In Genesis 5 we find a list of pre-flood patriarchs taking us from Adam to Noah. What will jump out to the modern reader is the extremely long life span each pre-flood patriarch had: the shortest being Enoch (365 years) and the longest, of course, being Methuselah (969 years). This list, and the numbers associated with each patriarch, has served as a way for some scholars to make a claim that the earth was created in 4004 BCE. James Ussher, an archbishop in the Church of Ireland in the mid 17th century, was the first scholar to propose the exact date of the creation of the world: 22 October 4004 BCE (which corresponds nicely to Turretin’s conclusion that the earth was created in autumn). Based on the life spans presented in Genesis 5, the idea that the world was created sometime around 4004 BCE is still, more or less, held to by many evangelicals.
I don’t want to go the route of carbon dating or dinosaurs or ice ages or tropical plants being found in glaciers, although that is an interesting conversation…especially when someone claims that dinosaurs were placed in the earth’s crust by Satan in order to test our faith in the Bible (and, yes, people actually say such nonsense).
Rather, I’d like to look at a list of Sumerian Kings that records Kings who reigned Sumer before the great flood:
Two interesting things come to light when you read Genesis 5 and this cognate Sumerian King list.
The first is that scholars have suggested that the numbers of the genealogy in Genesis 5 have been influenced by the numbers of the Sumerian King list in that they are both derived from, or at the very least influenced by, astronomical and mathematical figures. For instance, notice how 26 of the 27 lifespans recorded in Genesis 5 end with a 0, 2, 5, or 7? The prevalence of these numbers seems to be related to Babylonian algebra (see, for instance, Dwight Young’s two excellent articles “The Influence of Babylonian Algebra on Longevity among the Antediluvians” and “A Mathematical Approach to Certain Dynastic Spans in the Sumerian King List”).
The second thing that comes to light is more profound. In other Mesopotamian literature, the seventh king (Enmedur-Anna) of the Sumerian King list is said to have “ascended into heaven” instead of dying. This is the exact thing we read in Genesis 5: the seventh patriarch mentioned (Enoch) is not presented as dying, but as being taken by God.
What this leads scholars to believe is that the genealogy of Genesis 5 is a modified Hebrew genealogy mimicking the older Sumerian King list. This theory is strengthened by the fact that the genealogy of Genesis 5 seems to have copied almost the exact names and order of the genealogy of Genesis 4. The reason that the Genesis 5 genealogy isn’t repetitive is because it seems to have been written as mimetic fiction: to mimic the Sumerian King list, a list which strove to both legitimize the Sumerian tradition and to express their power.
When read against such a backdrop, we see that the function of the genealogy of Genesis 5 is not so that we can come to find out that the good Lord had the brilliant idea to announce that he wanted light to appear on some cool autumn day in 4004 BCE. Rather, the function of the genealogy is to turn the Sumerian power play on its head by expressing the value and significance of the Hebrew people. Its a way of saying, “You thought your kings were great; check out our forefathers!” So instead of “history” (in the modern sense of the word), we are presented with an artistic and creative presentation of the Israelite resistance to the Sumerian culture.
Now, the $10,000 question: how does this affect the way we think about Scripture, both the content of Scripture and the phenomena of Scripture?
[The content and language of this post has been greatly influenced by Kenton Sparks, God's Word in Human Words (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 216-18.]
19 August 2008 at 1.47 pm
Have you read John Walton’s article on the Sumerian king list?
19 August 2008 at 1.49 pm
Art, could you develop this thought a bit more?… “instead of “history” (in the modern sense of the word), we are presented with an artistic and creative presentation of the Israelite resistance to the Sumerian culture.”
Thanks.
19 August 2008 at 1.56 pm
we are presented with an artistic and creative presentation of the Israelite resistance to the Sumerian culture.
When was the final form of the Sumerian king list written? What purpose would resistance to a culture that had long since wanned and been absorbed by other cultures serve?
Why would Israelites have an interest in overturning the power play lying behind the king list of a civilization that no longer existed?
I think you are on the right track, but I am skeptical of a too-direct connection to Sumeria.
19 August 2008 at 2.22 pm
v02468: I haven’t. Is it online somewhere?
Miguel: It has been suggested by scholars that the reason for this genealogical doublet is because the second (Gen 5) was for polemical purposes. What it is proposed is that the author knew about the Sumerian Kings list and wanted to copy that list with the purpose of legitimizing the Hebrew people. So names were taken from previous genealogies and placed within the new, mimetic genealogy. By doing so, “Israel” was rebelling against the culture and replacing the Sumerian stories with their own.
Nathan: I am not sure of the answer to your first question. Do you know? I won’t be back near the comfort of a theological library until next week, so I can’t research it until then.
If Gen 5 originated after circa 2300 BCE (give or take), then I don’t think it would serve any purpose to mimic a king’s list of a culture that has been absorbed into other cultures after its downfall.
On the other hand, if some of the pericopes of Gen 1-11 go back, at least orally, to a period earlier than that, perhaps Gen 5 would serve the purpose of both mocking the Sumerian culture and legitimizing the Hebrew people.
It’s not air tight, but I think it has good explanatory value.
What would your take on Gen 5 be?
19 August 2008 at 3.02 pm
Walton actually deals with it in two places,
Walton, John. “The Antediluvian Section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5.” Biblical Archeologist 44 (1981): 207-08.
Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989.
I couldn’t find any online sections of the articles unfortunately. What I do remember reading (a section of the article I believe) was John Walton drawing the comparison and also giving a crash course in Sumerian mathematics and a probable reworking of the numbers into a more complex mathematical system. I don’t know what he says about the comparison to the Genesis account other than he recognizes a connection similar to what you have proposed.
If you hit up the book or article at some point let me know. I’d be curious how Dr. Walton interacts with the issues.
19 August 2008 at 3.23 pm
Art: my take is fairly similar to yours. Gen 5 is non-literal, and serves to highlight the awesomeness of the pre-diluvian ancestors. My only substantive difference with what you said is that I doubt there is an anti-Sumerian polemic since the history of Israel as a people and as a nation post-date the decline of the Sumerian civilization by hundreds of years. At the time period when Gen 5 could have had relevance as an anti-Sumerian polemic, there were no Hebrew/Israelite people to be affirmed by that polemic.
I suppose another people (probably middle to late Bronze Age Mesopotamian) could have had use for such a polemic, but I find it unconvincing that this would have been preserved orally for hundreds of years and then found its way into Genesis. More likely, in my opinion, is the possibility that ascribing long lives to illustrious ancestors was simply an ANE mythic/rhetorical/political device that appears in both the Sumerian list and Gen 5 without direct connection between the traditions.
19 August 2008 at 3.38 pm
v02468: When I get back to Philly I will look up that article at the library.
Nathan:
I think that you are correct in saying this and I don’t disagree.
The only aspect that makes me more curious about a connection between Gen 5 and the Sumerian King list is the 7th on the list having “ascended into heaven.” This separates the Sumerian King list and the Gen 5 list from other king lists, such as the Lagesh King list (which scholars believe to be a parody of the Sumerian King list). Then again, perhaps that is also a mythic/rhetorical/political device.
19 August 2008 at 3.52 pm
Wow.
19 August 2008 at 3.55 pm
Kevin: Would you mind teasing that out a little bit?
19 August 2008 at 4.47 pm
You know what I’m going to say, Art, before I open my virtual mouth.
I agree with what you said early in this post that there are interesting parallels with Sumerian king lists. I also agree with you that Gen. 5/10 are selective genealogies that ought not be used to determine the age of the earth.
I just continue to be stunned by the underlying assumption on this and the other threads that the what the Bible says cannot possibly have happened. I continue to be stunned by the underlying assumption that pagan ANE literature is the determining factor for what the Bible must mean.
But hey. Too much more out-teasing will just lead to the same discussion we had on the other thread. So, I’ll just lurk.
19 August 2008 at 4.55 pm
Kevin: I understand where you are coming from. I was hoping that the “wow” was one of profundity as opposed to disagreement, which is why I asked if you could tease it out a bit.
It would be worth clarifying, though, that it has never been my assumption, in this or any other thread, that “what the Bible says cannot possibly have happened.” Of course God being who he is, anything could have happened. Rather, my basic assumption is that the Bible is the word of God and we need to work extremely hard in understanding it on its own terms for that every reason. If God went through the trouble to give his word to humanity, I should be extra diligent in doing everything I can to understand what he is saying in it. Sometimes that does not agree with my modern sensibilities nor does it align with what myself or my particular tradition has proclaimed to be the normative understanding of a particular passage. So be it.
At the end of the day I’m more concerned with understanding Scripture on its own terms than falling in line with a certain tradition’s understanding of Scripture.
19 August 2008 at 5.29 pm
I think I have the Truth you are looking for.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
Watch all of these videos. You will then learn the Truth too.
Your getting close. But watch all of these. and to anwser your question esspecilly watch The: Garden Of Eden.
(This series’ focus is: Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs.
God Bless,
Indy 11
19 August 2008 at 5.59 pm
indy11: The content of this post has less to do with the whole “evolution vs. The Bible” debate and more about appropriate use of ANE texts and our doctrine of Scripture. As a result, the videos you linked to have little at best to add to the current discussion.
I do, however, wish I had a cool name like Dr. Dino.
19 August 2008 at 6.44 pm
Art,
I do, however, wish I had a cool name like Dr. Dino.
But you wouldn’t want to share Dr. Dino’s cell. The good doctor is serving a 10-year sentence for all sorts of tax-related offenses. 58 to be exact. D’oh!
19 August 2008 at 6.51 pm
Mike: That is nuts. I found a bunch of stuff on him on the always accurate wikipedia.
What a nut job!
19 August 2008 at 8.51 pm
Here he is on the Da Ali G show, where Ali G proves that he is descended from an ape because he eats bananas.
19 August 2008 at 9.01 pm
I think its a fair question to ask whether taking scripture on its own terms entails implying that ancient authors didn’t know what “truth” was. I say that as someone who doesn’t consider himself bound to any “modern” (which hardly means anything any more that I can see) way of reading scripture.It seems to me that an agreeable starting point is to read the scripture in its context. I think thats what you’re trying to do, but it seems like you are saying that this means it could be “fiction” and still be accurate (Perhaps as a polemic of the Sumerian king list).
My question would be the same as one I heard someone ask Gordon Wenham when he was exploring the similarities in a lecture on Genesis 1-11:
If the account is non-historical, and these aren’t historical names and accounts, doesn’t his polemic fall apart?
I would answer “yes” to that question, and would (and do) hold to historicity in the names. I think is is clear that the pattern
Creation >
loooong period of time >
Flood >
looooong period of time >
Current times (circa 2000 or so BC)
was the general idea of history in the ANE, and these accounts follow this framework. To me that doesnt lessen the historicity of the Genesis account (as far as names, etc. I think ages are debateable). Obviously the geneaologies are stylized (I think most reasonable readers would agree on that).
I ask this honestly, is it possible that some of these readings that aren’t “aligned with what my particular tradition has proclaimed to be the normative understanding of scripture” are motivated by a desire to disalign oneself with a particular reading of scripture? to do either, I think is not to read the text on its own terms.
19 August 2008 at 9.22 pm
Nice post, Art. I recall finding James Vanderkam’s discussion of these issues, at least as they relate to Enoch in the Gen 5 list, delightful, “Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition.”
As you are probably aware, Vanderkam’s approach certainly overlaps with your’s.
19 August 2008 at 9.59 pm
Jared: I love Ali G. I never realized that the Creationist Guy was Dr. Dino! What a loon.
Justin:
So wouldn’t the question then be, “What did they style them after? Or, why are they stylized this way?” If so, then the answer does not seem to be, “Because they are recounting “actual history” (i.e. one-to-one).
In other words, it seems to me that it’s easy for you to take the jump from thinking of the genealogies as one-to-one history, or strict history, to “stylized” history, but not to “fictionalized.”
But is there really a difference between the two?
FTH: Vanderkam is top shelf, especially his work on Enoch.
19 August 2008 at 10.01 pm
You don’t want to support Dr. Dino. Not only was he a nutjob as Wikipedia explains, but very arrogant and rude during debates and also used inaccurate information if he could spin it to sway a few more people. Not a good role model.
19 August 2008 at 10.41 pm
The function of Gen 5 is to “turn the Sumerian power play on its head by expressing the value and significance of the Hebrew people. Its a way of saying, ‘You thought your kings were great; check out our forefathers!’”
I fail to see how a geneological list with lifespans shorter than that which it is supposedly mocking accomplishes this. It would seem to me that the Sumerian Kings List with its longer lifespans speaks to a more transcendent power . . . the list in Gen 5 is by comparison puny if power and divine blessing is described by length of life.
Gen 5 should be understood as belonging to the culture of the ANE and its geneological records, including the SKL, but I highly doubt that there is necessarily a direct correlation. As you note, it is better understood as a mythic/rhetorical/political device.
Gen 5 adopts this motif perhaps as a means of authenticating its narrative within its own culture. It says nothing about the validity of the text one way or the other.
You say that in SKL, En-men-dur-ana ascends to heaven? I’m not seeing that in any of the versions I’m reading . . .
26. zimbirki en-me-en-dur2-an-na
27. lugal-am3 mu 21000 i3-ak
28. 1 lugal
29. mu-bi 21000 ib2-ak
30. zimbirki ba-šub-be2-en
31. nam-lugal-bi šuruppagki- ba-de6
For the record, the Sumerian Kings List is known from the Isin dynasty (c. 1900) and by that period is used to legitimize the Isin dynasty’s authority over Babylon as its kingship is descended from heaven, directly descended from the great past dynasties at Eridu, Kish, Uruk, Ur, etc. Whether it originated earlier for similar purposes is unknown.
20 August 2008 at 7.47 am
Art
Did happen to read S.M. Baugh’s very pointed review of Sparks book over at Ref 21?
20 August 2008 at 8.36 am
Art:
How are you quoting me and making it show up in yellow? It would make my replies much easier to read, I think.
