Re: Origins: reply to George Murphy
Murphy (gmurphy@imperium.net)
Thu, 05 Sep 1996 08:42:07 -0400Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> Hi George:
> You wrote:
>
> >1) "If Genesis 6-9 is false ..." To state the issue in that way
> >inevitably leads to the point being missed. Genesis 6-9 is true and
> >authoritative. OK. Now, WHAT TYPE OF LITERATURE IS IT? The common
> >mistake made by many people is to assume that if an account is not true
> >as history "as it really happened" then it isn't true at all, or has
> >some lesser degree of truth. The purpose of my earlier examples was to
> >show that this is just wrong.
>
> Let me ask a queston. Is the literature of Exodus 1-20 true as history?
> There are a lot of parallels between Ex. 1-20 and Genesis 6-9.
>
> Both traditionally have had difficulty being historically verified.
>
> Genesis-No real records in other cultures of a recent flood that matches the
> Biblical description
>
> Exodus-No Egyptian records mentioning the plagues and destruction of pharoahs
> army
>
> Genesis-No place one can go to say "There those are the deposits of the
> flood."
>
> Exodus-No place one can go and say "There those are the wheels of pharoahs
> chariots.
>
> Genesis-The apparent miraculous nature of the event
>
> Exodus-The apparent miraculous nature of the plagues.
>
> -----
>
> What I would like to ask of you is what kind of literature is the account
> relating the origin of the miracles which founded the Jewish Religion?
>
> Why is it not the same type of literature as the flood account?
>
> If the Exodus account is historically false, does that mean that Judaism is no
> better than Mormonism? (Judaism supposedly having been put together by 70 guys
> who then would have made up stories about their ancestors in the 5th century
> BC vs Mormonism put together by a guy who wrote interesting stories about the
> New World in the early 1800s. Both are made up and both fictitious?)
>
> >3) It's worth pointing out, though, that while external evidence
> >(science &c.) has forced Christians to rethink some traditional views
> >of the Bible, INTERNAL evidence also points to the fact that some parts
> >of Scripture are perhaps not to be understoof as historical chronicle.
> >The fact that Gen.1-2 gives TWO creation accounts which cannot BOTH be
> >undertood as such chronicles (PACE all those well-meaning commentators
> >who have labored to "harmonize" them AT THAT LEVEL (N.B.), usually by
> >mutilating Gen.2) suggests this. To a lesser extent, the presence of
> >different strands of tradition in the flood narrative does the same in
> >Gen.6-9. The situation is perhaps even clearer with the gospels.
>
> Two things. I agree whole heartedly that Christians must rethink what they
> believe in light of modern science. ON this we agree.
>
> Secondly, the above paragraph reminds me that I must add to the above list of
> similarities this:
>
> Genesis 6-9--shows signs of 2 traditions being forced together.
>
> Exodus 1-20--shows signs of 2 traditions being forced together.
>
> So are the miracles founding Judaism historically true? Or is this literary
> hyperbole [sic?] or metaphor also?
>
> glenn
> Foundation,Fall and Flood
> http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
Glenn -
For some reason I'm getting 2 copies of your replies to me.
Some quick responses to large questions -
Many biblical accounts mix "history as it really happened" and
what could be called "interpretative fiction" - the latter not
NECESSARILY falsifying the account. Analogy: the historical novel,
ranging from accounts which stick pretty close to "just the facts" and
do things like put speeches in the mouths of historical figures to bring
out motives &c, to pure fiction using only the names of real people.
One can tie Gen.6-9 to "what really happened" via deposits like
that at Ur and other stories (Gilgamesh &c) & make plausible that the
writer used traditions which developed from catastrophic but geograph-
ically limited Mesopotamian floods, but the account itself isn't
concerned about historical details. (E.g., it doesn't even tell us
where Noah started from.) Similarly for Ex.1-20 - we know there were
Semitic peoples in Egypt, most plagues parallel natural phenomena there,
&c. But there's more concern with history - place names, &c.
The whole Old Testament assumes the Exodus, & you have only some
scraps if you remove all reference to it. YHWH is essentially
identified as "the one who got us out of Egypt." Exodus traditions were
pervasive in Israel, though the details of different versions (e.g.,
Ps.78) don't always match up.
The situation is quite different with the Mormons. The final
redactor of Ex.1-20 may have made use of some interpretative fiction,
but was working with a centuries-old tradition. There is no evidence of
any such tradition behind Joseph Smith's novel. (Note also - the basic
problem with Mormonism isn't voyages to America &c. If it were just
that, Mormons would be protestants with some quaint ideas about Native
American history. It's Mormonism's polytheism, works righteousness, &c.
that puts them over the edge.)
I don't think it's accurate to speak about biblical writers
"forcing together" different traditions. By and large, the final
authors/redactors were content to just set them down side by side, as
with Gen.1:1-2.4a & 2:4b-25. It's modern "harmonizers" who do the
forcing.
SHALOM,
George Murphy