From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 19:11:11 EST
>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<
I think a couple of different sorts of concording may need to be distinguished.
One is the attempt to match a particular Biblical text with modern assumptions or events. Extreme examples include reading Genesis 1-10 as modern scientific accounts or seeing every international incident foretold in Revelation. This sort of harmonization involves theologically questionable assumptions about the purpose of the text, namely that it is intended to provide modern scientific information or to predict details of future history or to promote exact calculation of the time of the second coming.
On the other hand, it seems quite reasonable to assume that the author of a particular passage in its current form thought that it provided a coherent, internally consistent account (with the caveat of possible problems in transmission). However, this assumption does not tell us how the original author would have harmoinzed. E.g., two versus seven animals within the Flood account could be a general statement (2), with some exceptions (7), or both numbers could be regarded as symbolic rather than actual counting.
Likewise, independent accounts of the same event ought to agree. Again, this does not tell us how to arrive at agreement.
I think there is more of a continuum than the hypothetical concordist mentioned by George would suggest. For example, I am rather doubtful about interpreting Genesis 1 as talking about chronology or physical methods, and so do not favor a concordance between it and a geological/cosmological account of origin. However, I am also quite doubtful about source criticism and find harmonizing as historical narrative more plausible for many of the other examples. Certainly the opposite extreme of making all narratives non-historical (not that George is endorsing that) is incompatible with Christianity; salvation depends on the reality of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In addition to the perceived slippery slope towards such views, many arguments against historicity are ill-founded, reflecting a priori rejection of the supernatural or other prejudice against biblical accuracy. Such factors may push more extreme concordance as a reaction. E.g., "we know that !
the Pentateuch legislation regarding grains must postdate Moses because the people were wandering, not planting, in his time." Even without the assumption of supernatural inspiration, if Moses had heard of grain he could figure out that it needed legislated.
Towards the extreme concord end of the continuum, I suspect that even those who try to interpret all of Genesis 1 as historical narrative would be likely to harmonize the two accounts of Saul's death by identifying the Amalekite's version as a lie invented to win favor with David. Conversely, even those inclined to dismiss the Bible as non-historical will balk at some ways of explaining it away. The idea that Elijah faked the supernatural fire at Carmel by pouring lighter fluid rather than water over his altar has been suggested, but not widely accepted.
Calvin frequently noted that the evangelists did not pay strict attention to historical details such as the order of events, though still regarding the events as historical narrative.
> 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.<
This is complicated by models that make Adam the first human in a spiritual sense, while positing existence of physically human individuals before him. I would identify Adam and Eve with the humans of Genesis 1, but I think that it is possible to separate them while still maintaining a unique role for Adam.
>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.<
"Modern sense" is problematic. The popular senses of myth, legend, etc. tend to imply falsehood and are clearly out. The technical senses of these do not necessarily imply falsehood and are not clearly out.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 17 2003 - 19:11:48 EST