You said, “So wouldn’t the question then be, “What did they style them after? Or, why are they stylized this way?” If so, then the answer does not seem to be, “Because they are recounting “actual history” (i.e. one-to-one).
In other words, it seems to me that it’s easy for you to take the jump from thinking of the genealogies as one-to-one history, or strict history, to “stylized” history, but not to “fictionalized.”
Yes, I think you are correct that I am not willing to make that jump, and I think that really is the crux of the issue. Just because the account is stylized, and has an interest in symmetry (ten names, three sons for the last name, symmetrical with the geneaology in Genesis 10), does not mean that it isnt accurate history. I would say it isnt COMPLETE history, but who am I (or any reader) to look at the list and demand that it be a complete list? In its ANE context, its obvious that the civilizations around the Hebrews already knew that the earth, and human activity upon it, was very old. They were filling in thousands of years of history with a ten name list. Ten is a good round number, which seemed to have a feeling of completeness. It also matches the “theme” of the rest of Genesis with its ten toledot structure. It’s not any more surprising to me that they use ten names as a representative of a loooong period of time than it is that the number 40 is often used in a symbolic way in the historical books. Its just the way they did it….it compels me to think that this is the culture of the time, not that these people didn’t understand what a lie was. If the implication is that these names are “fiction”, then….well, I think that most people would agree that a blatant falsehood, even if it is for a polemical purpose… is still a lie. Call me a fundamentalist if you like
, but I dont really think thats too strong of a word.
20 August 2008 at 9.28 am
Everyone! I know that Dr. Dino is in prison! But his message and words are good. Something messed up in a tax situation, and they are probbley also picking on him becasue he is a creationist. But he is deffinatly a man of God. He works for God, Going around the Country and Evaglisizing about Creation to bring others to God. I dont know about any of you, but Dr. Dino is deffinatly a man of God.
-Indy 11
PS: Is there such thing as paying someone out of prison?
20 August 2008 at 9.30 am
and also, the videos will help you understand (not so much on the topic, but some really good stuff!)
you have to learn when your young to eat the meat and spit out the bones, Dr. Dino’s downloadable videos and stuff is some of the best meat I have ever Tasted.
20 August 2008 at 9.37 am
Also…If you were woundering. That meat was not attifically flavored (a fake) and i checked the ingedents (the evidence),
That meat was natural (The truth). -Indy 11
20 August 2008 at 10.09 am
Art, you said, “It…has never been my assumption, in this or any other thread, that “what the Bible says cannot possibly have happened.”.. At the end of the day I’m more concerned with understanding Scripture on its own terms than falling in line with a certain tradition’s understanding of Scripture.”
Fair enough, but a plain reading of your and others’ posts (to interject a little hermeneutical humor into the discussion) does not suggest that. What they do suggest is a profound skepticism towards the Scriptures that borders on outright denial of the doctrines of revelation, inspirtation, and inerrancy. If you say that isn’t so, I believe you, but you should then endeavor to sound that way in your posts.
For instance, it was difficult not to see outright hostility towards an orthodox bibliology on the Welhausen thread. The arguments were consistently:
“Modern scholarship, therefore Genesis 1-2 could not have literally occurred.” (I realize that is a generalization, but it is an accurate summary of the arguments.)
Here the argument is similar:
“Modern scholarship, therefore Genesis 5 cannot be believed as literal history.”
To cut to the chase: Did the ante-diluvians live as long as Genesis 5 say? Yes or no? The answer to that question would be very enlightening to me.
Your remark about dinosaurs was amusing. I have never heard that actually seriously said, except by people trying to make and then destroy straw men. We can talk about the dinosaurs when you start the,
“Modern scholarship, therefore Noah’s flood could not have happened” thread.
20 August 2008 at 11.02 am
To cut to the chase: Did the ante-diluvians live as long as Genesis 5 say? Yes or no? The answer to that question would be very enlightening to me.
Art can answer for himself of course, but here are my two cents.
Answering the question is not simply a matter of whether I believe the Bible to be true or not; it is a matter of genre identification.
If Gen 5 is “straightforward history” (the category is problematic, but you know what I mean), then yes, those people probably did live that long.
If, however, there is something about Gen 5 that marks it as some other genre, I would want to read it in terms of that genre. If, for example, the long ages are a mark of a particular genre of ANE ideological/non-historical or quasi-historical literature, then I would hesitate to insist that those men really lived that long. The SKL may point to this. In this case, it is possible that those people really didn’t live that long.
20 August 2008 at 11.19 am
Jay: Thanks for your comment. You have brought up some important points.
The scholars that I have read propose that both Gen 5 and the SKL are based on a common source. The difference in the numbers is based on the different numeric systems which each culture used and, therefore, read the common source material by. The Israelite culture used a decimal system while the Sumerian culture used a sexagesimal system. So, when they both read the common source, they would interpret it differently:
Sumerian: sar=36,000 & ner=3,600
Israelite: sar=1,000 & ner=100
That seems to account for the larger numbers in the Sumerian account and smaller numbers in the Israelite account.
Not in the SKL, but in other Sumerian literature it is recorded that Emmeduranki (En-men-dur-ana) ascended into heaven. I don’t have my copy of COS or ANET with me, so I cannot cite the exact text (but will be able to do so when I return to Philly next week). Also of interest is that some scholars also make another connection between Emmeduranki and Enoch: Emmeduranki’s city (Sippar, later Shamash in Semitics) was closely linked to the worship of Utu (sun-god) and Enoch lived 365 years (a solar year). I’m not sure if that is a solid link or someone trying to make a stretch, but I found it interesting at the very least.
Dr. Johnson: I have read it. I wrote my own review/partial critique of the book, but have submitted it to RBL for publication, so I cannot post it here. I’ll post the link when it appears in RBL.
Justin: I emailed you on how to blockquote something (if I showed you here it wouldn’t work because you wouldn’t be able to see the code).
Have you thought through the implications of this in relationship to Ecclesiastes, Job, Jonah, or the Song? For instance, if Job is fiction (which I’m pretty sure almost everyone believes), then wouldn’t that mean it is also “blatant falsehood”? Yet, there is a very real purpose for Job being in the canon and it has nothing to do with historicity. Could the same not be said for the genealogy in Gen 5? If not, why not?
indy11:
We the jury, by a unanimous ruling, find you to be utterly wrong.
Kevin:
Here’s where the problem might lie: I believe the Bible is the word of God. I am not trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes by confessing that to be my belief, yet denying it in my posts. If there comes a point in my post where you think, “He’s denying that the Bible is the word of God!” then you are reading my post incorrectly. I don’t ask for much, but I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt in this regard.
I would echo Nathan’s comment. Genre triggers reading strategy. If you misunderstand the genre then you are going to misunderstand the text.
To cut to the chase: No, I don’t think they lived that long. Make sure you catch this though: That does not mean I do not believe the Bible to be true or that I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God; it simply means that I recognize a different genre for Genesis 5 than you might recognize. The words are still inspired, still true, still the word of God.
20 August 2008 at 11.22 am
Just to bounce back and forth between Nathan M and Kevin here, I would broadly agree with what Nathan M said. It seems to me that if you read the Book of Genesis (or even just Genesis 1-11) as a coherent unit, as opposed to picking out five verses here and ten verses there, its not hard to see the ages as being perhaps a literary device intended to indicate that this was a long time ago, and/or there may be some symbolism in the numbers. I dont think that we (Christians) have always been great at reading Genesis this way.
It could also obviously be read, obviously, as actual ages. I don’t think its fair to set up a sort of situation where we have to choose between pure “myth” and pure “history”. I think that may be where some of the criticisms of Peter Enns are coming from. (I’m not saying that he is asserting that, just that some people are interpreting him that way)
My question to Art (and everyone else) would be ‘Do you believe these names represent actual people at all?’
20 August 2008 at 11.34 am
Art:
I appreciate your comments, but honestly, I feel a little silly being asked to give an argument that a geneaology is meant to give…well, an account of generations. That, it seems to me, is the purpose of a geneaology, and, just to lay my cards out on the table, I cant see much that would change my perception of that. If I am going to call something “inspired scripture”, then I have a minimum expectation of it. Part of that expectation is that if I read a section of text which is asserting that a list of people lived & died, that this has some basis in reality. I can live with reading the text in its context, and not expecting it to conform to my idea of “precision”, but to say that it is false and yet “inspired and true”…I just can’t take that seriously. I’m not Walter Bruggemann, what can I say?
20 August 2008 at 11.40 am
Justin:
Job— “false” in one sense, yet “inspired and true” (including a short genealogy of his daughters in 42.14)
Ecclesiastes— “false” in one sense (the author presents himself as Solomon, yet he clearly is not), yet “inspired and true”
Parables of Jesus— “false” in one sense, yet “inspired and true”
So, there are other places where you could say that something is false, yet inspired and true because you recognize the genre to be a clue in that direction. The difference, it seems, lies in our different genre recognition of Genesis 5 and not in the fact that you cannot see how to reconcile saying something is false, yet inspired and true.
20 August 2008 at 11.51 am
Art:
Of course there is a difference between a parable and a geneaology…noone disagrees with that. What genre are these geneaologies, if they aren’t geneaologies? You have said before that you believe in a “literal” Adam & Eve…on what basis? Because it is required in Paulone theology? Seriously, how are you deciding what is historical in Genesis 1-11 and what isn’t? Do you believe any of it to have any grounding in reality? I am not asking this to be argumentative, I honestly don’t understand the principle by which you are asserting that Genesis 5 (and 10?) is not meant to be taken to be referring to historical people. By all appearance from within the text, it seems to be asserting that.
20 August 2008 at 12.13 pm
Art (Re: two comments ago),
Is it appropriate to call Ecclesiastes “false” for claiming to have been written by Solomon? If the genre itself allows impersonation (I’m not saying that it does…just speaking hypothetically), then that would not be “false,” would it? It would be playing according to the rules of that genre. May I ask this?
Do you think that the scriptures ever err…even when the genre is accounted for? Granting that it is not always precise or that it can use poetry, narratives, and stories to do more than communicate simple events (etc), that sometimes it speaks phenomenologically (geocentrism)………does it nevertheless make claims of any sort which do not correspond to the realities of history?
Allow me one more way of clarifying my question. Would you find it problematic if the Tower of Babel never occured? Assuming that the author believes that this is an event of history…would your opinion of scripture change if it was “proven” (not saying that it can be) that it never took place?
Thanks for your effort to answer folks inquiries.
Joseph
20 August 2008 at 12.30 pm
Justin,
If I may, it seems you are functioning with a somewhat anachronistic notion of “genealogy” in the ancient world. The standard treatment remains Robert Wilson’s “Genealogy and History in the Biblical World.” Among many things, Wilson discusses how genealogies were not created for purely historiograhic purposes so much as legitimating-purposes. Genealogies were quite fluid, tradents often felt free to modify them, change/move names around–especially moving people deemed extra-important or to whom they wanted to draw attention in the 7th position (Enoch in P’s genealogy in Gen 5). Indeed, to remain functional genealogies must change in order to stay in line with whatever it/they are being used to legitimate.
Wilson notes that as genealogical traditions were passed on (again, with much fluidity) later they might be regarded by others as “historical” (in the way you mean it), but that originally they are not intended to be “historical” in the way you appear to mean it. Wilson also goes into oral versus written genealogies and transmission and what changes in functionality obtain when an oral version becomes written, etc. This of course gets us into further issues of what “history” and “myth” and ideology were in various sectors of the ancient Near East—they overlapped more than us moderns realize (and still do!), and not because ANE peoples were stupid primitive peoples who could not make distinctions.
Just for fun, Genesis 4-5 itself should be enough to show us that the final author-editor did not necessarily view his genealogies in purely “historical” ways, even if it was expected that the audience’s views of reality be shaped by the final forms of them in Genesis. It is fairly widely recognized that the P genealogy of Genesis 5 is a reworked version of the J genealogy of Genesis 4. P or the author/editor of the form of Genesis 1-11 we have apparently was not bothered by this and, in fact, quite knowingly modified an earlier genealogy into the form we have it in Genesis 5 for his purposes. Art has mentioned one of them, Enoch in the 7th position…
20 August 2008 at 12.32 pm
Nathan, you said: “Answering the question is not simply a matter of whether I believe the Bible to be true or not; it is a matter of genre identification.”
I disagree, respectfully, because the answer to that rather straightforward question says a good deal about the framework through which one is approacing the Scriptures: disbelief or belief. That has a profound impact on what you do with extra-biblical literature.
With regards to literary genre, I would ask this: to what literary genre do you think Genesis belongs and for what reason?
Grammatically, contextually (using the word properly), the text shows every mark of being historical prose. The fact that ANE literature has similar stories in their mythologies does not mean that they are the basis for Genesis or that they are of the same genre.
I said this on the other thread and I repeat it here: this discussion is all about starting points and presumptions. If I start with the presumption that the Bible is what it says, I will view contradictory/competing evidence in one way. If I start with the assumption that pagan ANE literature shaped the way all ANE literature was written, I will come up with some very different conclusions.
The elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring here is that of revelation. Either God has told us about our past, present, and future using, to be sure, language of accomodation, or he has not. You can’t have it both ways.
20 August 2008 at 12.41 pm
justin: You are not coming across argumentatively, so no worries there.
That is the the basic question in the title of this post. Of course they are presented as genealogies when read plainly from our modern day viewpoint. But the question centers around how the ancient readers would have understood such a genealogy: would they have read it as an attempt at history or as mimetic fiction?
Here is where ancient Near Eastern literature is key: are there any texts that can help us answer that question? The SKL seems to be a text that can point us in the right direction by way of helping us modern readers understand the types of genres that were extant in the ancient world.
That is a complex question that would take a point by point analysis, but the short answer is the text itself.
The “principle” is historical analysis. If reading a text within its context leads to understanding the text in a different way, then that is where one should go. This is not altogether different from the principles of grammatical-historical exegesis.
