>Can we get back to some specific discussion of Kline's "framework" view >of
>Gn 1-2 ?? It's not allegorical, it's figurative - that is, the "days" >are
>not to be taken as units of time, as the 7th day in particular
>demonstrates. Is THIS point defensible? Generally accepted? What do
>patristic interpreters say? Is there still argument (exegetical or
>otherwise) about the nature of the 7th day? Do some take it to mean that
>God has been "resting for a long time" since Creation?
>
>I would like to learn something here from people who KNOW more about >this than
I do...
I would like to be cautious about claiming to satisfy his last criterion, but
would like to point out that many of these issues are discussed in my article,
C. John Collins, "How old is the earth? Anthropomorphic days in Genesis
1:1-2:3", _Presbyterion_ 20:2 (1994), 109-130. I deal with the matter of using
empirically-gained knowledge in interpretation, a little on the genre and
communicative purpose of Gen 1, patristic interpretations, the distinction
between anthropomorphic language and allegory, the 7th day, and the matter of my
mildly concordist interpretation (the days are God's days) in relation to what
the original audience would have thought. I think several participants in this
discussion might like to read the paper (and I'd be grateful for your feedback
since I'm trying to re-think, refine, and extend some points).
I have become persuaded that terms like "literal" and "figurative" are not
always useful, especially in popular speech. It is far better to talk about the
genre or kind of speech act being performed and discuss the conventions
associated with that genre. The trouble is, this is only known to insiders of a
culture. In Biblical studies we ought to be trying to become insiders to the
world of its authors and audiences, to gain what a colleague of mine calls
"ancient literary competence". It is my view that what we usually call the
"literalist" reading of Gen 1 is very much an outsider's reading (and I question
whether Kline has really rovided an insider's; this is what I am trying to do
via textlinguistic approaches).
In any case, since the passage uses language to communicate, it is sheer folly
to suppose that we can read it without interaction with our knowledge of the
outside world (after all, that's how we understand language!). The main
question is the genre-based way we are to use that knowledge.
By the way, the suggestion regarding counting the percentage of patristic
interpretations that go one way or the other is not well cast for the kind of
information being sought. This is because many factors may lead to some things
being preserved from that era rather than others; the kinds of comments made on
the creation week, and their context and level of detail vary; the intellectual
quality (and nearness to the theological mainstream) of the particular
commentator also varies. Hence we have to apply the rule (used in textual
criticism), witnesses are to be weighed, not counted. In my article I found
that Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas generally support my
"anthropomorphic days" scheme (and perhaps the English Puritan William Ames had
a precursor to Newman & Eckelmann's scheme; the interpretation of his Latin is
open to dispute). [Is there a reason they all begin with A?] The top-notch
medieval Jewish scholars Rashi & Maimonides, though they do not discuss the
nature of the days explicitly, certainly cautioned against literalistic
readings. I'd say that's a lot of weight.
What do you all think of that?
Jack Collins