and Feuillet, 81; Dt 3:5 “(For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Reph'aim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.)”.

[16] Ibid.

Quick breath...

Sorry about the silence on the blog. I just got out from under finals last Wednesday, Thursday was graduation (all day), then Friday we started a conference on the Theology of the Body that ran through the weekend, and Deb got stung or bitten by something on Monday that made her whole face swell up - so bad that she was barely recognizable. She is doing better after they put her on steroids and some other medications. So here it is Wednesday and summer school starts tomorrow....

I have to admit I am not sure that I am ready to start again! I am taking Ancient Political Theory (using Aristotle's The Politics), The Synoptic Gospels (using Guardini's The Lord as a text in addition to the Scriptures), and Philosophical Anthropology (using Aristotle's De Anima). In addition, I hope to squeeze in an intensive German class. So....the summer might be a tad busy!

We are doing well, although with watching everyone leave for the summer, we are a bit homesick.

Hopefully, the blog will not be neglected quite so bad.

Oh, I just remembered something. Today Debbie went to pick up our visas for another year. It is amazing to consider that last year it was not possible for the family to get visas. Here we are picking up another year's visa..and it looks like we might get the opportunity to get health insurance...Praise be to God!!

Little Eliot, ora pro nobis...

Here is a video that you must see. It is another illustration of the sanctity of life, and how God uses the weakest to manifest his love and glory. (Make sure you have tissues near by.) Watching Eliot beings such a deep sense of gratitude for the children I have, and that God always gives us what we can handle. When we walk with him, everything becomes a window to his infinite love and grace...

Good news and light blogging ahead..

First the good news. Deb and I are going to be putting on a retreat each semester for the Franciscan University of Steubenville students!! We are very excited. It will be a real honor to work with Father Dave and the new chaplain (Father Brad is his name, I think). We met with the activities coordinator and a couple of Sisters yesterday to get some general structures worked out. The tentative date for the retreat is September 7-9, 2007. Please keep us in your prayers.

The other news is that I am in the middle of finals. I have four: Metaphysics. Logic II, Mysterium Salutis II, and the Pentateuch (I have a 10 page paper due in this class, also). So as you can imagine blogging will be quite light around here - not like there is much going on anyway :-). In the meantime, please go check out my other blog and podcast at Deepcast.org. Mike and Brent always have good things to say.

Last, I finally got my summer schedule figured out. Man, is it going to be busy! I am taking three classes: Ancient Political Theory, Synoptic Gospels, and Philosophical Anthropology. In addition, I hope to take at least one and maybe two intensive German courses, but we'll see. I just might be too old for this ;-).

Bronc O. Buster...

Or should that be Mutt O. Buster? He has got his eyes in the middle, toes turned out, and spurrin' the hair off that mutt. (If you look close, you can see that he has little cowboy booties on :-))

GREAT NEWS!!!

The podcast that Brent Brown, Mike Englesby, and I produce was just picked up by an international podcast network called the Star Quest Production Network (SQPN). Six out of the top ten shows listed on PodcastAlley in the Religion category are SQPN affiliates. Don't ask me why they picked us up! Lapse of judgment, I think. ;-)

Please check out the Into the Deep our podcast either at: Into the Deep SQPN or our blog at Deepcast.org where you can download the shows, also.




THANKS BRENT, MIKE, FATHER RODERICK, GREG WILLITS, AND THE WHOLE SQPN FAMILY!!

First Communion!!

Zach received his First Communion on Divine Mercy Sunday with four other kids. It was a joyous occasion. He had been working very hard to prepare himself for receiving Jesus. He told me when he received that felt Jesus. God is so good!! Zach has already asked Father Dave when the next altar server training is. He is ready to join his big brother!

















































Gotta throw one in of Cody incensing the congregation. His favorite thing to do is be the thurifer.

Bapatism (as Eli would say...)