Joseph: Thanks for your comments and questions.
Absolutely, which is the point I was attempting to make by using Ecclesiastes as an example. If the genre allows for impersonation, which I believe that it does, then this “impersonation,” while in other contexts and from other persespectives may be viewed as false, is actually not false because it falls directly into the appropriate rules for that particular genre of literature.
Great question. I think it depends on your definition of “err:” do you mean “err” in terms of modern science (i.e. modern mathematics or modern geology)? If so, then the Bible certainly falls short (i.e. there is no solid dome over the earth, measurements of a circle in Jeremiah do not add up to pi, etc.).
But if you take “err” to mean, as I do, that the purpose of God’s revelation is never incorrect, then I do not think that Scripture errs.
Interesting question. I honestly do not think that my opinion of Scripture would change in the same way that my opinion of Scripture did not change when I came to believe that Job was not historical or when I realized that the Biblical authors believed there to be a solid dome covering the earth, pillars of the earth holding it up, and believed that the earth is flat. I think these have more to do with the process of revelation (i.e. accommodation) then anything else.
20 August 2008 at 12.42 pm
Art, then respectfully I ask again, to what genre does Genesis belong and why? On what internal evidence do you base that? And quasi-Barthian distinctions aside, where does one draw the line?
Was there no Garden? No Adam and Eve? No serpent? No Fall? No Flood? No Abraham? No Moses? No Jesus? (Christologically speaking.)
There is way too much at stake here to give up the ground to, frankly, 19th century liberalism or 20th century neo-orthodoxy without a fight. Evidently these two are experiencing some sort of renaissance. It matters not how charismatic the professor who is pumping these things, they are still dangerous. Don’t you see that?
I thought the Church had gone Van Helsing on this sort of stuff a hundred years ago, but I guess I was wrong.
20 August 2008 at 12.53 pm
Kevin:
What part of Genesis are you asking about?
Do you honestly think I don’t believe there was a Jesus because I view a genealogy in Genesis as having a different function than merely attempting to record history? That should be the dictionary definition of non sequitur.
I have not uttered a word concerning either of them. I am dealing with the text in its historical context, not with historical theology.
I honestly fail to see how reading God’s word in its God ordained context is somehow dangerous.
Interesting. Jacobsen developed the genealogy of all the different variants and reconstructed the most likely original text of the SKL in 1939. How would one deal with this sort of stuff if the text of the SKL was completely unknown to them?
20 August 2008 at 1.19 pm
FTH:
You’ve stated alot, and I won’t pretend to be able to respond to all of it. Point #1 would be that I don’t buy into the idea of the Documentary hypotheses, or even the methodology it entails, that we can know the sources (P, etc.). That probably cuts off any meaningful discussion about the issue as we are starting from drastically different starting points, so its probably better to just leave it there. I would concur that geneaologies are not presented to give a simple straightforward history. There may be polemics involved (although, to be fair, I don’t think that point has been adequately argued), and obviously there is a theological message being given which transcends a straightforward history. I think most would agree on that.
Where it seems we differ is that I don’t think the points the geneaology is making are valid unless the substance of them is historical. If these aren’t real people, then (in my opinion), we are dealing with empty rhetoric.
You probably disagree with that, and thats okay.
20 August 2008 at 1.20 pm
Thanks Art! Perhaps you will allow a follow-up.
It seems to me that the intentions of authors (within genre boundaries) are important to factor in here. For instance, I don’t deny that folks in the O.T. probably believed that the earth was flat and described it as such under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. However, the function of those inspired utterances (i.e. intention) was never to address the flat earth/round earth cosmology. There is a reason that God didn’t inspire a treatise on the scientific reasons that the earth is flat instead of round.
But what about cases in which the authors DO intend to communicate certain information. I recognize that we need to be careful in our confidence that such is the case, but let us take Babel and the flood for instance.
And let me pose this question hypothetically. IF it could be determined that the author (s) of Genesis 1-11 “really intended” to communicate something about events which they thought “actually occured” (Babel/flood), would we be required by our doctrine of inspiration to agree that such events did occur? The thesis might go something like, “If the intention of the biblical authors (in case x) is to theologically detail an event, and if the genre of such a narration does not indicate that the author thought of that event as anything but ‘real’…are we required (WITH the biblical authors) to believe that such an event is ‘real’…and what’s more…’accurate’ within genre boundaries?”
Thanks again!
Joseph
20 August 2008 at 1.29 pm
Art:
I guess the difference between you and I would be that I don’t see any justification within the text to take this as non-historical. It seems as if you do. I don’t think it would do either of us any good to argue whether or not Genesis 1-11 is making historical claims, as I don’t see myself changing my position that it is doing just that, and you seem to believe that it isn’t (or at least not in the same way that I believe it is).
20 August 2008 at 2.26 pm
Art,
Again, our presumptions clash.
You presume,Genesis had multiple authors and redactors. I do not. Your view implicitly destroys the unity of the text. Mine does not. You can therfore posit multiple genres based one whatever your presuppositions require you to. I cannot.
Leaving aside the issue of authorship, sources, and unity, Genesis is PROSE. It is historical narrative. Waw consecutive + imperfect = historical narrative. That is a matter of Hebrew grammatical fact. A first year Hebrew student could tell you that.
You and Nathan keep arguing about interpreting the Bible in its context, but you consistently misuse the word. The context with which the grammatical-historical hermeneutics are concerned is the context of the verses immediately surrounding the text, within the same book, within the same biblical genre, and within the Bible as a whole. What you gues are calling “context” is the historical setting into which the authors wrote. While that can be an aid to understanding the Scriptures it does not determine what the Scriptures mean. Context does that. Biblical context.
Your system requires you to keep parsing words, as your meaning of the word “err” above shows. “Is” means “is” with or without a blue dress.
My question about Jesus was a reductio ad absurdum. I’m suprised you missed that. But your reaction did make a point: you DO have to draw the line somewhere. Unless, of course, you want to posit (in the case of Jesus) that the gospels are products of the ecclesiasitcal community, not history by modern standards. The Jesus of history is not the Christ of the Church. Hmmmm…I wonder where I have read that before?
You may not have uttered a word about liberalism or neo-orthodoxy, yet your posts here and the Welhausen threads parrot both positions.
Your final question about how the Hebrews could have written about the SKL (presumably as polemic) rests on the enormous and unproven assumption that Moses (or JEPD and redactor R2D2,or whoever) had read the work and based Genesis on it. Evidence, please?
So, granting you the point that there is zero evidence of authorial authorship or unity in the book of Genesis, granted that we are free to deconstruct it using any method we choose, granted the ANE literature trumps all norms of grammatical-historical hermeneutics, let’s focus on Genesis 5. What genre is that?
Hmmm…there’s that pesky waw consecutive with the imperfect 30+ times…
20 August 2008 at 2.37 pm
Art,
Thanks for your response. I at least see the reasoning behind your statement although I disagree. After all, there are many who would argue that Hebrew numbering is not a decimal system or at least not as straightforward as we would like. If you’re referrring to Walton’s 1981 article where he postulates the confusion between the numerical systems, his math is fuzzy, the theory assumes a copy of SKL in hand, and as Wenham notes: “explains only the totals, not the individual ages of the patriarchs or the age at which they fathered their first-born” (133). I don’t have Walton’s recent NIVAC commentary to hand to see how he responds to the critique.
As for En-men-dur-ana, I suppose you’re referring to VAT 17051. I see the connection (although there is more correlation with the Enoch of the Second Commonwealth than the Enoch of Genesis) that you’re trying to make. But if you’re arguing for a true parallel and subsequent spoofing (which you have to be if you’re going to use Walton’s argument of numerical confusion), then why would the originator of Gen 5 stop with only this parallel? Why not have a Hebrew forefather like Dumuzi who is imprisoned in the Netherworld, but whose fame raises him to divinity? I suppose my main argument would be that I believe you’re stretching to see enough correlation between these two texts to argue that one does indeed play off the other. I would simply leave it as belonging to the same cultural millieu rather than intentional polemic.
20 August 2008 at 2.41 pm
Kevin,
Even a single author can utilize multiple genres.
The use of the wayyiqtol form is typical narrative prose, but it is not confined to such. Furthermore, “prose” is simply in contrast to “poetry.” The genre in question is a subset of prose. I feel like someone wrote an article on a discourse perspective of the use of the wayyiqtol in geneological sequences, but the bibliographic info escapes me.
20 August 2008 at 2.48 pm
And the genre in question is?
20 August 2008 at 4.01 pm
About the waw-consecutives and “historical prose,” are there ways we beg the question here when we assume that notions of “history” for ancient Israelite authors coincide with our notions of “history”? It appears this needs to be addressed, especially by us Evangelicals…
20 August 2008 at 4.05 pm
Kevin,
Your argument that “Waw consecutive + imperfect = historical narrative” is demonstrably false. See Judges 9:8-15 for a string of waw consecutives + imperfect in an obviously non historical narrative.
You may now remove that argument from your repertoire.
20 August 2008 at 4.11 pm
Good point Nathan…and, thanks for saving me some time. I was about to point out several other such instances…
20 August 2008 at 4.26 pm
Nathan, I will concede that I overstated my argument. I should have said it is a mark of prose. Touche. Thanks for pointing my blunder out.
See? I can be humble AND obnoxious.
20 August 2008 at 4.29 pm
ANE genealogy?
Theological history?
20 August 2008 at 4.45 pm
Justin (and Kevin as well),
First off, I do not see why “meaningful dialogue” has to be cut off because we disagree on something about the composition history of Genesis. True, there are times that differing assumptions inhibit constructive dialogue. I think, however, that we as evangelicals are far too quick to run here—differing assumptions arguments—when it comes to discussions about the bible. More often that point functions to allow us to keep making the point we want to make without having to engage things that make us uncomfortable. After all, x,y, or z, person who says “this” with which we disagree has differing assumptions—–so you really do not need to try to have a discussion with them. The implicit point from someone making the differing assumptions point usually seems to be, “since dialogue is impossible here, there is no point paying attention to them, just listen to me…”
On the specific issue here, I feel as though you have run far too fast to the differing assumptions argument, and in the process lumped me in with a whole slew of groups in your mind, into which I may not even fit. For example, I do not know what you mean by the Documentary Hypothesis. Do you mean the caricature of it that most evangelicals attack, as though everyone who thinks we can discuss P, H, D, J?, etc., holds to the same views for the same reasons as Wellhausen? Do you think my “methodology” is one of destroying the unity of the text and ignoring its final form like source-critics did a generation or two ago (or, at least, as evangelicals seem to think they did—sometimes correctly, but still with somewhat of a caricature)?
How does studying the composition history of something and noting that a writing has a composition history (i.e., sources, transmission history, redactors, updating, re-contextualizing, etc.) “destroy the unity of the text”? We can and do still talk about the final form of the text. At the same time, we note places where the final form has anomalies or whatever that help us glimpse the process behind it coming together. Have you never re-worked a paper you have written, perhaps changing a substantial point (or changing the governing tenses, changing 1st person singular to 1st person plural or 3rd person singular, etc.) and later on realized you missed little details in your re-working that are left-overs of the previous version or draft? Does this destroy the unity of the final version of your paper? Just as we miss things when we edit or re-write (or write from our notes), so too did the final authors/editors/redactors/etc. of the writings of our Hebrew Bible. Beyond this, sometimes they (and we) did not “miss” things but it remains obvious what happened in the composition process.
To say that this study “destroys the unity of the text” and/or that our starting points are so different so as to preclude conversation is, in my opinion, obscurantist and remarkably unhelpful. Unfortunately, these are common and ingrained shelters in our world of American Evangelical ‘interaction’ with scholarship and the bible.
Back to the examples here, I do not see how we are in such different places so as to be unable to have a conversation. If I may, this is how conversation, interaction, discussion, arguments, etc., work. We usually disagree not only in details, but in perspective, interest, assumptions, and other such things. In my marriage I do not—–if I am wise!, which is rare : )—tell my wife that it is pointless to have a discussion about how often I can hang out with the guys because we are just starting from different assumptions about the significance of hanging out with the guys—and then go do my thing as though she should be satisfied with my non-interaction.
In the case of our discussion, even if you disagree with my approaches to the composition history issues between Genesis 4 and 5, we can sit down and discuss the remarkable overlap in names and some of the specific instances of different orders. We can, and I tried, discuss the nature of genealogy and history in the biblical world and if it is accurate that for ancient people the meaning and force is lost if the genealogy is not historically accurate.
Just some thoughts. What do you think? Have I misunderstood you? Have I misunderstood how you appealed to our differing assumptions? Even if I misunderstood in this particular case, can you understand my broader concerns about our typical Evangelical ‘arguments’ along those lines? I hope this is helpful.
20 August 2008 at 5.08 pm
Foolish…er…I don’t know what else to call you…FTH? :p
Anyway, this conversation is, I fear, a boilover of the same conversation Art, Nathan, and I were having on the Wellhausen thread. That is why it appears Nathan (who is a very good debater), Art, and I appear to have moved so quickly to opposite poles.
Art and I have had numerous civil exchanges by email. I think a great deal of his considerable intellectual prowess, even if I disagree where it leads him at times.
As far as Evangelicalism sits, Carl Trueman knocked it out of the ballpark in observing that the term “evangelical” has become so broad as to mean very little anymore.
The thing that vexes this lone RTS grad is how very little discussion there is of revelation on these subjects. Stubborn guys like myself are deeply suspicious of assaults on the authority of the Bible that often originate from academia. Sadly, that may set the tone for the discussion too quickly on our part.
I agree with you that Wellhausen has been caricatured so we can leave that one aside.
My question is simply, are there not other more orthodox explanations for similarities between the Bible and ANE literature? How about a common history? Unless we do not believe the Bible is communicating history, all nations share a common history. It would only be expected that other ANE would preserve some memory, however perverted, of creation, the flood, etc.
