Glenn wrote:
<< As I said in a recent reply to Tom Pearson, we must be consistent in our
applications of our epistemology to both science and to our religion. And
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.'
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.
>>
The method I use in Gen 1-11 is no different than the method I use in Luke. I
am looking for the probable sources of the story. In the case of Gen 1-11; so
far as the history qua history is concerned, the sources are probably
Babylonian stories and motifs, in the case of the Flood going back at least
1500 years before Moses, and accordingly not likely to be historically
accurate. In the case of Luke, as far as the history qua history and the
resurrection in particular, the sources (Luke 1:1-4) are probably
eye-witnesses and accordingly probably substantially reliable. There is no
change of methodology whatsoever.
As for the silly comparison of Osiris, et al to Jesus' resurrection. It is
questionable whether even the Egyptians considered Osiris a historical figure
who walked the earth; and certainly no historian today would think so. In
addition the Egyptians had no belief in a physical resurrection. Only a fool
would compare Osiris to Jesus. On the other hand, few historians would doubt
the actual historical existence of Jesus; and, it is for philosophical not
historical reasons that they reject the resurrection. If you are looking for
inconsistency of methodology, you will find it in Farrel Till and all the
rest of the unbelievers.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 03 2001 - 16:27:54 EST