From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 00:45:47 EST
George Murphy wrote:
> ...
> Peter Ruest wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
I have never suggested this in all my concordance ideas I proposed.
> ...
> > 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.
The point of contention, of course, is the "when read as such an
account" - which is not what is being done. What I consider a sound
"concordant" reading considers a ("non-overpowering") mode of divine
inspiration of scriptural texts in which God (1) is capable of having
the prophet formulate the text in a way fully compatible with His
(God's) intentions, (2) fully respects the prophet's personality
including his language, culture, lack of knowledge, way of thinking,
etc., (3) takes advantage of the flexibility of any human natural
language, (4) helps the prophet in his thinking to find a formulation
compatible with truth/reality even with respect to things unknown to the
prophet. Note that this last point does not imply that God "instructs"
the prophet concerning this unknown matter, but just gently leads him to
select, from his own vocabulary and ways of thinking, a formulation
suitable to that end in view. It is neither claimed that a biblical text
provides us with a scientific description, nor that its writer knew
anything of these scientific aspects. But a modern scientific
description is placed alongside the biblical text, and then one tries to
show that a natural reading of the former is compatible with the latter.
The reason which led me to this view is the observation that such
readings of biblical texts are possible in a surprising number of cases,
and without any obvious forcing of the text. On the contrary, the
"critical" readings common with source criticism of the Pentateuch
(Quellenscheidung) very often appear very much more artificial and
forced.
Sometimes, though, a good case can be made for the claim that the
ancients knew more than what is generally accredited to them. There are
very simple observations which can lead to a certain understanding of
the real water cycle, without any "ocean above the firmament", of the
ocean not being underneath the earth, or even of the sphericity of the
earth.
> > 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.
I agree that there are different forms or types of text in the Bible.
But if we have an apparent narrative, what are the alternatives, if it
is not an historical account? Myth, legend, etc., in the modern sense of
the words, are clearly out, if there is any kind of divine inspiration
at all. Parable, allegory, poetical simile, etc. clearly do occur in the
Bible, but if they apply to an entire story, it usually is unmistakably
marked as such. Furthermore, these forms may occur in a real historical
account, as well (rather than having to be applied to the whole story as
such). The decision about what form of story we are dealing with must be
made on a case-by-case basis. It is often a matter of judgment, and
different people (even scholars) often come to different conclusions.
> > >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.
Of course the schemes of source criticism produce radically different
results. In my comments about Rofe's book I mentioned in my last post I
described in what way this kind of source criticism in fact destroys the
entire history of Israel, and with it all of its theological content.
You talk about "concordist programs", implying preconceived ideas
independent of the biblical text. I would rather level that accusation
against the "source critical programs", which have had a pernicious
influence on theology for the last 200 years. I doubt whether we have
learned much worth while from them.
> > 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.
Now this is strange! A "flat earth with a solid dome of the sky & the
waters above the heavens" is not mythology? If I understood correctly,
those who claim to find this "archaic cosmology" in Gen.1 think it was
taken over from polytheistic pagan myths, just substituting one God for
the many gods to "demythologize" it, to put it somewhat simply. If this
was the writer's agenda, why did he not clearly state it? The prophets
like Isaiah had no qualms at all to call pagan gods "nothings",
"dungheaps", etc. and to heap ridicule on those who insisted on
believing in them and their worldviews.
I have never claimed the human writer knew, or the Holy Spirit wanted to
teach, modern scientific cosmology, see above. This is a strawman.
> 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.
I don't claim all biblical texts are historical narrative, and I don't
think any of the "concordists" you named does so. There clearly are
other text forms. But the trouble in most cases seems to be that there
are people who unnecessarily dismiss all historical content for large
portions of biblical texts.
> > >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.
You may not remember what Armin Held and I published in PSCF 4/1999,
231: we consider Gen.1:26f to deal with the creation of humans and 2:7
with the much later call of Adam, who was not the first man. But
thinking these two passages talk of the same event is one of the main
stumbling blocks for Genesis interpreters. It is probably one of the two
main mistakes responsible for the fact that even evangelical theologians
seem to feel that the only feasible way to interpret Gen.1-2 is to
accept the source-critical speculations (the other main mistake is
thinking Gen.1:14ff deals with the creation of the heavenly bodies).
> > >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.
Adam was not the first human. And "Yahweh God fashioned [yatzar] the
Adam - dust [^afar] of the ground" (Gen.2:7) need not imply that this
was Adam's miraculous creation out of non-living matter, just as little
as for Job, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, who use analogous metaphors, even
partly exactly the same words. "I too was taken from clay" (Job 33:6).
He pleads with God: "Your hands shaped me and made me ... Re-member that
you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust [^afar] again?"
(Job 10:8-9). But he also specifies: "Did not he who made me in the womb
make them? Did not the same one form [not yatzar] us both within the
womb?" (Job 31:15). Isaiah 64:8 says: "We are the clay [not ^afar] and
you are our potter [participle of yatzar], we are all the work of your
hand". Similarly, Jeremiah (1:5) was formed [yatzar] in the womb by God.
Thus, "to be formed out of dust" by God, or "formed out of clay" (as a
potter does) was a customary metaphor for God's making one grow in one's
mother's womb. Didn't Job, Isaiah and Jeremiah consider their own births
to be historical events (in addition to whatever theological statement
they wanted to make in that connection)?
> ...
> > 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.
Such generalized statements are not very helpful. Of course there are
biblical texts which are not narrative. No "concordist" would claim that
they are not true and authoritative. Whether or not a certain text is a
historical narrative must be decided in its context. But when one is
claiming a text is not a historical narrative, when it obviously is
formulated like a historical narrative, very cogent reasons for such a
change in perspective must be adduced.
> 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.)
This is a red herring. Of course God is able to reveal theological truth
in whatever manner he sees fit. Whether Job is fact or fiction certainly
cannot be decided with such a question. We see certain theological
truths in Job, and we see narrative. I can turn your question around:
ask yourself, "What part of the theological truth of Job is lost if it's
fact, not fiction?" This question would be just as meaningless. God
intended to reveal the "theological Job truth" - why shouldn't he call a
real man Job to undergo such a trial as God's witness, in order to do
this revelation? We need real arguments which are to the point.
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 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 00:43:54 EST