Well, there is a new saint in the Kingdom of God! (Hope he stays that way ;-)). It was really a beautiful Vigil. I've never been in a place before where the Vigil is PACKED, and the Sunday Mass is about 1/2 full. Father Dave was wonderful. When we got to the front of the church, he whispers to me "Do you want it poured on his head, or do you want to dunk him?" Of course, I said "DUNK HIM!!" We had to strip him (great pictures for his future wife or religious superior). I was praying that there were no surprises in the diaper! Yes! God is so good - clean as a whistle. So we got him naked and dunked him. It was magnificent!

The whole gang around the tomb.

Father Dave Pivonka dunkin' the naked kid!

The little saint and his Godmother - Ginger Mortensen.

Sacraments, Sacraments, Sacraments...

The Lee family will be receiving several sacraments this Easter! Zach received his First Reconciliation last night. It was so cute. He was supposed to go next Saturday, but he came up to me at the church last night almost in tears saying, "Dad, I need to go to Confession so I can get my sins forgiven!" So we went to Father Dave and asked if we could "go early". Zach has not stopped talking about it yet. He says he wants to go weekly 'cause it is so good to feel clean. He receives his First Communion next Sunday on Divine Mercy Sunday...fitting, huh? He has a little suit and is SO excited!







This Saturday, at the Vigil, Ezekiel will be baptized. He will be the only one receiving a Sacrament of Initiation that night. It will be very special.

We hope and pray that everyone would have a blessed Triduum!!

Happy Birthday, Cody!!

My Man turned 12 on Monday. Count down to two teens in the house...Sigh...

More snow...

In honor of last weeks foot of snow AND the fact we are supposed to get more snow next week. I thought I would post a couple of spring(?) pictures in Gaming... (C'mon sun!!)

Breathing with both lungs...

I had to share a very unique experience that occurred over the weekend. First, a bit of background. One of the particularly unique things about The International Theological Institute is the close association of both Latin and Eastern Rites. There is about a 50/50 split between students from the East and from the West. In fact, we have more Eastern Rite priests here than Latin Rite. We have 6 Eastern Rite priests and 2 Latin Rite.

A bit ago I posted some pictures of the Byzantine Chapel (here). Well, over the weekend the Chapel was consecrated. It was an amazing thing to behold. I was unable to be in the chapel during the consecration because it couldn't hold the amount of people. However afterward, the Divine Liturgy was celebrated in the Kartause Maria Thron. That may not seem like that big of deal. Lots of chapels and churches are consecrated. Yep. I agree. The unique thing was who attended the shindig. There were two Cardinals (one Latin Rite one Eastern Rite) and 7 Bishops!! It was an incredible sight as the East and West met with such esteemed people. The vestments, the Liturgy, the chants, the incense, the icons - it was amazing. The Liturgy was prayed in German, English, Old Slavonic, and Romanian. So I wanted to share a few pictures here and then refer you to a picasa web album of the pics I took. The Cardinals were Christoph Cardinal Schönborn and Lubomyr Cardinal Husar. I am unsure of the Bishops names. (click on pics to enlarge.)

Consecration of the Altar by Bishop Hlib Lonchyna.
The Two Cardinals and Bishops

The Two Cardinals - (the boy in the glasses peeking over Cardinal Schönborn's shoulder is Zach.)

The entire group around the altar. I think there were about 20 priests there, also.

Please check out the rest of the pictures here.

SNOW!!!

Sorry about not blogging much lately. Between school and the new baby, we are swamped. I hope things loosen up a bit soon. (However, they won't until the semester is over - who am I kidding? :-))

Anyway, I hope the weather in Idaho is great. We had some nice spring days, but we are now in the midst of a snow storm that is giving us the most snow of the entire year put together! It looks like January 20th not March 20th. Crazy Gaming weather!

We hope and pray that this Lent is a time of growth in holiness for you and your family.

"And the Tony goes to..."

"For best Supporting Actor............Zach Lee! In his role as Fleance in the Kartause Community children's production of MacBeth! He didn't have any lines, but as you can see from this picture there is intensity and fear as he runs from the soldiers. The Production was directed by students from Franciscan University. All of the actors and actresses were children ranging in ages from 7-16. I was amazed how well they did. It was a fantastic evening.




In Mr. Lee's acceptance speech, he gave all the glory to the Lord and hoped that he would get to go to Disneyland.