From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat Nov 08 2003 - 17:20:13 EST
I have already addressed some of these points in the parallel thread on Genesis but will
comment briefly here.
Peter Ruest wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote (in response to Walter Hicks):
> > ...
> >The concordist procedure is this. We want to read Genesis 1 & 2 as accurate
> > historical accounts but we know enough about the way the world is to realize that they
> > can't be accurate in all regards. For various reasons God couldn't have made the first
> > human literally out of _dust_. So that _isn't_ accurate historical reporting. It means
> > rather that the first human "was simply made of the elements of earth." & that's OK
> > because that "happens to be a true description of man."
>
> George, I don't think the problem is with "concordism", but with a
> tendency to see but the two extremes of a ridiculously overdone
> literalism and a full-fledged source-criticism à la Rofe. In principle,
> I agree with you that one must carefully take note of what is actually
> written, and at the same time consider what type of text one is dealing
> with. But why can't "dust" [^afar] stand for "the elements of earth"? In
> Prov. 8:26 it appears to mean just exactly that. And this question has
> nothing to do with whether the report is historical or not, but with the
> (flexible) use of language and the possibility of summary statements
> omitting any amount of detail.
As I say below, dust _can_ in a sense stand for "the elements of the earth."
The biblical writers knew that we share a common physical nature with "dust" because
when they put a dead body in a tomb & came back a couple of years later it had "returned
to its dust." What I object to is a jump, explicit or implicit, from that to the idea
that they knew about modern scientific ideas of either biochemistry or evolution. Such
ideas may only be suggested in concordist approaches but they are often there.
> >Well, no it doesn't "happen[s] to be a true description of man" because the
> > proportions of the elements are different. But let that go. What has been done is to
> > change the supposed historical description into something different, motivated by the
> > desire to bring the text into concord with our scientific understanding of what people
> > are made of.
>
> The proportions, of course, are completely irrelevant, if you consider
> how language is normally used. I would have to call it nit-picking if
> you had insisted on it.
I didn't insist on it. But it's worth mentioning because concordist approaches
sometimes pretend to a kind of modest claim that there's a general agreement because
biblical descriptions & scientific accounts, but when pressed aren't willing to admit
that anything in the biblical text is really inaccurate when read as such an account.
> You are talking of a "historical description".
> What do you mean by this?
I mean the ideal of 19th century historiography, history "wie es eigentlich
gewesen ist", an accurate account of events that really happened.
> I don't think any of the ones you call
> concordists are thinking of a scientifically formulated treatise you
> seem to have in view. What do you expect of a simple, non-scientific
> narrative of something which happened in history? Would the terminology
> have to be absolutely inflexible? In my understanding, nothing has been
> changed into something different, as you claim.
The question isn't whether its a sophisticated or naive historical account, but
whether it's an historical account at all.
> >As I said, I don't want to pick on Walt. Similar criticisms can be made of all
> > the other concordist schemes of Glenn Morton, Dick Fischer, &c. They are ingenious but
> > all in one way or another fail to give priority to the texts themselves because they are
> > forced, whole or in pieces, into some supposed historical or scientific scheme. This is
> > done in the interest of reading the texts as historical narratives but it fails to do so
> > because the "history" which results is in fact that supplied by modern scientific
> > knowledge about geology, evolution, anthropology &c, and the biblical texts are taken
> > apart & manipulated to fit that scheme.
>
> This is your construction, not what the "concordists" are doing. Who of
> the ones you criticize tries to say the biblical texts "teach modern
> scientific knowledge"? There is certainly less "forcing" of the texts in
> their usually tentatively proposed interpretations than in the "assured
> findings" of source criticism.
I disagree: It is what they are doing. They are not so much 'tr[ying] to say
the biblical texts "teach modern scientific knowledge' as reading the biblical accounts
as history in such a way as to make them fit into a framework given by modern scientific
& historical knowledge. Suspicion about the value of such concordist programs should be
raised by the fact that the schemes I mention - & of course others could be cited -
produce radically different results.
Of course "assured findings" can be a kind of caricature, but that's true in a
lot of fields. We have learned something about the literary & historical character of
scripture from critical study of it.
>
> Try to see the situation from a different standpoint: There just happens
> to be, in some biblical texts, a lot that the writers themselves could
> not know, as with some prophecies they were given to utter. Now, looking
> back to Christ's coming, we are able to interpret such prophecies. In a
> similar way, it is found again and again that biblical texts concord
> better with the reality we happen to know, than with ancient
> mythological worldviews. This need not tell us anything about the
> biblical writers' knowledge, but maybe of the Holy Spirit's leading them
> (_not_ dictating!).