But then, I am assuming divine, inspired, inerrant, infallible revelation at this point. The arguments put forward so far by many on this thread have been for a sort of synchretism: the Bible is just a sanctifying of ANE myth. I cannot accept that. I will not accept that.
Which is probably why I am in the pulpit and not the lecturn.
20 August 2008 at 7.30 pm
FTH:
I appreciate your reply. It seems that the bulk of your reply was to Kevin, as I never asserted that the idea of sources destroyed the unity of the text, etc. etc.
I am just going to be honest, and I mean no disrespect, so please don’t take it that way:
I appreciate that we are not dealing with modern history here, and that that the text has a context that is obviously very different from our own. I am often at pains to express just that to people who sit to the right of me, as far as scripture is concerned. I applaud the effort to bring the text back to its original context/meaning. But…Once a conversation gets to a place where it is so nuanced that the parties involved cannot even agree as to what constitutes a “fact”, and so on, I just don’t see it going anywhere that I am interested in. I appreciate your reply, nonetheless.
20 August 2008 at 8.13 pm
Justin,
Actually, I had your comments in mind for most of the first two paragraphs, and in much of the last two.
20 August 2008 at 8.29 pm
Kevin,
I actually think Art is an idiot and Nathan, well, let’s just say he can’t even predicate… : )
Part of the reason we do not explicitly discuss Revelation (using the word) is because we already assume and know Genesis, for example, is Revelation from God—fully inspired, etc. I am confident speaking for Art and Nathan in this.
In fact, we devote time to discussions and posts such as these because we want to understand these texts because we understand them to be God’s Revelation. Thus, again, we do everything we can to understand them and what it means that they are Revelation.
To me, at least, pointing out that Genesis is Revelation does not settle anything in this discussion. If you think the text being Revelation somehow settles issues of ancient meaning, genre, if biblical authors could understand reality in terms of the same broad mythic-cosmic structures and dynamics as other ANE peoples, etc., you have to argue that. Interestingly, you (shouold?) do this by looking at the texts themselves.
My/our concern to study these texts in as rigorous an academic-historical way as possible stems from my desire to know what this Revelation says. If we want to understand what it means that it is Revelation, we have to look at the texts and what God in fact did in Revealing them—not decide ahead of time that something being God’s Revelation means “it could not possibly be X.” Again, how do you know unless you look at what God actually did? Isn’t this what sola-Scriptura means?
20 August 2008 at 8.55 pm
Is it just me or does anyone else have a really hard time explaining to people that there just might be more labels for people other than “liberal” or “conservative.” When I say things like, “All I am interested in seeing how the Bible itself wants us to read it,” I get “Oh, so you’re a liberal.” Do we just not do a good job of explaining our methodology up front? I don’t mean this inimically to anyone, I am genuinely questioning how we approach these questions since I hardly ever get people to understand what I mean when I say things like “genre triggers reading strategy” and show what that means in the text.
20 August 2008 at 8.55 pm
Kevin (continued)…
To get a bit more specific, you think we are discussing biblical authors in terms of “synchretism [i],” in terms of “the Bible is just a sanctifying of ANE myth.” Along the same lines, is it syncretism and the Bible sanctifying (pagan!) language when God uses various shades of a NorthWest Semitic language in order to communicate with his people? What about God communicating in various types of Hellenistic Greek (aka, Koine Greek)?
This might seem unrelated, but I do not think it is. I think our point is that just as the inspired biblical authors wrote in the languages of the context in which God’s people lived, so too they communicated in terms of views of reality, conventions of communication, etc., of the same context(s) of God’s people—delivering saving and challenging Revelation about himself.
Quickly, just in case I am misunderstood, this has nothing to do with the bible not being able to say something different. The writers of the Bible certainly do say things different from other ANE peoples. Rather, the point is when God Reveals to his people he Reveals to them, i.e., in ways they understand.
How are inspiration and the category of Revelation inherently opposed to such ways of understanding the bible? From where do you get your notions of what it means that the Bible is inspired? If from the Bible, then what do you do when the Bible behaves in ways that cut across your notions of what inspiration and Revelation must mean? If you claim the Bible does not do these things and your arguments/readings depend upon claiming the bible by definition cannot do such things and that anyone thinking it can has faulty presuppositions—have you heard of a circular argument : ) …? Oh, and if you go Van Tilian here and claim circular reasoning is valid, does it not make you somewhat uncomfortable that you have functionally and theoretically insulated your doctrine of Scripture from the Bible itself—-with it explicitly depending upon reasoning completely extrinsic to the Bible itself? Did I ask enough questions here…?
20 August 2008 at 11.49 pm
FTH, yes you asked plenty of questions there. You also accurately pegged me as sympathetic to Van Til We can live with a little circular reasoning as you pointed.
You spoke earlier of language of accomodation, though you did not use the phrase. I can accept that. God communicates in ways that he can understand. Since we are removed from the ANE by geography and time, we need to understand the context into which God spoke. I think I can safely assume that we are on the same page at this point.
Where I diverge (perhaps overzealously) from much of what has been written on this thread is the relative impact we must assign to ANE literature in determining our biblical hermeneutic. Some work in this area has been very helpful. For instance, Meredith Kline’s works on suzerain treaties has helped us understand some of the structure of Exodus.
But cosmology is a horse of a different color. Because as I read this and the other thread what I see is people saying, “Pagan ANE literature, therefore the Bible is not historically accurate.”
In the current discussion it is: SKL, therefore the genealogies of Gen. do not deal with real people/real lifespans. That troubles me deeply.
Too much important theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology hinge upon Gen. 1-11.
Anhow I don’t believe Art is an idiot. We just disagree alot.
21 August 2008 at 9.20 am
Kevin,
I know I wrote a lot and you need not respond to all of it. I do hope, however, that you have at least taken most of it in, especially my comments about your charge that discussions of all this as “Revelation” are too absent.
Even if you disagree with us and think what we are doing is wrong, it would be helpful if you cease claiming that we are not approaching the texts Revelation, that we are assaulting the authority of the Bible from the academy, or that we are approaching the text from the standpoint of unbelief.
As I have explained, from our point of view we are approaching Genesis, for example, as Revelation. We are simply refusing the beg the question at the outset as to what it means that it is Revelation. Rather, we want to see what God actually did in Revealing. We certainly do zoom in on places where it seems God behaved in ways cutting across common Evangelical notions of what it means that Genesis, for example, is Revelation—-we do this because we think it is helpful to confront our notions about God and Scripture with, well, Scripture and how God behaved in giving Scripture.
Will you take this to heart? Can you stop framing your comments to Art, Nathan, others, in terms of them not discussing it enough in terms of Revelation, belief vs. disbelief, inspiration, etc.? I ask this because I find such comments do not help advance the discussion, at least in this case. What would be more helpful is to discuss what it means to you/us that Genesis is Revelation, how we think that impacts our approach to the text, and why we think that way—-being willing to discuss the “why” and being open to Scripture challenging it, for all of us. Again, is this not what it means to submit to Scripture as God’s Revelation?
21 August 2008 at 9.55 am
Kevin,
In your last post you discussed briefly how ANE background can be helpful in understanding an OT text. It might be helpful if you could expand on that. Why was Kline’s recognition of elements of the suzerain treaty form acceptable, and why is recognition of elements of ANE cosmology unacceptable?
You said the following:
But cosmology is a horse of a different color. Because as I read this and the other thread what I see is people saying, “Pagan ANE literature, therefore the Bible is not historically accurate.”
It appears from this comment that Kline’s identification of a the treaty genre was acceptable because it does not affect the historicity of the OT text, whereas the identification of cosmological elements does. Thus, maintaining historicity appears to be your criterion of acceptability for the use of ANE backgrounds.
There are at least two major problems with this.
1. It is selective use of evidence. When the ANE background confirms what you already know, namely that the text is historical, then it is acceptable. When the ANE background challenges what you know, it is rejected. This leads to the next problem.
2. Why assume that all OT narratives are historical (at least “straightforwardly”) to begin with? Grammar, as we have seen, does not answer the question. Just as Kline saw evidence for the treaty genre in parts of the pentateuch, what if the OT contains other ANE genres, and what if those genres are non-historical or quasi-historical? Should we exclude the possibility that God used those genres as a vehicle for revelation? I don’t think so. If we know he used parable, apocalyptic, and erotic poetry, I don’t see a reason to exclude the possibility that he also might have used myth and a form of genealogy with exaggerated ages.
21 August 2008 at 10.22 am
I bowed out of this discussion (and will probably stay out), but I am still enjoying reading it, so I hope you everyone doesn’t mind if I ask a question for clarification.:)
Perhaps I am just missing it, but is the assertion/suggestion being made here that the geneaologies may conform to an ANE custom of ascribing exaggerated ages, highlighting certain characters, etc. (as Nathan, above), or is it that are not “historical” in any sense at all (as I thought FTH was going)? I honestly do try to consider the things I read on here (as do others, I’m sure), and some clarification of this point might go a long way toward understanding where everyone is coming from.
21 August 2008 at 10.33 am
I don’t agree with that characterization, Nathan. Kline found patterns of well attested documents that he also noticed in the Bible. What do we have with SKL/Enum Elish? Two documents that we are assuming that were well known and also assuming that were sources for the Torah. That’s a lot of assuming.
For me, what is really critical are the implications for theology of such suggestions, to wit:
1. If there were no literal 6-day creation, then why does God command us to observe a 6/1 work/rest cycle in commemoration of God’s creating work?
2. If there were no literal Adam and Eve, then how do we account for NT teachings on marriage, divorce, and women’s roles in the church?
3. If there were no literal Adam, Noah, Abraham, then what becomes of the covenants that God has made?
4. If Moses did not write the Torah, then why would Jesus say that he did, opening himself up to the charge of lying (though I know how you will answer this one)?
My concerns here are pastoral. When you start positing the Bible as “true-myth” to use a Barthian phrase, you are on dangerous ground. In the history of the church nothing good has ever come from doubting the historicity of the Scriptures, no matter how well intentioned those doubts are. Such musings have wrecked seminaries, churches, and souls.
Ideas have consequences.
Sorry, FTH, I know that is more of the sort of rant that you did not want to see here, but my concerns for the sheep remain. More pragmatically, I can assure you that a seminarian, coming out of school with an MDiv and spouting such views, would never make it out of presbytery and into a pulpit in the PCA. But perhaps that is not a concern.
21 August 2008 at 11.25 am
Kevin,
I do not really acknowledge your concern “for the sheep.” I realize you may think you are doing that and doing it the best way you know how, but I do not think you are ultimately doing the most edifying thing here.
You see, in my experience the stuff we are discussing only hurts “the sheep” when they hear it from people who, like them, think it should be hurtful to their faith. People who lost their faith over, supposedly, this messiness of the bible. Interestingly, “the sheep” only think it is hurtful to their faith because people like you tell them it should be and reinforce evangelical theological-culture notions that this messiness is hurtful.
Furthermore, they see in people like you a model for non-engagement with, well, the Bible. They see in you a model for non-interaction even with other believers (like us) who want to engage you in a conversation—-especially as you evade questions and points, tell us “what is really going on,” etc. They see in people like you a drive to keep people like us (again, people who address these things from the standpoint of serving Christ and faith) outside your church—away from “the sheep.” Bravo, you have ‘protected’ the sheep from other people with the Spirit, from the Bible’s further challenges to you and them, and from anything that makes you uncomfortable. Unfortunately, God is in the business of bringing us true comfort in His Son through, often, making us uncomfortable…
So, your positions are fine in an insular world where you and others like you determine things. Actually, they are still not fine because you are consciously making certain things off-limits for God and His Word to do. I find this incredibly dangerous. It does not quite seem right for us to tell God how he was allowed to behave when giving us His Word and how His Word must be…and that if it is not thus it is dangerous for the sheep. I guess we know more about shepherding God’s sheep than he does.
Moving on, in my experience introducing “the sheep” to things such as what we are discussing here and other such messy things about the bible and Christ actually makes them more excited about Jesus, the bible, and enacting it in their lives. I keep hearing you and others like you talk about how this is harmful for the sheep. But I have yet to meet such sheep, for whom this has been harmful when it comes from someone seeking to explore the Bible and what God did with a view to how it is exactly what God wanted to do and ultimately points us to Christ. On the other hand, I know far too many sheep and former sheep for whom this stuff was harmful because they heard it from someone who presented it as though it should be harmful. Ironically, in this way you are the same as someone like Bart Ehrman. Both you and he agree that if the bible does certain messy things it cannot be from God and must be harmful to faith. Are these not pastoral concerns?
21 August 2008 at 1.12 pm
I think that Kevin has a point in that the views expressed in this blog would prevent a man from being ordained in either of Harvey Conn’s denominations: PCA and OPC.
21 August 2008 at 1.36 pm
Kevin:
I understand this and both your and Mr. Stephens’ concerns.
However I cannot at this point, in good conscience, look at the evidence in such a way that causes me to be comfortable with the explanations given by Kevin or Justin. If I stood in front of my presbytery and told them what they wanted to hear, while still having significant questions about the explanatory value of their viewpoints, I would neither be honest nor be able to live with myself.
This saddens me because I completely believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, revelation from God to humanity. But apparently this is not enough. One seems to have to also believe that the Bible conforms to Enlightenment ideals of historiography and a correspondence theory of truth.
21 August 2008 at 1.55 pm
Art
I am surprised that you have so completely bought into this thoroughly postmodern notion of ‘ Enlightenment ideals of historiography and a correspondence theory of truth’. Tell, could you be accused of having the same charge leveled at you when it comes to the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ?
21 August 2008 at 1.59 pm
Dr. Johnson: Ancient Near Eastern texts are altogether different from the Gospels, which I am assuming you realize.
So: no.
21 August 2008 at 2.08 pm
Art,
Sorry for the above posting. I had multiple sessions going and thought I was in another blog and thread.
