Re: Genesis Truth

michael farley (mifarley@indiana.edu)
Tue, 4 Jul 1995 11:36:22 -0500 (EST)

Stephen, you have got to be kidding! Almost no-one believes that Genesis
12-50 is literal history? Do you consistently hang out with only liberal
scholars? I realize that Harrison is not a liberal and I do have his
Introduction to the OT. However, simply noting that different sections of
Genesis may have been recorded on separate tablets or colophons does not
necessarily entail the conclusion that the historical content of those
tablets differs in any great degree. If this is your contention, then the
burden of proof is on you to show FROM THE TEXT which colophons should be
interpreted as literal history and which should not be. You didn't make a
textual argument at all, but surely you must have some principles that
guide your interpretation. I want to know what they are. I want you to
tell me how I should know when I should interpret a colophon as literal
history and when I should not. This is especially true when large
sections of Genesis appear to be historical prose that reads just like a
section from Kings or Chronicles or the gospels Knowledge of such
hermeneutical principles is also especially necessary because many New
Testament passages seem to attribute historical reality to the events
described in Genesis (Hebrews 11, Jesus statements about Abraham, Romans
4 and 5, etc.) You did not respond to my point here either.
I don't think that you can come up with a set of hermeneutical
principles that will allow you reject the historicity of Genesis and
maintain the historicity of the Gospels or other historical sections of
the Old Testament. This is what concerns me, and this is precisely what
has happened as a result of liberal biblical criticism. Do you want to
maintain that the Jesus Seminar is orthodox? How far are you willing to
carry your arguement?

In Christ,
Mike Farley
Indiana University