Re: Reading Genesis literally

Bill,
Part of my library is boxed up at the moment, so I can't lay my hands on any easy reference. This is pretty standard stuff so any text dealing with the four traditional (especially medieval) types of interpretation of Scripture should have it. If I recall correctly, Augustine himself discussed his use of the term literal in the volume [whose title I can't remember; Redactiones, maybe] that he produced late in his life. It essentially was an annotated bibliography of his own writings. Sorry I can't provide more.
 
Karl
****************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
To: cmekve@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Reading Genesis literally

Thanks, Karl. I hunted around for Augustine's definition of literal without
success. But I have heard that he defined literal meaning as the meaning
intended by the original author. Do you have a reference I could look up? I
thought the intro to "The literal meaning of Genesis" would have it, but a
quick scan through it didn't find it.

--- cmekve@aol.com wrote:

> It's important to keep in mind that what the Church (including Augustine)
> has traditionally meant by "literal" is the meaning that the original authors
> intended. This is very different from what American evangelicals (both YEC
> and non-YEC) mean by the term. Note also that the full meaning of Scripture
> can and does exceed the "literal meaning".
>
> I believe historian Peter Harrison has argued that the use of "literal" in
> its recent sense derives from changes in thought and philosophy/theology at
> about the time of Robert Boyle; but I haven't read his book on the subject.
>
> Ted, can you add any info on Harrison's thesis?
>
> Karl
> ******************
> Karl V. Evans
> cmekve@aol.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
> To: Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 05:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: Reading Genesis literally
>
>
> For a really eye-opening example of how literalists of the past exegeted
> Genesis, take a look at "On the literal meaning of Genesis" by St. Augustine.
> I
> would hardly characterize Augustine's interpretation as literal. However, it
> is
> a valuable reference.
>
> --- Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> > From "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman (or was it Cutler's
> > work about N. Steno -- I may be conflating two recent readings of mine),
> > I recently learned that what we refer to as "literalism" or
> > "literalists" today is probably an unfair caricature of what the word
> > used to refer to. Back in the reformation days, those known as
> > literalists freely acknowledged literary devices in their many
> > appearances throughout scripture -- beyond just those parts that are
> > obviously or explicitly acknowledged to be parables or poems, etc.
> > Even today's literalists are probably not quite so literarily shallow as
> > they are often painted. But it does sound if the term did have deeper
> > nuanced meanings historically than gets packed into it today.
> >
> > I was interested to learn in Cutler's work "Seashell on a Mountaintop"
> > that Christian geologists (in the then fledgling profession) and
> > certainly many Christian scientists in general had little objections to
> > the departure from the young-earth time line in and around the 18th
> > century -- in some ways precipitated by the pious Steno himself. It
> > wasn't till Darwin's common descent which did evoke stronger reactions
> > -- and perhaps well after that even that old earth timeliness came to be
> > seen as ammunition in the science vs. religion warfare model.
> > Apparently some who would have identified with "listeralism" back then
> > saw no conflict in reading Genesis 1 timelines metaphorically. I can't
> > get more specific without checking out the book again to find names, but
> > others here probably know who's who.
> >
> > --merv
> >
> > There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
> > returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. --
> > Mark Twain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > gordon brown wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, burgytwo@juno.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>From AIG this week:
> > >>
> > >>Q: AiG teaches that we must take Genesis as written, but should we take
> the
> > whole Bible literally?
> > >>
> > >>A: We?ve got to be very careful here. It?s true, for example, that Jesus
> > quoted from Genesis when he talked about the foundation of marriage. Thus,
> he
> > took Genesis literally. Paul quoted from Genesis when writing about the
> first
> > man and the Last Adam, so he accepted Genesis literally, too.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >We tend to give the term 'literally' a meaning that is not literal. Even
> > >the so-called literalists do not take everything in the Bible literally.
> > >The passage referred to above that Jesus quotes is Gen. 2:24 that speaks
> > >of two becoming one flesh. Does AiG take one flesh literally?
> > >
> > >Gordon Brown
> > >Department of Mathematics
> > >University of Colorado
> > >Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Tue Apr 25 10:29:20 2006