21 August 2008 at 2.18 pm
Art
Really? So the NT authors escaped their culturally bound context and gave us historiography that bears a striking resemblance to what would look very much like what you describe as ‘Enlightenment ideals….’ ? Of course, this ends up looking like a shell game to those of us who think the Apostles didn’t share your views of the OT.
21 August 2008 at 2.23 pm
FTH, since I do not know you, I will refrain from making the sweeping generalizations about you that you made about me in your last post.
You can hurl ad hominems like non-engaging, insular, and unacademic/unintellectual (by implication) all you want. I will not respond in kind.
The only thing I will say is you are advocating a low view of the Scriptures, whether or not that is your intent. That is a path fraught with great peril for you and those who hear you. The history of the church bears that out. Low bibliology always leads to the corruption of key doctrines. I’m not saying you are there or ever will be, but the danger lurks.
FWIW, I do not spend time ripping on people with a low bibliology from the pulpit. I DO, however, spend a great deal of time teaching and inculcating a high view of Scripture: that it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible revelation of a holy and unchanging God. My aim is to equip them to recognize error when they hear it. Or read it.
At any event, again since I do not know you, I do not know what religious tradition you stand in. I do know that in any conservative, Confessional denomination, such as my own, the views you have been advocating would evoke a harsh, disciplinary response.
I guess we will have to let God be the judge between us. A good debate, sir.
21 August 2008 at 2.25 pm
Dr. Johnson:
This is a non sequitur. Your argument is moot.
21 August 2008 at 2.31 pm
Art
Another ‘Really?’ for you -please explain why that is so. Simply making a charge like that isn’t the same as demonstrating it. I major in philosophy and was on my college debate team so don’t try anything funny ,you wascally wabbit! And while you are at it, please explain how Jesus and the Apostles would have known about the influence of the ANE on the OT as well as such things as multiple authors of Genesis, etc.
21 August 2008 at 2.42 pm
Dr. Johnson: For me to say that ANE texts and the Gospels are altogether different is simply a statement of fact. They are written in different genres, in different languages, in different cultures, for different purposes, etc. Your assertion that my saying this must mean that “the NT authors escaped their culturally bound context and gave us historiography that bears a striking resemblance to what would look very much like what you describe as ‘Enlightenment ideals….’” simply does not follow…hence non sequitur.
Jesus as well as the apostles were Jews. They grew up reading Jewish literature, listening to Jewish fables, learning Jewish legends, practicing Jewish law, etc. We see many traces of this in the NT (Paul and the Jewish legend of the moving rock, Paul and the names of the magicians who opposed Moses who are named in Jewish legend, John stating that Cain was born of the devil, which is also Jewish legend; Luke taking for granted that his readers knew the length of “a sabbath’s day journey,” which was defined in Jewish Halakah.). So it would not surprise me in the least that they knew about the ANE influence on the OT as the biblical evidence points in that direction.
That is, unless it can be proven that a bunch of Jewish people in first century Palestine were able to escape the influence from their culture and, by some miracle, came to embrace a 21st century worldview…oops, I meant a 1646 worldview. But that seems unlikely.
21 August 2008 at 2.44 pm
GLW,
I think you are aware that we do not think Jesus and the Apostles engaged in grammatical-historical readings of the OT. So, what is the real point of your question, “please explain how Jesus and the Apostles would have known about the influence of the ANE on the OT as well as such things as multiple authors of Genesis, etc.”?
21 August 2008 at 2.50 pm
huh, that you guys are a bunch of flaming liberals?
21 August 2008 at 2.59 pm
Dr. Johnson:
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.”
I quote that verse because I think we all need a reminder how Christ has called us to relate to one another. I need that reminder often and am prone to fly off the handle and resort to ad hominem tactics and inappropriate rhetoric.
I pray that we can be cordial, respectful, and seek the ideal of “ironing sharpening iron.”
21 August 2008 at 3.35 pm
I did not make the comment to stop the conversation, just as a call to tone some of the rhetoric down a notch.
If we can continue: Dr. Johnson, do you now see why I called your comment a non sequitur?
21 August 2008 at 3.46 pm
Art, I greatly appreciate your blog and alot of the things you have said. However, I must say that I am a little concerned with the direction you take certain things. It seems that you sometimes are a little too quick to push the envelope and might be approaching areas that shouldn’t be approached. I don’t see how pointing out that genealogies within Genesis 5 and other ANE literatures are similar can help us know, love, or see God in a greater way. Maybe I am missing how this does so but, if I am, then would you please show me. But if you can’t, then what does this serve other than to subject scripture to an academic exercise. Also, know that this stuff DOES damage people’s view of scripture. There is no way around that. Not everyone has thought through the intricacies or the depths of these issues in the way that you have. They don’t see the connection with what you are doing and how you are trying to use this to develop your theology. Again, I appreciate alot of the things you say and I feel that you often have helpful things to add, but I just don’t know if you are being very pastoral in your approach to some of these issues. Anyway, I hope you don’t take this in a negative way but can find something helpful from what I’ve said.
21 August 2008 at 4.00 pm
Elliott,
I would disagree and say that if we do not “push the envelope” in seeking to understand Scripture completely and without compromise then we will always be lacking in our full view of who God is. You would suggest that studying these cultures and genres is contrary to the gospel, but Art and others on this blog (including myself) find it very helpful and a direction the church needs to take to better engage our culture and bring glory to God.
Andrew
21 August 2008 at 4.07 pm
Elliot: No worries, I am not taking what you have said as negative. You bring up very valid points and I’m glad that you did so.
Here are two points that, I hope, might help you understand why I bring such issues up.
1) I have friends who have walked away from the faith because they have been approached with such issues as this. They had some “Bible as Literature” course in college taught from an unbelieving perspective and the data, such as what I am bringing up, was being presented in a way that pointed them away from Christianity. They had no paradigm for understanding or working through this data because the Christian church ignores it or brushes it off to the side.
Instead of not dealing with these issues and hope that people don’t hear these arguments or, if they do, simply give them a pat answer and telling them they need more faith or prayer, I want to deal with these issues head on. I am under the impression that Christianity is the truth, so I have no problem subjecting it to the harshest scrutiny; the truth will show itself for what it is. By facing these issues, I hope to give people a paradigm for thinking through these issues from a Christian perspective where they can still hold onto their faith and hold onto the understanding that the Bible is God’s inspired Word.
I believe that is it more pastoral to face these issues and give people a paradigm to think through this issues than to pretend that they do not exist. People’s faith is much too important to give pat answers or pretend problems don’t exist.
2) You asked how issues like this can help us know, love, or see God in a greater way. I would argue that it does all three.
It helps us know God in a greater way in that it shows us (to steal a phrase from Pete’s recent interview) just how great of lengths God will go in order to be next to us. The humility of God to condescend from the heights of divine knowledge into the limited world of human knowledge continues to bring me to my knees to both worship God and to serve others, in emulation of God’s humility.
It helps us love God in a greater way because we see the great lengths to which God went to reveal himself to this broken world. He didn’t stand outside of it as something altogether different but, both in his word and the Word, he entered into our world to rescue us from it. He became broken so that we no longer have to be. If that does not cause you to love God with more passion, then I’d have to check your heartbeat.
It helps us see God in a greater way because we see how God providentially governs all of creation. The Sumerian King list was not an accident of history, but something that was well within the providential and sovereign plan of God. Scripture was not some mish mash of different sources thrown together to justify Israel’s claim to Palestine; rather, it is a anthology of God ordained, God preserved, and God given books that serve the purpose of telling his people just what type of God he is.
Hopefully that clarifies some of my thoughts and reasons for bringing these issues up.
21 August 2008 at 4.08 pm
v02468,
I am not sure why you are saying that I believe that studying these cultures and genres is contrary to the gospel. I in no way believe that. I just believe that we can take this too far and, if we are going to present these issues, we need to do so in a more pastoral way.
Maybe the church needs to take it more in the direction you are saying. But, if we don’t do it with love and with a recognition that others haven’t thought through these things in the same way, then we are going to have alot of casualties on the road, and I don’t believe that will best glorify God.
Again, I appreciate this blog and alot of the things that are said, I just believe that sometimes we can go too far in our quest for knowledge.
21 August 2008 at 4.16 pm
Hey Art! I am still trying to work through the issue being discussed here, so I am reposting a slightly re-worked follow-up that I posted above.
It seems to me that the intentions of authors (within genre boundaries) are important to factor in when discussing O.T. literature. For instance, I don’t deny that folks in the O.T. probably believed that the earth was flat and described it as such under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. However, the function of those inspired utterances (i.e. intention) was never to address the flat earth/round earth cosmology. There is a reason that God didn’t inspire a treatise on the scientific reasons that the earth is flat instead of round.
But what about cases in which the authors DO intend to communicate certain information. I recognize that we need to be careful in our confidence that such is the case, but let us take Babel and the flood for instance.
And let me pose this question hypothetically. IF it could be determined that the author (s) of Genesis 1-11 “really intended” to communicate something about events which they thought “actually occured” (Babel/flood), would we be required by our doctrine of inspiration to agree that such events did occur? The thesis might go something like, “If the intention of the biblical authors (in case x) is to theologically detail an event, and if the genre of such a narration does not indicate that the author thought of that event as anything but ‘real’…are we required (WITH the biblical authors) to believe that such an event is ‘real’…and what’s more…’accurate’ within genre boundaries?”
Thanks for your attention!
Joseph
21 August 2008 at 4.22 pm
Art,
Thank you for your response. I see what you are saying and I am thankful that you are willing to approach these issues in a way that may serve to help people who have struggled with these harder questions. However, I think that by focusing on one side of the spectrum, you may be forgetting about the other side. While there are many people who have seen the “problems” of scripture, there are many with very little clue as to how great these issues can be. My concern is for these people, who may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say about scripture. They haven’t thought through these issues in the same way and, when they are presented with them, will need a helping hand as to how we should deal with these things.
Also, I greatly appreciate your response on how these issues help us know, love, and see God. I believe if you can tie this concept, in a more direct way, into all your posts which deal with these questions, then this would more pastorally help those who are beginning to deal with these issues. I know you did this on one level, but if you can more thoroughly do so, I think this would greatly add to the effectiveness of your arguments and would also help those who are struggling. Thanks again for the response.
21 August 2008 at 4.32 pm
Joseph: Great question. I’d first like to apologize for not responding to your last comment. I backed out of the conversation yesterday afternoon in order to get some work done and neglected to go back and respond.
Secondly, I’m honestly not sure how to answer your question. I’m not sure if agreeing that such events occurred would fall under the scope of being profitable “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3.16-17). But I will think about it some more. It’s definitely a good question.
What would you say to your own question? Do you have any thoughts on it? I’d be interested in hearing your point of view.
21 August 2008 at 4.40 pm
Elliot: My heart beats for those on the other side of the spectrum as well. I completely understand your concerns and your reservations about how these posts might come across to some people who have not had the opportunity to think through these issues. It is not my goal to cause anyone to question their faith in Christ or shatter their confidence in Scripture; it is the complete opposite.
I want you to know that I take your advice to heart. When I fail to come across in a comforting way to those on the other side of the spectrum it is not because I do not care for them or think they need to grow up or anything like that. It is merely because my target audience happens to be on the other side of the spectrum. For instance, when I teach on issues like this to a youth group, Sunday School class, or a high school Bible class, I am aiming directly at that side of the spectrum and phrase everything carefully and in such a way that does show them how issues like this can help them know, love, and see God better. But they were not the target of this blog post.
21 August 2008 at 4.43 pm
Elliott,
I too thank you for sharing your concerns and echo much of what Art said.
I just started toying with this analogy, and am not really sure what I think about it, but am still going to throw it out there for your thoughts.
Would it be helpful to compare some of the pastoral issues of discussing and teaching of these aspects of our Bible and how God revealed it to the same pastoral issues of the Calvinist doctrine of God’s total sovereignty and predestination?
Both are things that we encounter in/with our Bible, God’s authoritative Revelation to us that we must follow wherever our Lord leads us with it.
Both get at things about God and how he works that can trouble us deeply, challenge us, and are hard to accept—because they just do not square with our pride and how we think God should be.
Both get at ways God is and works and thus, properly wrestled with as a church and with the Spirit, encounter us with God more gloriously—-after all, we are dealing with God and how He works, which is always glorious and (by faith) enriching.
Both are an offense to many and thus require great pastoral wisdom when it comes to knowing when and how to teach them to others.
I am really coming up with this as I type, so it is extra-possible this analogy is ridiculous and unhelpful. That said, what do you (and anyone else) think of that comparison? Just as we have to not be reckless in how we teach God’s sovereignty and should not over-emphasize it, so we have to not be reckless in our teaching on these difficult aspects of the Bible and overemphasize them? At the same time, properly encountering both leads us to a more glorious view of God and Christ, and is certainly edifying. Again, what do you think?
21 August 2008 at 5.23 pm
Kevin,
I am willing (in theory at least) to be rebuked if I was too harsh or recklessly attacked you. To be honest, though, I do not agree with your assessment that I was hurl[ing] ad hominems at you.
I tried to be pointed and honest with you—in a measured and reasonable way—about what I think of your positions here, your assessment of matters, and your idea of what is pastoral with respect to these issues. Especially in view of your constant charges that we destroy the unity of the text, deny (at least implicitly) Revelation and inspiration, attack biblical authority from the academy while you simply have a pastoral concern for the sheep, etc., I am surprised you now cry “Ad hominem” when I tell you (1) what I think of your positions and agenda, (2) how you really do not engage our points or questions, and (3) how it might be more likely that you and others like you are creating problems for “the sheep” (like Ehrman) rather than working with the rest of us to serve them, etc.
You continue to assert your high and our low view of Scripture (how you put it in your last comment) despite my plea for you to enter into a discussion about how we decide what is and is not a high view of Scripture. For example, above I suggested, “What would be more helpful is to discuss what it means to you/us that Genesis is Revelation, how we think that impacts our approach to the text, and why we think that way—-being willing to discuss the “why” and being open to Scripture challenging it, for all of us. Again, is this not what it means to submit to Scripture as God’s Revelation?”
