From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 00:48:34 EST
George Murphy wrote (answering Walter Hicks comments):
> ...
> 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.
I heartily agree with this! But I would like to comment critically about
some of your (George's) points which follow.
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.
I agree that the intention of the author of (a) Gen.1:1-2:4 was
significantly different from that of the author of (b) 2:4-25. I think
it was the same author, but he was pursuing two different contexts and
aims. And this brings me to the criticism I want to make at this point.
It is widely assumed that (a) and (b) deal with the same topic, namely
creation. And this is the reason for much of the difficulty we have with
them. The context of (a) clearly is creation, with humans representing
but a part of the story (although an important one); it deals with the
whole earth (in part even the universe). But the context of (b) is Adam
and Eve in the garden of Eden and their personal relationship to Yahweh.
This is quite a different topic, and the assumption that they are
dealing with the same thing is not conclusive. The statement that they
give quite different pictures of creation is at least premature at this
point.
> 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.
Agreed. But we have to look for the intention of the Holy Spirit from
the texts and their context (up to the whole Bible).
> ...
> 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.
Is it ignoring the text when in 7:2-3 it explicitely says 7 of the clean
animals, but 2 of the others? And in 8:20-22 we read of the sacrifices
Noah offered, apparently in accordance with the Lord's will. Would that
be reasonable if he had only 2 of each? Do we then have to conclude that
the twos of 6:19-20 don't fit the whole story? I don't think so. 6:19-20
was given before the building of the ark, probably very much earlier
than 7:2-3 when it was time for Noah to enter the ark, so in 6:19-20, a
general command would do (particularly since in that context the purpose
of this action was given as keeping the species alive), but in 7:2-3,
the command had to be specified more precisely concerning the clean
animals needed for sacrifice (Noah may have wondered about that
himself). In what way would that be forcing the text to fit one's
preconceived ideas? (By the way, I am in the same case as Walter, never
having been to any Sunday school, and becoming a Christian at age 21).
The thought of 2 different sources of 2 different stories is, at this
point, at least premature.
> ...
> 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.
Agreed. And that's what I did IMO.
> ...
> 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.
This "common knowledge" is a consequence of the assumption that (a) and
(b) are both "creation stories" dealing with the same subject matter. A
corollary of this (erroneous) assumption is that 2:5-7 and 18-20 is
assumed to concern the whole earth. Again, this is not at all required,
as 8-17 very clearly deals with a restricted area in southern
Mesopotamia (cf. C.A. Hill, "The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape",
Persp.Sci.Christ.Faith 52/1 (2000), 31-46). A further consequence is the
assumption that we have in (b) a sequence of creation events, which
conflicts with the one of (a). At least at this point, this assumption
is premature.
> 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.
If (b) (or 2) doesn't deal with creation events at all - as would be
most naturally understood from the localization in southern Mesopotamia
-, there is no chronology of creation, either, and no contradiction to
(a) (or 1) has been shown. Furthermore, placing (b) in a local context
means that it could be a historically accurate account without being a
creation account. Attempts at avoiding contradictions between different
texts are certainly not worse, in principle, than attempts at finding
contradictions. Often, it will be a question of debate which approach is
a more "natural" reading of the text, and where the text is being
"forced".
I don't find your arguments for separate sources convincing - at least
the ones you brought up here.
> ...
> > > 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).
> ...
> 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.
Some time ago, Paul Seely urged me to read Alexander Rofe, "Introduction
to the Composition of the Pentateuch" (Sheffield Academic Press, 1999,
ISBN
1-85075-992-8). I did so and posted my findings to this list on 25 Nov
2002 under the thread "The Pentateuch dissected and revised". I never
got an answer, perhaps because I don't agree with Rofe's destructive
source criticism. I didn't even get an opinion about what might have
gone wrong with my criticism of Rofe.
Another case concerns Percy J. Wiseman, "New Discoveries in Babylonia
about Genesis", which I reviewed on this list on 28 Sep 2002 under the
thread "Genesis in cuneiform on tablets". Paul Seely recommended Victor
Hamilton, "The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17" (Eerdmans, 1990) for a
critique of Wiseman's theory. In my reply of 10 Oct, I explained why I
found Hamilton's arguments to be less than convincing. Our discussion
continued for another month, but it ended without any clear results, as
the date of earliest writing could not be determined with any certainty,
nor could the importance of wordplays in Sumerian/Akkadian/Hebrew for
the question of early Genesis texts. Paul argued from the standpoint of
source criticism, I from the one of textual inspiration as a unity.
I conclude that such differences of interpretational approach are not
just a question of a "sufficient education in biblical studies" - which
might be one-sided. And under your heading "modern texts on Old
Testament introduction & history, good commentaries, & theology", there
would probably be various sources incompatible with each other, and even
refuting each other. What is "good"? And "modern" theology may not
always be the best, unlike careful physics articles. ;-)
I think your attempt to dig down to the source of different types of
Bible interpretations have not gone deep enough. With "concordism" you
are hanging a strawman. I'll try to give an answer to your concordance
post later.
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 00:47:17 EST