>
> I find it distressing that there is a tendency to search for wrong
> motives in those who see such concordances. They are usually people
> whose faith is strong enough to survive without any such crutches as are
> imputed to them.
Please note that I have not described the biblical narratives as "ancient
_mythological_ worldviews." The flat earth with solid dome of the sky & the waters
above the heavens in Gen.1 are part of an archaic cosmology but it is not mythological.
In fact, the writer of that text goes to some pains to _de_mythologize it. But that was
done for theological purposes, not because either the human writer or the Holy Spirit
were trying to teach us any aspects of _modern_ scientific cosmology.
As to questioning motives, most concordists do what they do because they think
the truth of biblical texts requires them in some sense to be a true historical
narratives. I think that's wrong. I will not, however, question the strength of their
faith.
> >The writer of Genesis 2 described the 1st human as being made out of dust. This
> > is not the way humans actually deveoped in the course of history, nor is it a statement
> > about human biochemistry. The biblical writer knew that we are closely connected to the
> > earth & that when we die we return to the earth (as Gen.3:19 says), & has given a
> > theological interpretation to these facts.
>
> If by this you mean that Gen. 2:7 is a theological statement about the
> two-sided, physical-spiritual nature of man and about his mortality, I
> fully agree. But if you imply that therefore it cannot, at the same
> time, talk of a specific man named Adam in a specific historical
> situation, I disagree. If, on the other hand, you think these two
> aspects may well go together in Gen. 2:7, but that in this case Adam had
> parents like everybody else, I again agree. We have various poetical
> biblical statements where the picture of a potter forming a vessel out
> of clay is applied to a human individual being fashioned by God (in his
> mother's womb, of course, and possibly including his further
> development). So why not apply this to Gen. 2:7, as well?
I would not say that Gen.2:7 simply could not be about a single first human
being who was a real historical (& historic - historische und geschichtliche) figure.
But internal evidence indicates that it needn't be read that way & scientific evidence
suggests that it shouldn't be.
> >Yes, this story states that we are made from the basic stuff of the world.
> > Isn't that just what Walt said. Yes - but without the baggage of pretending that this
> > is somehow an historical account. It isn't, as the very fact that Walt has to avoid the
> > literal meaning of the text shows.
>
> This does not follow. What is the "literal" meaning of a text if
> language is flexible, fully allowing poetical pictures and analogies
> etc.? It depends on the context. Some people's simple narratives of
> events which really happened may contain pictures or similes, especially
> if their cultural context abounds with such idioms, cf. e.g. Job. The
> truly literal meaning of "dust", in a given context, need not be some
> silicate or carbonate mineral! The assumption that it cannot be read as
> an "historical account" because an idiom is used is not compelling.
Of course you can't write anything interesting without using metaphors & other
figures of speech. Histories of the American Civil War aren't inaccurate because they
refer to General George Thomas as "The Rock of Chickamauga." Let us not harp on the
literal meaning of "dust." I have no problem with saying that Gen.2:7 is true in the
sense I sketched above. But I do object to the idea that we need to read that verse as
an historical statement - using whatever figures of speech - about the events by which
the first human was formed.
> >If concordists could simply learn that there are other ways for texts to be true
> > besides being accurate historical or scientific narrative, much of the confusion that is
> > repeatedly expressed here could be eliminated. But I confess that I'm not very hopeful.
>
> I am hopeful that you come to see concordance less in a black-and-white
> distortion, but as respecting both the flexibility of natural languages
> and the feasibility of combining this with divine inspiration, which
> respects the prophet's personal individuality, without sacrificing
> truth.
The fundamental problem here is one that Glenn & I - among others - debated over
& over years ago: The insistence that biblical texts must in some sense be accurate
accounts of events that actually happened in the history of the world if they are to be
true and authoritative. This simply fails to recognize that there are other kinds of
accounts that can also be true and authoritative.
Your remarks above indicate that you think the book of Job (or at least parts of
it) are historical. I don't think so. But let's not jump into a debate on that.
Instead ask yourself, "What part of the theological truth of Job is lost if it's
fiction?"
(& please limit the discussion to Job. Clearly with some parts of scripture
something _is_ lost if they are entirely fictional.)
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 08 2003 - 17:22:28 EST