As you acknowledged, instead of interacting with my/our questions and points, you replied with a “rant,” relativizing our concerns and trying to claim the pastoral-rhetorical high ground by your assertion that you simply have “pastoral” concerns. How does this not invite my response where I explain (1) how I do not think your approach is the most pastorally helpful (indeed, I think it unhelpful) and (2) that you are modeling non-engagement with others Christians about the Bible?
We disagree on the various things discussed here and each of us certainly thinks the other does not have the best pastoral approach. Is it really necessary to accuse me of ad-hominem attacks because I too was honest and pointed?
Lastly, my religious tradition is the PCA. I have been an intern at my church for some time. Like you, I remain convinced that the people of the PCA desire and need to encounter God and Christ as richly as possible through, among other things, His Word. It appears we disagree, however, on certain ways that should look. I do hope that people like us can work together as brothers in serving our people as best we can. For a starter, I ask again in a different way, can you at least acknowledge that we are all coming from the same attitude of and desire to follow our Lord wherever he leads us with His Word?
21 August 2008 at 5.49 pm
FTH and Art,
Thanks for your responses. The predestination/sovereignty analogy I believe is helpful. These comments and that analogy have allowed me to give more consideration to the idea of expounding these issues in a thorough way. However, this analogy will help me to make a couple of the points I would like to address. First, there is a great deal of mystery within the questions of God’s sovereignty. For instance, we can not answer the question of evil in a complete way that lines with this doctrine. It has been tried many times and it has often produced bad fruit for the church. In a similar way, we need to be careful that we aren’t using the ANE literature in a way that will also produce bad fruit. We need to be careful that we aren’t going to places that we should sometimes leave to mystery, always recognizing that our interpretations can’t fully explain some of these issues.
Second, whenever we reformed guys talk about predestination with non-reformers, we are easily misinterpreted. We have considered in greater depth the many angles involved in this doctrine and, when we discuss it, we often take short-cuts in our reasoning without realizing it. This leads to misinterpretation and should drive us to work even harder to best explain ourselves. When we are dealing with these greater questions, we have to work extremely hard, I believe, to show why we are saying what we are saying and why this should not degrade our view of scripture. That is where I would like to see a change of direction in some of these posts. Harping on the fact that this is the Word of God without question.
Finally, and this is addressed more directly to Art. When you are teaching to a live audience, you have a good idea of who you are talking to. You know their maturity levels, you know how you should handle different issues, you know that alot of this stuff should be ignored or downplayed. However, when you are speaking in the blogosphere, you have little control of who reads your material. You may intend what you write to go to a certain group, but you never know who all is reading this stuff. You need to be aware of this, and this should push you to consider both ends of the sphere and push you to pursue a more thoroughly pastoral approach to these issues. That is all I am asking: that you be more deliberate as to what the actual meat of these things is. If you believe this stuff speaks to a great and loving God, then spell that out in a thorough way for everyone. This, I believe, will only be a benefit to both you and your readers. Thanks again.
21 August 2008 at 9.09 pm
Art, don’t worry. I wasn’t offended at all.
As for 2 Tim. 3:16-17, I think Paul there describes a constant function of scripture, but he is not necessarily exhausting its nature. The doctrine of scripture (even for Dr. Enns it seems) is a derivative of our doctrine of God…albeit a God who accomodates His speech-acts to His creatures.
It seems to me that the intention of the authors does matter. If the human authors of scripture intended to directly record and interpret historic events as such…then I would find it problematic that we could say that these events might have never occured. Granted, we might say that they speak of local events in cosmic language, or they report their events in a thematic/strategic way…but if they intended to speak of events AS SUCH, then I think we are bound to recognize them as occurences in history. Let me briefly state why I think this is the case.
First, our doctrine of scripture is a derivative of the doctrine of God. If we are to employ the incarnational analogy properly, we must recognize that when the divine and human unite in any entity (scripture or Christ’s person)…they work together in perfect harmony. Neither the humanity or the divinity of Christ is compromised in His person…nor is the human medium or divine source of God’s speech compromised in scripture. The human authors and the divine Author do not intend different things. And if God cannot intend or think an error, then neither can His human servant.
Second, the alternative position shares an error with the dictation theory of inspiration (which I find very ironic). It makes the human element of scripture accidental to its real use. If the human authors COULD intend something that God does not in His use of HIs own word, then the human element is accidental to scripture being God’s word as such. Inspiration becomes more about God’s providential use of a privileged text within a faith community than about God’s own speech communicated incarnationaly. That is to say, we are really saying that God’s use of scripture is without error (almost tautologous) rather than the text itself. Here, I think Kevin Vanhoozer offers some valid improvements over the formulations (often insightful) of John Franke.
Third, and finally…if God can mean something different in a text than the human author, who decides what God means? If the author really believes and communicates belief in event X, then how do we decide what God is doing by inspiring this “messy” text? Ultimately, we are left to appeal to norms outside the scripture itself to help ourselves not be embarassed by a text. In some liberal traditions…the Exodus (a commonly denied event these days) becomes the faith-utterance of the exilic faith-community or something like that. But while I don’t believe we should do violence to archology, history, or anything else…neither should we do violence to the integrity of scripture as we find it. And I think the only way we can do that is to take its words and its intentional communication at face value. When we fail to do this, it seems almost inevitable that history becomes more and more de-centralized…an irony in light of the fact that some historians consider the very idea of history and distinctively Jewish. When history becomes decentralized, the meaning of the text tends to become moral. It is not a coincidence to me that the liberal separation of text and event is almost always accompanied by moralistic interpretation of scripture. Redemptive history becomes “life lessons in the B.C.”
I’m not trying to make a slippery-slope argument…or to deny the validity of critical scholarship. But the issue of authorial intention is a boundary that I don’t think we can safely cross. The scriptures are God’s speech, and they are more than a providentially privileged human account that the Spirit uniquely uses. The Spirit uniquely uses the scripture BECAUSE it is the very breath of God. Forgive my long-windedness. I am not accusing you, by the way, of falling into any of these traps…nor am I closed to your thoughts or replies. Thank you for your kind consideration and gracious interaction!
Your brother in Christ and friend,
Joseph
21 August 2008 at 9.10 pm
Art, don’t worry. I wasn’t offended at all.
As for 2 Tim. 3:16-17, I think Paul there describes a constant function of scripture, but he is not necessarily exhausting its nature. The doctrine of scripture (even for Dr. Enns it seems) is a derivative of our doctrine of God…albeit a God who accomodates His speech-acts to His creatures.
It seems to me that the intention of the authors does matter. If the human authors of scripture intended to directly record and interpret historic events as such…then I would find it problematic that we could say that these events might have never occured. Granted, we might say that they speak of local events in cosmic language, or they report their events in a thematic/strategic way…but if they intended to speak of events AS SUCH, then I think we are bound to recognize them as occurences in history. Let me briefly state why I think this is the case.
First, our doctrine of scripture is a derivative of the doctrine of God. If we are to employ the incarnational analogy properly, we must recognize that when the divine and human unite in any entity (scripture or Christ’s person)…they work together in perfect harmony. Neither the humanity or the divinity of Christ is compromised in His person…nor is the human medium or divine source of God’s speech compromised in scripture. The human authors and the divine Author do not intend different things. And if God cannot intend or think an error, then neither can His human servant.
Second, the alternative position shares an error with the dictation theory of inspiration (which I find very ironic). It makes the human element of scripture accidental to its real use. If the human authors COULD intend something that God does not in His use of HIs own word, then the human element is accidental to scripture being God’s word as such. Inspiration becomes more about God’s providential use of a privileged text within a faith community than about God’s own speech communicated incarnationaly. That is to say, we are really saying that God’s use of scripture is without error (almost tautologous) rather than the text itself. Here, I think Kevin Vanhoozer offers some valid improvements over the formulations (often insightful) of John Franke.
Third, and finally…if God can mean something different in a text than the human author, who decides what God means? If the author really believes and communicates belief in event X, then how do we decide what God is doing by inspiring this “messy” text? Ultimately, we are left to appeal to norms outside the scripture itself to help ourselves not be embarassed by a text. In some liberal traditions…the Exodus (a commonly denied event these days) becomes the faith-utterance of the exilic faith-community or something like that. But while I don’t believe we should do violence to archology, history, or anything else…neither should we do violence to the integrity of scripture as we find it. And I think the only way we can do that is to take its words and its intentional communication at face value. When we fail to do this, it seems almost inevitable that history becomes more and more de-centralized…an irony in light of the fact that some historians consider the very idea of history and distinctively Jewish. When history becomes decentralized, the meaning of the text tends to become moral. It is not a coincidence to me that the liberal separation of text and event is almost always accompanied by moralistic interpretation of scripture. Redemptive history becomes “life lessons in the B.C.”
I’m not trying to make a slippery-slope argument…or to deny the validity of critical scholarship. But the issue of authorial intention is a boundary that I don’t think we can safely cross. The scriptures are God’s speech, and they are more than a providentially privileged human account that the Spirit uniquely uses. The Spirit uniquely uses the scripture BECAUSE it is the very breath of God. Forgive my long-windedness. I am not accusing you, by the way, of falling into any of these traps…nor am I closed to your thoughts or replies. Thank you for your kind consideration and gracious interaction!
Your brother in Christ and friend,
Joseph
21 August 2008 at 9.11 pm
Sorry…didn’t mean to submit that long-winded post twice!!!
21 August 2008 at 9.36 pm
As I read Elliot’s concern with our lack of control over who is reading a particular post and that a “more thoroughly pastoral approach to these issues” should be pursued, I was wondering what a pastoral approach to posts like this would look like in practice. One of the things I like about this blog is that Art is willing to ask questions and raise issues that force me to think and struggle with the text. Would a pastoral approach imply a compromise in content?
22 August 2008 at 8.28 am
Art
This time you really surprised me. You see, I labored under the perception that when it came to church history you were, well ,a bit challenged. Turns out that in one regard, you were able to capture very accurately the response that Arius gave after Athanasius refused to readmit the rogue Alexandrian prist back into communion. The noted church historian Eusebius tried to run interference for Arius pleading with Athanasius to tone it down and stop making such a fuss. But Athanasius wasn’t buying this tactic of pretentious piety ( Oh, brothers, can we agree to disagree and just love one another?) as sure fire way of covering up the very serious error in Arius’ deviant theology.
22 August 2008 at 9.47 am
Before I sign off I need to throw a hard one up and in on the extremely Foolish Tar Heel. Hey,FTH do you always give books a thumbs down before reading them? Beale’s book on the erosion of inerrancy -dealing primarily with his critical assessment of Enns -won’t be released until Nov. ( and I know you didin’t get an advanced copy) but like Briggs who went around calling his critics the same thing-obstructionists, your ‘open mindedness ‘ only extends so far.
22 August 2008 at 10.53 am
GLW,
I am not aware of having given that book a thumbs-down, mainly because I have not read it. As I think of it, I have not mentioned Beale on this thread. I did mention him on Art’s thread on Nick Perrin’s book, but I did not mention this upcoming publication.
Now, if Beale’s upcoming book is like his work that I have read, I will be giving it a major thumbs down. BTW, my negative assessment of Beale’s work stems primarily from writing of his prior to Enns and I&I.
More importantly, what is the function of this comment from you? Also, are you serious in blowing off Art’s plea for us to interact Christianly? This does not mean, as you seem to caricature, we cannot disagree and take it seriously. It does mean we cannot place being right at any cost and arguing nastily to do it over following God’s command to interact with humility, love, and charity. As an aside, do you consider us and those like us brothers and sisters who are part of the church and our corporate interaction with Christ and His Word?
22 August 2008 at 10.58 am
FTH, you’re an intern in the PCA? Try floating your “Genesis-as-Myth” views past your credentialling committee. I predict you will find that it is full of men “just like me.” You know, unengaging, insular, unacademic.
I also predict you will become intimately acquainted with two techincal terms: “heterodoxy” and “process.” You might look them up for personal reference. You can find the first in any good dictionary. You can find the second in the Book of Church Order. There is a particularly pointed use of the word in chapter 34, which is especially fleshed out in paragraph 5.
22 August 2008 at 11.11 am
Dr. Johnson:
It was anything but pretentious. I did notice, however, that you did manage to circumvent two key points:
1) Like FTH said, I am not saying that we have to agree. I am saying that Scripture calls us to love one another, even when we disagree. Disagreements do not justify ad hominem tactics or rude rhetoric; both, however, have consistently populated your comments, both on this blog and in private correspondence. I would like to kindly remind you, sir, of two key points from Scripture: a) by love we show the world that we are disciples of Christ and b) the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
2) That your previous comment (“the NT authors escaped their culturally bound context and gave us historiography that bears a striking resemblance to what would look very much like what you describe as ‘Enlightenment ideals….”) was, indeed, a non sequitur.
22 August 2008 at 11.33 am
Art
No it was not . Seems that this is another area-like your dearth in Latin -that needs some honing.
22 August 2008 at 11.47 am
Dr. Johnson:
Fair enough. How was it not a non sequitur?
22 August 2008 at 12.01 pm
Kevin,
Listen to yourself. You have no time for dialogue over things with which you really disagree with a brother who is seeking to come to Scripture with the same submissive attitude as you. You seem unable even to acknowledge that I/we are trying to do that, even if you do not think we are doing it as we would like.
It strikes me you have made certain doctrines and traditions beyond challenge from the Bible itself. At least, this is how your attitude comes across here. Now that I/we have pressed you, you disengage, call me a heretic, and refuse to have a discussion. You caricature our positions and pigeon-hole us as though we represent things that “have been decided” and no longer need any discussion. These strike me as tactics of a person who does not care about influencing anyone who does not already agree with him/her, but rather are meant to “mean something” to other “insiders.” You seem to feel free to assert we are spouting heresy, but unwilling to discuss it with us when we really press you, direct some pointed questions to you, and call you on your lack of engagement and caricaturing. How is this the type of Spirit-filled engagement within the church that honors Christ?
