MY ONLY POINT HERE WAS THAT THE FLOOD NARRATIVE, WHICH APPARENTLY
ORIGINATED IN MESOPOTAMIA AND HAD SOME CONNECTIONS, PAST AND FUTURE,
WITH THINGS THAT REALLY HAPPENED TO PEOPLE, IS NOT TOTALLY DISJOINT FROM
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. IT IS NOT HISTORY IN THE SENSE WE USE THE TERM.
> Washington throwing a dollar over the Potomac is believed to be false because
> there is no correspondence between the story and actual events and no
> correspondence with physical abilities of a human.
> Lack of concern with historical detail can not be confused with whether or not
> an event happened. Tolkein's novels are very concerned with names, places and
> the details of the past lives of the characters. But they are all false.
> Having more detail may be an indication of temporal separation between the
> event and the telling. Do we have the same level of detail on the Punic wars
> that we have on World War II?
> TOLKIEN'S NOVELS ARE ALL FALSE? DO THEY TELL US NOTHING THAT IS
TRUE? IF NOT, WHY DO WE READ THEM?
OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT TRUE HISTORY, AND THE POINT THAT SOMETHING
HAS APPARENT HISTORICAL DETAIL DOESN'T PROVE ITS ACCURACY. BUT IT DOES
SHOW THAT THE WRITER IS - FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER - USING THE
PARTICULAR FORM OF HISTORICAL WRITING, WHICH DIFFERS FROM THAT OF PURE
MYTH, ETC.
> I agree that the entire OT depends on the Exodus. But that dependence can not
> be used as evidence of the existence of an Exodus event. And if the Exodus is
> not true, then IMO the entire OT is false, and the NT seriously wounded.
> But one must also be careful to avoid saying that just because the Bible does
> not depend upon the Flood account as it does on Exodus, that we can therefore
> decide to eliminate Gen 6-9 by a line of logic fully applicable to the Exodus
> also.
> To me that is a dangerous thing to do. Why should the line of reasoning be
> limited only to those events which are not crucial to the OT? If the logic
> applies to the Flood, consistency demands that it be applied equally to
> Exodus.
> OF COURSE THIS TRADITION DOESN'T PROVE THE EXODUS. MY POINT
HERE WAS THAT, UNLIKE J. SMITH, THE FINAL FORM OF THE EXODUS STORY AT
LEAST DOEASN'T APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MADE UP EX NIHILO.
>
> Once again, the existence of "centuries-old tradition" does not ensure
> historicity. Homer's tales of the Greek gods is also dependent upon
> "centuries-old tradition". But we believe it is a historically false
> tradition.
> YES - THOUGH AGAIN THEY SEEM TO HAVE GENUINE HISTORICAL AND
CULTURAL ELEMENTS.
> Werent the redactors using the same centuries-old tradition when they
compiled
> Genesis? Why and how did they mess up with Genesis but not with Exodus?
I NEVER SUGGESTED ANYBODY "MESSED UP" GENESIS. YOU MAY NOT WISH
TO THINK THAT A STORY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN -
WHETHER OR NOT IT CONTAINS SOME ACCURATE DETAILS ABOUT THE PERIOD IN
WHICH IT'S SET, CAN BE CONSIDERED IN ANY SENSE TRUE. I DISAGREE.
PERHAPS A CLEARER CASE IN POINT: THERE REALLY WAS A PROPHET
JONAH A CITY OF NINEVEH. NEVERTHELESS, THERE IS VERY GOOD REASON
(INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL) TO THINK THE STORY IN THE BOOK OF JONAH NEVER
HAPPENED. NEVERTHELESS AGAIN, THE STORY IS PROFOUNDLY TRUE.
> > I don't think it's accurate to speak about biblical writers
> >"forcing together" different traditions.
>
> That is the way the JEDP theory was taught to me years ago in OT class in
> College. And the teacher believed in the JEDP theory, he was not trying to
> disparage it.
> THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS USED TO BE PRESENTED AS TOO
MECHANICAL AN AFFAIR. THE WORK OF REDACTORS WAS MORE THAN JUST PASTING
SLIPS OF PARCHMENT TOGETHER. BUT THE POINT IS THAT, BY AND LARGE, THEY
DIDN'T SEEM TOO CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING, SAY, GEN.1 & 2 FIT A COMMON
CHRONOLOGY.
> Probably modern harmonizers do force things. But I would respectfully
contend
> that those who discount historicity in the Biblical account, seem to have to
> engage in selective use of their lines of reasoning in order to save something
> out of the Bible. Something like Exodus.
> Also, didn't the redactors lay everything out side by side for Genesis? And
> somehow they messed up in their story about Genesis but not Exodus?
>
> To sum up what I see as your points concerning Gen 6-9 and Ex 1-20, you seem
> to be saying that Exodus should not be discounted because:
>
> Exodus uses more historical detail than Genesis
>
> Exodus is basic to the OT; Genesis isn't
>
> The redactors had centuries-old tradition in compiling Exodus and so are not
> subject to the "mormonism" charge
>
> Exodus should be believed because the redactors laid down side by side the
> various traditions.
>
> Somehow I don't find this a satisfying way to avoid using your "Genesis" line
> of reasoning on Exodus.
I AM NOT "DISCOUNTING" ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE, NOR DO I THINK
THAT GENESIS IS "LOST", "MESSED UP", ETC. I'M SAYING THAT THERE ARE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF NARRATIVE/GENRE/GATTUNG ETC IN THE BIBLE. INTER
ALIA, THERE ARE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS WITH DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS OF
STRAIGHT FACTS AND INTERPRETATIVE FICTION. THERE IS ALSO FICTION,
POTRY, MYTH, LEGEND, LAW CODES, ETC. HISTORICAL ACCURACY IS ONE
IMPORTANT CONCERN, BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE. WE HAVE TO READ SCRIPTURE WITH
SENSITIVITY TO THESE DIFFERENCES. WE MISS A LOT IF WE READ IT ALL WITH
THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT ALL HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A REPORT OF WHAT
REALLY HAPPENED.
> SHALOM,
GEORGE MURPHY