>
> I have been told several times on this and other lists that the language and
> the rules of exegesis force one NOT to take Genesis 1-11 as history. But when
> I ask for confirmation that it is the language and exegesis alone which drive
> the non-literal or non-historical viewpoint by asking whether 15% of the
> Church fathers believed in the non-literal/non-historical view, no one
> provides evidence to that effect. (If someone is doing this research now I
> would be interested in hearing about it). Thus as Garry DeWeese and Jeff
> Mullins point out, the difference between the ancient exegetes and the modern
> ones involves the science (astronomy, geology, archaeology, etc) not the
> language. If this is the case, then why can I not use the science of our day
> to support a historical exegesis?
>
I believe I called attention to our better understanding of Hebrew
through the study of cognate languages, our better understanding of
literary forms, and of the thought milieu or world views of the ancient
near east. Our contemporary understanding of science does come into
play, but later in the hermeneutical process. I was trying to point out
that the ability of OT scholars to exegete the original text is far
better than the patristic exegetes even before contemporary science is
considered.
Garry DeWeese