Re: [asa] The ASA and the Soft Sciences (ASA focus for the future- dreaming)

Hi David,

Nicely put.

I'd only add this;

The entire vector of western biblical studies -- OT and NT -- demonstrates a move away from questions about historicity in favor of questions which center on narrative concerns. As such the movement is AWAY from the sort of interests which drive debate over the framework view and it's competitors and toward "new" interests surrounding narrative structure and meaning.

So when I say there's nothing "new" about the Aboriginal perspective, I mean nothing "new" in terms of the way in which some human cultures have approached narrative. But there certainly IS something "new" for western scholars to learn in respects of how origins stories can be appropriated theologically WITHOUT obsessing over historical concerns.

What's telling here is that EVERYBODY engaged in Biblical Studies gets the point. Narrative approaches of a sort analogous to Aboriginal approaches to story simply ARE seen as the "new kid on the block" and it is recognized that NOBODY was appropriating this kind of approach until the last couple of decades. In my own field (Johannine studies) the first significant work on narrative approaches to the Gospel of John was Culpeppers, 'Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel' (1983).

In fact, it's precisely because this sort of thing is seen as "new" that it is being resolutely resisted by conservative evangelicals. They are so obsessed with the historical-critical method, that they NEED to make history the primary issue in order to even have a ground for reading the Biblical text. Absent the historical concern, and the historical-critical method can't be applied, and conservative evangelical Christians have nothing to contribute.

Consequently, conservative evangelical Biblical scholars have a near pathological fear of ANY exegetical approach which shrugs its shoulders at historical concerns. But rather than admit their own exegetical impotence, they create pseudo-problems about the historical status of Genesis to which their exegetical method can then be applied. It's a classic case of "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"!

Note that David's point the framework hypothesis can be seen in this light: it does NOT arise out of a narrative approach to the text, but out of concerns central to the historical-critical method. As such it is simply false to suggest that a narrative approach to Genesis of the sort taken by Aboriginal Christians (and increasingly by modern western Biblical scholars) is the same sort of exegetical approach which undergirds the framework hypothesis.

The fact is that conservative evangelicals DO have something "new" to learn here. But until they grant their non-western brothers and sisters a little respect, and in humility sit at their feet with an open mind, they will never see it.

Blessings,
Murray

David Opderbeck wrote:
> Bernie, what I precisely said on Jan. 1 was /"I wonder, though, if the
> assumption that the West will eventually deal with this most effectively
> is correct. Maybe some of our brothers and sisters from parts of the
> world that aren't so influenced by rationalism will some day offer some
> solutions that we will need to integrate."
> /
> I don't know why you're fixated on whether this means something "new".
> If aboriginal cultures can help us better understand the sort of
> ontological mindset reflected in ANE origin myths, and that in turn
> helps us better understand the meaning of the Biblical creation stories,
> I don't think that has to be "new" to be a helpful corrective for those
> of us in the West.
>
> I think also that you're completely missing the point with reference to
> the framework view here. The framework view, helpful as it is, is
> nevertheless a somewhat rationalistic reading of the text. It assumes
> that the original author's intent was to present a picture-poem using a
> literary framework of "days." Underlying that assumption is the further
> assumption that there is a "problem" or "error" if the sequence of
> "days" is actually intended to correspond with reality. Te framework
> view to some extent projects a modern, Western view of what "reality" is
> onto the original author.
>
> A notion like the Aboriginal Dreaming perhaps can help us get back into
> the ANE author's ontological mindset. John Walton's work on the ancient
> near eastern worldview is very helpful on this point -- the ANE
> cosmologists were describing divine functions, not physical mechanisms.
> The notion that cosmological Truth claims must correspond directly to
> physical reality is nonsensical in this context. The effort is enter
> into the ANE writer's world and ask whether the text is "true" /on the
> writer's own terms/. We in the West have an incredibly hard time with
> that because those terms are so foreign to us -- hence we use
> anachronisms like "ancient science" when describing ANE cosmology.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com
> <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Pastor Murray said:
> "The notion of a "day" would be taken as a narrative element -
> whether it refers to a literal day or not would be seen as
> tangential to the point. To ask "is it a LITERAL day?" would be seen
> as a category error: like asking "what colour is 1 + 1"?"
>
> Same exact thing with the framework hypothesis- time independent-
> according to the hypothesis put forth and defended in the book "The
> Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation."
>
> Pastor Murray said:
> "I never claimed this was a 'new' point of view, by the way"
>
> Then it sounds like we agree there's nothing new here to consider
> when trying to understand origins in light of Gen. 1. David
> Opderbeck said there was something new to offer with "aboriginal
> dreaming"- then referred to you and other things for follow-up.
>
> If it was a new approach to deal with origins, I would have enjoyed
> learning more about other opinions it would give, such as
> understanding the order of creation, and whether humans were made by
> fiat or not. But since you aren't claiming anything new it can
> offer, it is moot to go forward in discussion.
>
> Also, from what I read- this "dreaming" also seems similar to the
> idea expressed in the Bible book of Hebrews- that the earthly
> tabernacle and some other things are a copy of the ones in heaven.
>
> Bottom line- David Opderbeck seems to have an opinion that something
> can be contributed to the origins debate that is overlooked by the
> educated western world, but I have no idea what drives that opinion.
> "Dreaming" was supposed to be an example of a possibility.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:22 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] The ASA and the Soft Sciences (ASA focus for the
> future- dreaming)
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> The notion of a "day" would be taken as a narrative element -
> whether it refers to a literal day or not would be seen as
> tangential to the point. To ask "is it a LITERAL day?" would be seen
> as a category error: like asking "what colour is 1 + 1"?
>
> This is because, as I wrote previously, the primary issue in
> Dreamtime stories is NOT "did it happen" but "is it so"?
>
> So, like their non-Christian ancestors with the traditional
> Dreamings, Aboriginal Christian focus primarily on the MEANING of
> the Genesis text and NOT whether it can be mapped onto history. They
> see the Genesis creation account as a story declaring the eternal
> (i.e. timeless and ongoing) creative activity of God.
>
> I never claimed this was a 'new' point of view, by the way - quite
> the opposite, in fact. What I'm claiming is that it's an OLD point
> of view which probably has more in common with the ANE understanding
> of the text than the sort of readings typically put forward by
> modern western exegetes of Genesis. Actually, it's interesting to
> note that such approaches to the text are pretty much in accordance
> with the way in which contemporary biblical studies is heading.
>
> Please restrict your response to a succinct answer of half a
> sentence or less.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray.
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> > Hi Pastor Murray- I'm trying to understand your "dreaming"
> application to Genesis. I see lots of generalities from you, but
> really nothing specific. Just to narrow it down, and to be blunt,
> and to the point, let me focus on just one issue/question.
> >
> > At the last ASA conference, Ted Davis gave a presentation
> regarding how to teach the different views on origins...
> interpreting Genesis. There is the YEC, OEC, TE, ID, etc. views.
> From what I gather, you are saying there is a new and unique way to
> interpret Genesis that has never been before considered, called
> "Aboriginal Dreaming." Please answer this one specific question:
> "How does "dreaming" interpret 'day' in the Genesis account of
> creation in Gen. ch. 1: Day is 24 hr, day-age, figurative, or other?"
> >
> > Please give a succinct answer in 1 or 2 paragraphs (5 to 10
> sentences). Please no essay-length response or sermon.
> >
> > I'm just trying to understand your point about the application of
> "dreaming" to the interpretation of Genesis.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 7 16:20:33 2009