According to Glenn,
> ...with Howard's response, I don't see consistency. He claims that the flood
> narrative is merely a normal type of vehicle for 'reflecting on divine
> judgement and divine/human relationships.'
[Note how the word MERELY slipped in there. Glenn, that's your word, not
mine.]
> One can make the very same claim concerning resurrrection stories, yet I
> know few Christians, including Howard, who would dare take the same approach
> with the resurrection. It is not well known among Christian circles that
> there is an entire literature among those more atheistically inclined, which
> says that the Christian resurrection story is nothing more than another in a
> long series of salvation stories and plans which involve resurrection.
> Thus, I guess, they would advocate that we should "understand why
> resurrection narratives functioned as they did in Ancient Near Eastern
> cultures (as dramatic
> vehicles for reflecting on divine judgment and divine/human relationships
> generally) I see no basis for the expectation that the details Luke 24
> should correspond to any one particular resurrection event."
>
> This is the problem with much of the approach of modern Christianity to its
> foundation. A methodology we use for one part of the Bible would never be
> applied to other parts without disastrous consequences. So we pick and
> choose what method we use in order to dance around the difficulties.
[skip lots of Osiris stuff]
> So, for those who don't like my concordist approach and think I am entirely
> misrepresenting their approach or think I am hopelessly (or pathologically)
> desirous of historicity, I would ask the following of you. Can you please
> show some consistency in the way you treat the other parts of Scripture?
> Why not treat the resurrection in the same fashion and apply the same
> hermeneutical approach, and place it within the intellectual confines of the
> 1st Century AD as y'all want to do with the Flood narrative? Indeed, with
> the flood narrative, y'all claim that this is the only correct way to
> interpret the scripture. If this is true, then do it for all parts of the
> scripture. If you would apply this approach to the resurrection, it would
> avoid the appearance you give of having a double standard.
>
> To paraphrase Howard again: The human trauma of actual life/death
> experiences in the world may help us to understand why resurrection
> narratives functioned as they did in Ancient Near Eastern and Roman
> cultures.
>
> Lets be consistent in all that we do.
OK, but what constitutes a "consistent" interpretive methodology? Suppose
you had to choose between these two:
1. Recognize the diversity of biblical literary types and theological
agendas, even within the restricted category of biblical text referring to
historical events and persons. In coming to an interpretation of each
portion of text, make full use of all that is known about its historical
context, literary genre, cultural setting, theological role, textual
context, etc (whatever is relevant to that portion of text). To be
consistent, follow this procedure without exception.
2. If any portion of biblical text, as read through the filter of modern
Western cultural expectations, appears to refer in any way to historical
events or persons, then treat that portion of text as nothing other than a
matter-of-fact chronicle, an artless reporting of what happened and when. To
be consistent, follow this procedure without exception.
Which strategy is likely to be more fruitful?
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 03 2001 - 15:32:51 EST