From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 18:02:51 EST
Walter Hicks wrote:
>
> Hey George,
>
> I was responding to your post and really asking you to elaborate, not to get in a snit about it.
I was not in a snit but in a hurry. I'll try to go into a little more detail
here. But allow me to say, in a non-snitty fashion, that some of these matters have
been discussed many times on this list. In particular, I have several times set out
internal evidence for not reading Genesis 1-2 as historical narrative. It does get a
little tiring to keep repeating things.
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> >
> > 1st, I have not said anything about the authors' intentions.
>
> I know you did not. I did and I think that is the important issue.
I want to be careful with statements about the author's intentions because I
can't get inside their heads. All we have access to is what they wrote - & begging
your pardon, _that_ is what's important because that's what constitutes scripture. What
we can say with some certainty is that the intention of the author(s) of 1:1-2:4a was
considerably significantly different from that of the author(s) of 2:4b-25 because they
give quite different pictures of creation.
Furthermore, the intentions of these authors did not determine the biblical
content within which we have to read those accounts. And none of those intentions can
be equated with that of the Holy Spirit.
> > 2d, one reason why "not everybody agrees" is that they were taught in
> > Sunday School to read Genesis as accurate history & have had that idea reinforced
> > by clergy who either think it is accurate history or who just don't want to upset people
> > over something they think isn't important.
>
> Well, I became a Christian at age 20 and I never went to such a Sunday school. However, when I got around
> to the OT, Genesis just reads that way to a causal observer.
Point taken - I overgeneralized. But do you want a "casual" reading of the
Bible or a careful & intensive one? As soon as you start reading Genesis with care, you
start seeing flags that tell you that treating it as straight historical narrative is
far too casual. I discuss Genesis 1 & 2 below.
But take another example. In the flood story of course all the animals come on
board 2 by 2. We all know that, whether we learned it in Sunday School or not, & many
casual readers of the Bible read through the story & just think that's the way it was -
it's right there in 6:19-20. But if you read it carefully you notice in 7:2-3 you see a
rather different provision. It just ain't the same. & if you are at all careful the
thought will occur to you, "Maybe there are 2 different sources, or 2 different stories,
here." At least you'll consider the possibility.
OTOH, those who immediately leap to "harmonizing" (basically, the first
statement just didn't mention 5 of the pairs of clean animals) are no longer being just
"casual". They are now ignoring what the text really says and forcing it to fit their
preconceived idea that the flood story is a unified historical narrative.
> > 3d, you are still refusing to face the basic question of interpretation when you
> > set up "actual history" as the default setting.
>
> What default setting am I supposed to use?
As a Christian your _theological_ default setting should be that scripture a
true & authoritative witness to God's revelation. But as much as possible you should
avoid having a default setting for the type of literature that a given text is - which
is just to sat that you should approach it without preconceptions about whether it's
historical narrative or not.
For some people, "actual history" is not just the default setting - i.e., the
way they read the text if there's no conclusive evidence one way or another. It is
something that they actively insist upon and defend by setting up elaborate "coulda
been" scenarios. If that is your hard core (in Lakatosian terms) then there is no
evidence at all, internal or external, that will convince you to change it.
> > 4th, as I have said repeatedly, there is both internal & external evidence for
> > understanding early Genesis not to be historical. I freely admit the influence of the
> > external evidence but it doesn't stand alone.
>
> The internal is what I was hoping for.
As I pointed out in an exchange with Allen a few weeks ago (& is in fact pretty
common knowledge), the chronology of Genesis 2 differs from that of Genesis 1.
There are other differences (the designations for God, the nature of God's activity, the
picture of the world, e.g.) but let's stick with the chronology of the creation of
living things. In 1 it's land plants - sea creatures & birds - land animals - humans
(male & female). In 2 it's male human - land plants - land animals - female human.
They can't both be historically accurate accounts. That being the case, one ought to be
careful about assuming that either one is.
> > 5th, you apparently think that what I've said is just in the interest of
> > defending a particular interpretation of Genesis. It isn't. To be blunt, what I wish
> > is that people would learn to read the whole Bible in an adult way. If that sounds
> > elitist, so be it.
>
> Elitist is too polite but following Burgy's 25 rules, I'll not use any other ;).
> > 5th, since you've felt free to tell people to read a book about GA &C, I'll be
> > more specific & tell you to read _The Bible: Now I Get It: A Form-Criticism Handbook_
> > by Gerhard Lohfink (Doubleday, 1979).
> I said that because that is what I get here and there on this list. I read the books that I want to read. If
> a poster cannot make their point without ia reference text, then so be it. If you don't want to respond
> yourself, then don't bring the subject up.
Of course you can read what you want to read - but why don't you want to read
something that will help you to understand the critical study of scripture? But unless
you're willing to read some modern texts on Old Testament introduction & history, good
commentaries, & theology, you're simply not going to understand what's going on in this
area. Neither I nor anyone else can provide an education in biblical studies in a few
paragraphs of a email list.
> > 6th, my parallel post on concordism is also relevant to this discussion.
>
> Will read
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 18:06:05 EST