From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 17:31:59 EST
This is a response to 2 posts of Peter's on "Concordance" and "Genesis
Interpretation," quite belated because of various commitments of mine. There was
considerable overlap between those posts and I thought that the clearest way to respond
was to pick out a few pertinent exchanges between myself (GM below) and Peter (PR),
respond to Peter's statements there, and combine them into one post. I hope that I
haven't introduced any distortions by doing this.
First, however, a general comment. It is all very well to agree in principle
that the Bible contains various literary genres, and that not everything is historical
narrative. But those who practice concordism never actually seem willing to admit that
anything in the Bible that looks as if it _might_ be an historical account didn't
actually happen, or didn't happen in the way described there. Genesis 1 & 2, the
different parts of the flood story, the 2 accounts of Saul's 1st acquaintance with David
- all of these _look_ as if they're composed of material from different sources, but the
concordist immediately starts to figure out ways to "harmonize" them as historical
narratives - as Peter did when I commented on the flood story. Why is this the case if
one seriously entertains the idea that everything doesn't have to be historical
narrative?
Am I overstating the matter? Below I mention briefly the book of Jonah, &
though this probably _isn't_ made up of material from different sources, there are good
reasons to think that it isn't an historical account? Or will Peter & other concordists
immediately start explaining that Nineveh really was as big as it says, that Jonah
really said more than 5 words, that all the animals really did put on sackcloth, that
the capital of Assyria really did undergo a mass conversion, &c. Or will they really
consider the possibility that this isn't history. Surprise me.
& this is why it was reasonable for me to ask Peter what of theological value
would be lost if Job were fiction, & why it wasn't an answer for him to ask what would
be lost if it were fact (i.e., history). The situations are not symmetrical because I
certainly believe that major passages in the OT are historical narrative while the
practice of concordists suggests that they aren't willing to consider that some aren't.
But as I said, surprise me.
Peter Ruest wrote:
.........................
GM The question isn't whether it [one of the Genesis accounts] is a sophisticated or
naive historical account, but whether it's an historical account at all.
PR 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.
...............................
No, myth, legend, etc., in the modern sense of the words, are NOT clearly out,
if there is any kind of divine inspiration at all. You are presuming to say what types
of literary forms God could or could not have condescended to use. On what basis?
Furthermore, you are contradicting what you said in another place - that in
inspiring the biblical writers God (inter alia) "fully respects the prophet's
personality including his language, culture, lack of knowledge, way of thinking, etc."
If the writers' cultures, ways of thinking &c made use of mythic language, legends &c,
then God could have used them.
Having said this, I would add that much of the use of "myth" in the Bible is in
the form of what Brevard Childs called "broken myth" - i.e., not just uncritical
presentation of pagan myths but use of their language to express the faith of Israel.
Childs' _Myth and Reality in the Old Testament_ is a very helpful treatment including
detailed study of several texts.
& the assumption that there has to be an explicit "fiction" label on an account
in order for it not to be an historical narrative has no basis. Jesus doesn't do that
with most of his parables. When I give a "story sermon" I don't always tell the
congregation that it didn't really happen since I can assume that they have some brains.
& if the writer of Jonah wanted to tell a story to argue against tendencies toward
exclusivism in Israel, he would have weakened its effect by prefacing it with "This is
just a story." He could have assumed that his readers had enough sense to see that the
humorous exaggerations built into the account make its historical character questionable
- though of course many modern readers don't!
Finally, the question is not just about literary forms but about the writers'
use of the state of the art knowledge of the world of their time. The writer of Gen.1
wasn't just writing a story in which the sky was a dome - he thought it really was a
dome.
......................................
PR 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.
...........................
There are really 2 questions that have to be considered here. 1, is there
evidence of different sources in the OT texts? & 2, are the various attempts of
scholars to reconstruct these sources theoretically sound? As to the 2d, I agree that
many attempts are too speculative & that attempts to distribute individual words &
phrases among different sources may be of little value. Attempts to understand the
composition of the Pentateuch as a scissors-and-paste job are now seen by many scholars
to be much too simplistic.
But the answer to 1 is as plain as the nose on your face as soon as you give
serious consideration to the possibility at all. I noted the example of the Flood
narrative in addition to Gen.1 & 2, & many other examples can be given.
...............................
GM 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.
PR 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.
.......................
Nothing strange there. There is no necessary religious significance to a "flat
earth with a solid dome of the sky & the waters above the heavens." It's just the way a
lot of people in the ancient near east saw the world - & from the standpoint of those
living in a limited part of the world, not an especially stupid way of seeing it. In
the Middle Ages some (though by no means all) Christians understood the world in this
way without seeing any contradiction with Christian faith.
This is archaic geography & astronomy, not mythology. It is mythological when
the world was made out of the body of Tiamat or Ymir, when the stars are deities that
control human lives, &c. & the writer of Gen.1 demythologizes this cosmology by, e.g.,
putting the creation of the "great lights" - sans names that suggest divinity - in the
middle of the week to serve definite purposes, & leaving the stars as an afterthought.
It's more subtle demythologizing than calling the Babylonian gods nasty names, at least
as effective.
...........
GM 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.
PR 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).
I see little merit in the arguments of that article. The idea that these are
"stumbling blocks" is mere assertion on your part. The sun, moon and stars were made on
the 4th day: The statement in your article that God "caused the previously permanent
cloud cover to break open" is pure speculation. You are rewriting the Bible to make it
fit your notions. It is a more serious error to imagine that 2:7 is the "call" of Adam,
as I note below.
PR 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)?
.......................
If you focus narrowly on the language of Gen.2:7 you can draw parallels with the
passages you mention, but reading the entire story of 2:4b-25 makes it quite clear that
it is about the first humans. The creature made in 2:7 is "the Adam" - "the human" who
is given the commission of all humans, to guarad & keep the earth & to know the animals.
"It is not good for the man to be alone" - which he wouldn't have been if he weren't
the first human.
Adam is a theological representation of the first human. This is obvious in
I Corinthians 15:47: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is
from heaven." The whole Adam-Christ theme falls apart if Adam is not understood to mean
the first human. You are selling out a major part of the theological significance of
the creation stories.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 17 2003 - 17:34:38 EST