On Thu, 22 Jun 1995 21:47:55 -0400 you wrote:
>Jim Bell writes:
>JB>I think you have missed the point here. You assume a view of
>"truth" that is empirical only. But Mark and scholars who hold this
>view of Genesis are talking of truth in a broader sense. Call it
>theological truth, or spiritual truth. The question is not what a
>fly on the wall would "see," but what a human being reading the
>text, as is, should "know."
JB>Thus your view...
>GM>Truth is objective. Something either happened as reported or it
>didn't.
JB>....is incorrect (or rather, arbitrarily limited). A simple
>example is the parables of Jesus. The prodigal son did not exist.
>This account didn't "happen as reported." But the metaphor is
>plain, and in service of a more profound truth.
>endquote
GM>I know that those who hold this view are saying that they see a
>broader truth.
>Logically, I fail to see this broader truth. In the case of the
>parables, it clearly marks them as parables. Such is not the case
>with early Genesis. What part is historical and what part is
>metaphorical? Where is the clear demarcation? The metaphorical
>status of the scripture usually extends through chapter 11 so that
>means that the flood is metaphorical.
In the very nature of the case, Genesis 1 cannot be strictly
historical, in the normal sense of the word. Clearly no man was
around to record the events. There is no statement in Genesis (or
indeed the whole Bible) which says how man learned the events of
Genesis 1. Even if God revealed it, to compress the creation of whole
heavens and earth into 31 verses, clearly required selection of
materials on a massive scale. Then there is the problem of the
recipients - how to explain what happened to pre-scientific man, who
would remain pre-scientific for 50 centuries or more. Finally, it is
assuming that God wants to tell man what happened in a scientific
sense. What if God was more concerned with man's salvation than his
scientific knowledge? What is God was more concerned that man might
worship the creature more than the creator? What if God felt that a
simple, structured story in the framework of a human working week was
more likely to convey theological and ethical knowledge?
Scholars do not claim that Genesis 1 is a "parable" or is
"metaphorical". Rather they claim that it is in a literary class of
its own, the nearest category being saga.
And as for where is the demarcation, Genesis reveals clear evidence of
different "sources" delimited by the phrase "These are the
generations..." (Gn 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19
36:1; 36:9; 37:2). OT Scholars like Harrison, believe these are the
colophons or footers on clay tablets that underlie Genesis. In other
words phrase in Gn 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and
of the earth" refers to Gn 1:1-2:4a, etc. Therefore Glenn's problem of
demarcation is eased because the creation story, the fall, the Flood,
and the Tower of Babel are on different tablets and there is no reason
they are all the same literary genre.
GM>The flood section doesn't read metaphorically. And there is only
>one way to look at the question of whether or not there was a flood.
>It either happened or it didn't. The event described as the Fall
>either happened as described or it didn't. I see very little middle
>ground here. If these events didn't occur as described, then how do
>I know that the Scripture is better than the Gilgamesh {sic?} epic?
The issue of whether the Flood is metaphorical is quite different from
whether the Creation or the Fall story was metaphorical. Besides, the
word "metaphorical" is totally misleading when considering ANE
literature. The literary form of a particular passage is sometimes a
highly technical issue, and outside the abilities of laymen,
especially since we are reading it in a modern English translation.
Before someone claims that he infallibly knows the literary form of
the various sources that make up Genesis 1-11, in order to press upon
others a particular interpretation, I would like to know what his
theoloical qualifications are, whether he can read the original
Hebrew, and/or what OT scholars he has consulted.
Nevertheless I would make the point that God has seen to it that the
medium does not materially affect the message. As the KJV so
immortally puts it (albeit in a different context): "the wayfaring
men, though fools, shall not err therein". (Isa 35:8).
>You write:
JB>The terms of Genesis 1, according to most Hebraic scholars, are
>mytho-poetic.
>God, it seems, is TELLING us not to limit this chapter to some objective
>standard of reportage.
Agreed.
GM>I agree that Gen. 1 is in poetic form, but even a poem can convey
>true information. Homer conveyed some true information in a poem
I agree with Glenn's latter statement but not the former. There is no
evidence that Genesis 1 is a "poem". It has no rhyme or parallelism
that is a characteristic of Hebrew poetry, but that does not mean it
is literal history either. Probably Glenn's point about the
"Gilgamesh epic" is closer than he realises. An "epic" might be a
good analogy of Genesis 1?
God bless.
Stephen