22 August 2008 at 1.56 pm
I haven’t called you or anyone else anything. I was just predicting the results if you had the temerity to air your views on the Bible to your Credentials Committee. Try it, since you seem to feel my views are so narrow and so lacking in Christian charity. I can already tell you what will happen to you as surely as if I were sitting on the Committee myself.
As far as not addressing things that one has been pressed on is concerned, no one has bothered to respond to my questions regarding to the implications of these views. I suspect that you don’t want to.
22 August 2008 at 2.40 pm
If the implication of the views is undesirable, it doesn’t make the views incorrect. That would be a argumentum ad consequentiam (where is Nick when you need him? He always seems to know these fallacies off the top of his head; I had to look that one up). What we want to know is what the Bible actually says and to draw implications from that, rather than forcing the Bible to correspond to our conclusions.
In response to the first apparent problem you listed (”1. If there were no literal 6-day creation, then why does God command us to observe a 6/1 work/rest cycle in commemoration of God’s creating work?”), I honestly don’t see any incongruity between a non-literal creation week and the command for the Sabbath. Gen 1 is true even if it isn’t literal, and the Sabbath can just as meaningfully commemorate God’s rest after creation if there wasn’t a literal 7 days. What exactly is the problem you see with that?
22 August 2008 at 3.24 pm
Guys (Kevin and GLW),
I’ve been watching this thread slowly degenerate over the last two days. And, as I just signed on now, I have to say that I’m really surprised how mean spirited your comments have become.
Kevin, was the sardonic “look up ‘heterodoxy’ in the dictionary” routine really necessary? As a (somewhat) objective third party, I can honestly say that that comment had no constructive purpose in this discussion. It did not betray any charity or gentleness nor did it contribute to the academic discussion at hand, which is why (supposedly) you are here in the first place– to exchange ideas. I think your perspective is a valuable one in this thread, just please temper your passion with a little grace and charity.
GLW, Yesterday’s “flaming liberals” comment evidently geared things up for today’s “pretentious piety” stab and your personal jab at Art for his “dearth of Latin”. Again, I don’t see how this is edifying, helpful, or reminiscent of the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5). Apparently, you’ve held up Athanasius as your model for theological debate. And since he was aggressive and mean spirited, you can follow suit. But, as Art already mentioned, scripture holds us to a higher standard (1 John 4).
I believe some public apologies are appropriate here.
Apart from these incidents, this has been a great thread. Lets keep it constructive.
God Bless,
Brian
22 August 2008 at 3.38 pm
Nathan, you asked: “Gen 1 is true even if it isn’t literal, and the Sabbath can just as meaningfully commemorate God’s rest after creation if there wasn’t a literal 7 days. What exactly is the problem you see with that?”
Just that the Bible repeatedly treats the Creation week as literal, both in Genesis and elsewhere, holding it up as a very literal model for a very literal pattern we are to follow.
Brian, you asked: “Kevin, was the sardonic “look up ‘heterodoxy’ in the dictionary” routine really necessary?”
It was not sardonic and it was necessary. The views that FTH is advocating lie outside the Confessional Standards of our denomination and will be deemed “heterodox” by his Credentials Committee. He will have to take an excepttion that “strikes at the vitals of relgion,” something the Committee won’t tolerate. And, if by some miracle he made it to the floor of presbytery, his ordination exam would never be sustained by the presbytery. That’s just the way the wind blows in the PCA right now. I think that is a good thing. FTH et al probably thinks that is bad.
“Heterodoxy,” then (notice I never said “heresy”) is relative to the confessional standards to which one voluntarily binds himself.
Which leads to the second term, “process,” which you ignored. My comments were not intended to be snotty in the least, rather a genuine warning that views such as are regularly expressed on this blog will not be tolerated by the PCA. General Assembly this year demonstrated the GA’s willingness to publicly rebuke an entire presbytery for not dealing with heterodoxy.
So I ask you, where is the lack of charity in pointing out to someone the ecclesiasitcal danger one faces, if her persists down a particular path?
My ONLY point was, if you want to embrace such views, fine. But it will make life in the PCA miserable.
22 August 2008 at 3.41 pm
One more thing. Nathan wrote: “If the implication of the views is undesirable, it doesn’t make the views incorrect.”
Logically speaking, that may be true. But in terms of pastoral and biblical theology, it is not.
Ideas have consequences, and no consequences are more grave than those that imperil the soul.
22 August 2008 at 4.12 pm
Kevin, you continue to assert your “pastoral” approach, but have not engaged any of my thoughts on how your approach really is not as pastorally-wise as you seem to think: http://aboulet.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/genesis-5-history-or-mimetic-fiction/#comment-8517 . You are begging the question as to whether or not our “ideas have consequences…that imperil the soul.” Again, why not engage my thoughts on how you may not be as pastorally wise as you think and how these “ideas” are not dangerous? Why not discuss this and interact with us rather than continuing to assert your point of view?
If I may, and I mean this in as charitable a way as possible (for whatever that is worth), this seems to be a pattern with you here. You do not really engage our points or questions when they get serious. Rather, you shift topics, assert your “pastoral” concern, and explain how our views are just not acceptable to the PCA.
As to the implications of our views, that is exactly what we are discussing here. It just so happens that every time we try to discuss these implications and direct pointed questions back at you, (as I said above) you shift topics, bring up other things, or assert that you just have a “pastoral” concern.
Lastly, please explain where in the Confessional Standards the specific historical issues we are addressing have been stated as heterodox and striking at the vitals of the system of doctrine contained therein. So everyone knows, this is the hinge of the debate right now. People like Kevin want you to think it is settled and that, as such, people like us do not even belong at the table. It may be the case the PCA officially rules our questions, issues, and wrestlings, as out of bounds. Our problem is that the process for doing this that people like Kevin seem to advocate prohibits us from even having a voice in the discussion. How is ignoring a sizeable group within the church in order to marginalize them, how is this something honoring to Christ?
22 August 2008 at 5.24 pm
Kevin,
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I have no problem with you warning FTH about the PCA’s (possible) reaction to his views. I only wanted to encourage you to lighten your tone and check your attitude while posting. I have no objection to what you said. But, the “look it up in the dictionary” segment was sardonic in tone and unnecessary.
“Speaking the truth” does not entitle you to a mean spirit or ungracious words. In my opinion, your pervious posts contained both.
Again, I’m not pleading for a lack of conviction. Only a change of tone.
Speak the truth in love.
Again, thanks for your input on this thread.
-Brian
22 August 2008 at 5.39 pm
While I’m reluctant to enter a discussion with bullets flying in both directions, two quick points (FWIW):
1) It seems ironic that the most severe critique of an Enns-like approach is coming from within the Reformed community. Those of us who were reared in the heyday of the dispensational-covenant theology clash are certainly aware of analogous issues: how can, say, the prophets’ descriptions of a restored sacrificial system with Levites be reconciled with the NT? Dispensationalism (intending to start with “O.T. authorial understanding” and move forward) posited a time when that authorial understanding would physically be fulfilled; covenant theology (starting from “N.T. apostolic teaching” and moving backward)–at least in part–determined that God was speaking of larger Spiritual realities (e.g. the ministry of Christ and the church) in the cultic terms that the readers would understand. The latter seems to me to be essentially saying “God accommodates the cultural horizons of the readers.” Both approaches had their strengths, and I think most would acknowledge that both approaches to the text were well within the bounds of orthodoxy (notwithstanding the dispensational suspicion that perhaps Reformed theology wasn’t quite “believing” the prophetic promises with sufficient vigor; no one was going to get kicked out of the ETS for this stuff). Now Pete comes along and basically applies that same Reformed principle of accommodated communication to (e.g.) Genesis. While I can understand that his approach may seem somewhat disconcerting in its implications (and certainly requires genre as a fence to prevent a hermeneutical free-for-all), didn’t the conceptual horse leave the barn a long time ago?
2) Kevin, it seems that your view on 7-day creation would actually be more rigorous than that of GA. If the hermeneutical line really runs through that issue, does this imply that in your view the PCA’s position is, at heart, inconsistent (a genuine question–not rhetorical)?
22 August 2008 at 7.05 pm
FTH: What’s the point.? Your slavish devotion to your system is as great as what you criticize me for. Even if I were to answer your questions point by point, your position would remain unchanged. I believe, therefore, we have reached an impasse and there is very little need to continue the discussion. If you want to think that means you “won” the debate, that’s fine. I need to bow out.
S Master: Yours is the first truly insightful comment I have seen in a while. First, yes, my view on the creation days is more stringent than what the GA has said is acceptable. (It is in line with my presbytery’s, however.) But that is not the question. The question is whether a Barthian-like view that Genesis is true myth is acceptable. Such a view would not be in my presbytery. Nor I think would it be in Philadelphia. Certainly it wasn’t acceptable to WTS, which is why Enns is no longer there.
23 August 2008 at 8.11 am
Art
A non sequitor is an argument which is so disconnected that it lacks even the appearance of validity.Very interesting that you would appeal to this because it is traced back to Aristole’s fallacy of the consequent which involves two other fallacies: (1)the denial of the antecedenent , (2) the affirmation of the consequent both of which are familiar to students of propossitional calculus. I did not committ a non sequitor . I asked why ,given your claim that the OT view of history cannot be forced in Enlghtenment (modern) concepts , suddenly when we come to the NT are the categories for understanding historical events distinctively ‘modern’? I am working from the premise that all of the BIble is the inspired Word of God and that the NT writers specifically appeal to historical events in the OT to substantiate their claims. To the point ,Jesus and the Apostles treat creation, the Fall and Adam and Eve as being historically realities ( in the exact same way they do the birth of Christ, His miracles and especially His death, burial, resurrection and acsension), and not the by-products of ANE myths. Therefore you cannot say that the historiography of the OT is to be sharply distinquished from that of the NT . I am saying that such a distinction is artifical and you are in fact guilty of espousing contradictory assumptions.
23 August 2008 at 8.47 am
Let me add that whatever your intentions and however noble you think they are -you and those who agree with you are the embodiment of a fallacy. The word ‘fallacy is derived from the Latin word ‘fallere’ which means ‘ to deceive’. You are aggressively promoting what Kevin has correctly dubbed ‘a low view of Scripture’. Like the misguided pietists of the 19th cent who were in the forefront of the higher critics militant crusade against the Bible, so you labor under the illusion that you can safely hold to the view that much of the OT is purely mythological and at the same time treasure Jesus’ teachings in your heart ( do you guys also have a ‘Jesus box’ where are critical investigation of the Scriptures must come to a screeching stop?). To be perfectly candid you are decieved and are deceiving others with your ploys. You face a far more serious situation than a PCA presbytery if you continue down this path.
23 August 2008 at 12.23 pm
Dr. Johnson:
This, in fact, is what you originally said:
Which, again, does not follow from my stating the fact (not the opinion) that Gen 1-11, and ANE texts, are altogether different from the Gospels.
The reason it does not follow is because I did not say what you are presenting me as saying. I said nothing about the type of “Enlightenment ideals” that you are assuming I think the Gospels correspond to. I don’t.
Whereas the narratives in Genesis have their own genre classification and their own “situatedness” (to steal a term from Dr. Gaffin), so do the Gospels. Again, to point this out is not to imply what you are saying it implies.
This brings up an interesting question: how do you know, or how can you be sure, or how can you prove that what Christ and the Apostles are referring to are “historical realities” as opposed to “literary realities”? It seems that we have pictures of both in the NT. For instance, Paul speaks about the “literary reality” that Jannes and Jambres were the magicians who opposed Moses. He is making an appeal to literature of the culture, not a historical reality. So how would you distinguish between a historical allusion and a literary allusion (an actual question, not a ploy to bate you into something)? I think the answer to that question will lead the conversation in a beneficial direction.
The non sequiturs keep on coming. Even if it is granted to you that the NT authors viewed the entire OT as historical happenings and referred to it as such, it does not follow that they write history in the same way that the OT authors did. To say such a thing is to misunderstand both the OT and the NT. They wrote history differently. That’s not some “liberal” stance. It’s a statement of fact. Can you point to an author or scholar who makes the argument that the author of Genesis and the authors of the Gospels are practicing the same historiography? If so, I would love to read them.
I think a more accurate statement would be that I am promoting an understanding of Scripture that is different than your own. That does not make it “low” (again, another non sequitur), it simply makes it different. I would actually argue that it is a higher view of Scripture because I am actually dealing only with Scripture, not with post-Reformational formulas about what Scripture should be or should look like. I’m far more interested in how Scripture actually is and what it actually looks like.
Does Genesis 5 comprise “much” of the OT? It doesn’t in my Bible. Also, by way of clarification, I don’t simply “treasure Jesus’ teachings” in my heart; I submit to him as Lord and Master of all creation, as well as the Messiah.
Yes, in fact, I do. I much prefer it over your “Bible box.” It saves both time and space.
My Dear Wormwood,
Well done with that Boulet character! He and his friends are constantly struggling with the implications of Scripture in its historical context and, thereby, leading people away from the understanding of Scripture as put forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Keep him and his friends focused on Scripture. That is the only way we can win this battle. Once they revert to the understanding of Scripture as put forth in the Confession the battle will be lost! We must keep them suffering under the delusion that Scripture is more important that the Westminster Confession of Faith. Please keep your mind to your work,
Your affectionate uncle
Screwtape
23 August 2008 at 12.46 pm
Aet
You’re clueless…among other things.
23 August 2008 at 1.11 pm
I’ll let Aet know you think so.
BTW, “You’re clueless” does not constitute an argument, does not prove anything, does not add anything to the conversation, does not have any explanatory value, and is completely meaningless unless clarified.
It saddens me that you, as a minister in Christ’s church, continually choose to engage in name calling instead of actually answering questions, dealing with the argument constructively, etc.
God forbid we actually let iron sharpen iron. Constructive criticism accomplishes this. The type of criticism you are promoting (calling people “flaming liberals,” “clueless,” “deceivers,” etc.) does nothing of the sort and is something that, if I may be so bold, a man in your position should not be participating in.
23 August 2008 at 2.17 pm
Part of what bothers me the most with GLW, Kevin, etc., is that you seem unable/unwilling even to acknowledge what we claim we are trying to do. You are unwilling to enter into a dialogue with us in which you can articulate our concerns, show you understand us, and from there explain why you disagree with us and think we are doing something dangerous.
I have pleaded with you and many others seemingly countless times, asking if you can at least show that you understand us and realize we are trying to approach Scripture on Scripture’s terms and follow God wherever he takes us as we do this. We are trying to do this because allowing the Bible to determine what we think about it is the highest view of Scripture you can have. I have pleaded with you to show your solidarity with us in this submissive attitude with which we all consciously desire to approach God and His Word. I have pleaded with you to acknowledge that we all start from this same reverent and submissive place and that our disagreements pertain to how we understand this attitude and approach to Scripture working out. Thus we can have a conversation and interaction. Thus we can interact together as brothers and sisters who, though we still might have serious disagreements, are striving ultimately together to serve the church. I have that we all approach things in this way.
Instead, however, GLW, Kevin, and others like you guys, refuse to interact with us like this. You prefer, instead, to persist in simply claiming (1) we have a low view of Scripture even if we think we do not, (2) we are dangerous to the faith of ourselves and others, (3) our views are not acceptable in the PCA/Reformed/Evangelical worlds, (4) that we are simply wrong. Often I get the impression, and sometimes it is stated explicitly, that you treat us like we are basically non-Christian in our approach to the text and that we are trying to attack the authority, inspiration, and reality of the Bible—-and that all this comes from fundamentally deep malfunctions within us that preclude us from even being able to have a Spirit-filled interaction with you. This especially comes across as you aggressively misread us, consistently show that you do not really understand us, and continue to attack without expending the effort to see if you have in fact understood us correctly.
GLW, you seem to take all this to another level. You consciously and overtly insult, slander, aggressively misread, bully, avoid interaction with caustic sarcasm through which you still communicate your intended venom, and seem to make a habit of assuming the worst of others with whom you even think you might disagree. I agree with Art here, this all saddens me.
Kevin, this was never about “winning,” for me. It is about interacting with brothers and sisters in Christ, especially the ones with whom I disagree, in order that iron may sharpen iron. It is about having the tough discussions and facing the tough questions that unmask the hidden assumptions and agendas we all have that we might all, as Christ’s people, together encounter Christ more richly through His Word. Again, it greatly saddens me that you have decided we cannot interact as brothers here. It greatly saddens me that, in this, you are similar to many/some of the leaders in our Reformed and Evangelical churches. In this way we all (myself often included) fail in honoring Christ as we fail to submit to one another in love.
I would like to think all this would different if we were sitting at a table together, fellowshipping over food and (strong?) drink…
Is there any hope for all of us to serve together—to address these difficult and messy issues together for the edification of the church?
23 August 2008 at 3.33 pm
Let’s cut to chase. Art, you and FTH both claim that ANE myths are the source for the early chapters of Genesis. Is that correct? Furthermore, you think this is perfectly consistent with a ‘high view of Scripture’ correct? In addition you think (very mistakenly ) that the NT take on the OT likewise is in harmony with this ,correct?
Both of you are in the PCA and you know perfectly well that your views are way out of harmony with the Westminster Standards and you see no problem with this? Yet you remain in the PCA. This is a question of personal integrity not to mention dishonesty.
23 August 2008 at 4.17 pm
Dr. Johnson:
No, it is not correct. This is where both careful reading and attention to nuance come in handy. “Source” and “background” are two different things. Do ANE myths provide a background for parts of Genesis? I know of no scholar who denies it. Do ANE myths provide a source for parts of Genesis? I have never said as much (if you perform a “find” function on your browser for the term “source,” you will see as much).
I was unaware that the BCO mandated that members of the PCA must adhere to not only the WCF (which I don’t see in chapter 6), but also to your narrow interpretation of the WCF.
Membership in the PCA, according to the BCO 6.4:
I have done all three of those, sir. Questioning my integrity in this matter is, at least in my opinion, crossing the line. Your rhetoric and posture are, yet again, completely unbecoming of not only one who is united with Christ, but also of one who is a minister in Christ’s church.
23 August 2008 at 4.24 pm
Dr. Johnson: As a side note: what denomination is Redeemer affiliated with?
23 August 2008 at 5.09 pm
GLW,
You did not answer or interact with any of the points or questions I included in my last comment. Instead you decided to brush everything I have said aside and “cut to the chase.” In doing so, you knowingly (I think) misrepresented us—I imagine you know we do not think other ANE literature and materials are the “source” of early chapters of Genesis.
This strikes me as fairly rude, arrogant, and un-Christ like.
23 August 2008 at 5.46 pm
Both of you are not be up front and you know it. Do you hold to the total and complete inerrancy of Scripture? ‘UnChrist ‘ like ? Why, because I challenge you on your your view of Scripture? I guess that Kevin and I are hopelessly addicted to our narrow reading of the Westminster Standards, but then again Briggs made that same charge against the Princetonians.
23 August 2008 at 6.00 pm
I wrote directly to Art and asked him if he affirmed the following: Is the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall historically factual? Are Adam, Eve and the Serpent historical characters in the same sense as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin? Or do you believe that these events are myths and non-historical? Art did not respond. Guilt by silence? Would you both now declare your position? Please don’t give me that postmodern line that I am using ‘Enlightenment’ categories, because this is exactly how the NT understands the book of Genesis.
23 August 2008 at 6.13 pm
Dr. Johnson: A few things.
First, we are not lying. Stop pretending that you know what either of us believe better than we do. I have no reason to lie; either does FTH. Case closed.
Second, no one ever said it was unChrist-like to challenge anything. What has been continually unChrist-like, even after several comments calling for a return to respectful discourse, has been your rhetoric (name calling) and your accusations (lying, deceiving, etc.). This is not the Biblical definition of love (1 Cor 13) by which all Christians are called to follow (1 John 3.11). You have consistently violated this. Please stop doing so.
Third, you did not answer my question as to which denomination the church you pastor belongs to. Please do so.
Fourth, as to your string of questions: yes, I do believe that both the creation and the fall are realities. I also believe that Adam and Eve and the serpent are realities. “Guilt by silence”? Again, sir, please stop with your assumptions and accusations.
Fifth, I would appreciate an apology from you for your false accusations, slander, and name calling.
23 August 2008 at 7.35 pm
Huh, No.You are still being less than candid. ‘Realities’ ? What kind? i spelled out the specifics. Please respond in kind. Is Adam a ‘mythical character’ or is he a historical figure like George Washington?
23 August 2008 at 7.37 pm
p.s. you did not address the question of inerrancy- I will not answer any of your questions until you answer the ones I asked you.
23 August 2008 at 8.02 pm
GLW, you are behaving in a rude, obnoxious, and socially-dysfunctional way here. Again, see this comment where I spell out some of my thoughts concerns about your behavior here: http://aboulet.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/genesis-5-history-or-mimetic-fiction/#comment-8570 . This is not ad-hominen, by the way, especially in view of how I laid out my concerns and you have continued to ignore them.
In particular you are reminding me of your antics on this greenbaggins thread ( http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/some-questions-for-pete-enns/ ) where rather than engaging us in a functioning discussion and answering our questions, when you decided you did not like them you started hurling your little questions back at us.
Also, at one point I answered one of your sets of “cutting to the chase questions:” http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/whopping-new-book-on-justification/#comment-53358 In my answer I asked if you were asking them because you wanted to have actual discussion or because you wanted to obtain certain answers that you could parade as “liberal” “out-there” answers so as to marginalize me—-regardless of whether there might be some edifying discussion to be had. After answering your questions it became clear you had no edifying or converational purpose in mind then. It seems you do not now either.
It seems this discussion has deteriorated to a very unedifying place, especially with respect to your involvement. I do not see anything constructive happening by continuing to oblige you in your poor behavior. More than that, I do not see this as bringing any honor to Christ.
23 August 2008 at 8.12 pm
FTH
Really? I see that you still refuse to answer the questions. I hope this is all brought to the attention of your presbytery. Now you can jump up and down and stomp your feet and howl at the top of your lungs that I have been ‘rude’ and ‘unChrist-like’ all you want but that will not stop your presbytery from asking you the very same questions that I have posed. But if Kevin is representative of the ministers in the PCA you are in for a rough ride.
23 August 2008 at 8.13 pm
This is absolutely exhausting…
Dr. Johnson: A few things.
First, I believe that Scripture is inerrant in the things to which it speaks and for which God purposed it.
Second, I fully believe Scripture. As that relates to the “historicity” of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, that is an issue that I am continually working through. My questions concern whether or not Gen 2.4b-3 was written to record history or whether it was written in order to function in a certain God ordained way within the Israelites worldview. I have questions, but am open to hearing answers and reasons for those answers. Perhaps you do not appreciate my viewpoints, but I hope you appreciate my transparency.
Third, I would appreciate an apology from you for your false accusations, slander, and name calling.
Fourth, to which denomination does the church which you pastor belong?
I have answered your questions straightforwardly. I would ask you to do the same.
23 August 2008 at 8.26 pm
You know come to think of it, you two ought to thank me for pressing you on these issues. I have in my own way prepared you for the grilling you are going to get. Art, that ‘answer’ on the inerrancy question is a sure fired way of raising red flags with your presbytery. Also, it now appears that you have suddenly adopted a very ‘Enlightenment’ historical approach to Adam! Why the sudden switch? Wait until you get on the floor of presbytery! Adios, amigos I am out of here. You can’t say I didn’t give you a heads up.
23 August 2008 at 8.29 pm
p.s. as for your questions-go fly a kite.
23 August 2008 at 8.30 pm
Dr. Johnson: A few things.
First, you did not answer my questions, which you said you would do once I answered yours.
Second, I have, in no way, shape, or form, adopted an Enlightenment view of history. Rather, I made it abundantly clear that I am unsure, at this point, how the stories of Adam functioned and were purposed to function within the Israelite worldview. That does not mean, in anyway, that I have adopted Enlightenment views of history.
Third, you have not apologized for your behavior.
Fourth, why the ‘hit and run’?
23 August 2008 at 8.32 pm
I am overwhelmingly shocked and disappointed by this response, sir.
But at least you have revealed your true colors for all to see.
23 August 2008 at 8.48 pm
Art
If you are short on string I can send you some since I consider you a friend-FTH will have to fend for himself because he is not nice.
23 August 2008 at 8.55 pm
Dr. Johnson: If you consider me a friend, please answer my questions.
23 August 2008 at 9.09 pm
Art
Do you need some string? Like I said ,you are a friend so you can count on me . After all Iam the pastor of a confessional Reformed church that adheres to the Westminster Standards and the Three forms of Unity- oh, and we are a member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Did I tell you that I am a WTS grad? Oh, yes I am also a combat vet ( Vietnam 1970-71) and I also am a vet of Desert Storm so I have little patience with snot-nosed kids. Anything else?
23 August 2008 at 9.31 pm
Dr. Johnson: A few things.
First, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is not a denomination. In case you haven’t figured it out, the reason I asked is because I noticed that your church is not part of a denomination…and yet you feel the need to lecture my friends and I about what we should or should not believe in order to be part of a denomination. Is this one of those “Do as I say, not as I do?” sort of things? Also, how do you think Calvin, Warfield, et. al. would feel about an autonomous church?
Second, I would like an apology for your continual name calling, unchristian behavior, and for your slander.
23 August 2008 at 9.36 pm
Art
What ‘names’ have I called you and the FTH? Please tell me while you are at it ,what ‘denomination’ was Calvin a member of? You will get no apology from me for telling you that you are outside the boundaries of the Westminster Standards- which you most certainly are.
p.s, I meant snot-nosed know -it- all kids.
23 August 2008 at 9.47 pm
Dr. Johnson:
Again, sir, it has nothing to do with what you are saying. Feel free to disagree and to state as much. It has everything to do with the manner in which your comments are made: rude, arrogant, and unchristian.
Calvin, as I’m sure you know, was not a member of a denomination. That was not the question: it was what Calvin would have thought about an autonomous church.
23 August 2008 at 10.17 pm
Art
You mean that you guys are not a bunch of flaming liberals? Could have fooled me. Do you think your presbyteries could possibly think otherwise? Gee, do you really figure I am the only ‘rude, arrogant, unchristian’ rube that came to that conclusion? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
23 August 2008 at 10.28 pm
Dr. Johnson:
No, we are not.
It is a possibility, sir. If you were part of my presbytery, or any presbytery for that matter, it might be otherwise.
Let me get this straight: other people are rude, arrogant, and unchristian…so that means you can be too? Interesting logic, sir, especially from someone who was on their college debate team.
The only thing I am wondering about is how you can continually justify your unchristian actions, especially as a minister in Christ’s church.
I ask you again, sir, for an apology for your name calling and slander.
23 August 2008 at 11.49 pm
I am starting to think that this person, GLW, is too good (or bad) to be true. His behavior and comments have been so ridiculous, so insulting, and so rude that I’m starting to think that he is doing an impersonation– making all this up in some kind of twisted, ironic joke.
I really can’t believe this guy is real. Please, GLW, tell me this is a joke and apologize to Art, because the joke is getting old. And it’s not funny. It’s sad.
24 August 2008 at 7.38 am
I agree with what Brian and Art have been saying and I hope GLW actually isn’t a minister of God’s word. To have the perspective he is advocating dealing with hard questions… it’s mind boggling.
If anything, it reminds me of a certain personality trait that people tend to exhibit when they find themselves boxed into a corner, but they refuse to engage in discussion because of a predetermined decision and identity.
Thank you Art for continuing the discussion and unpacking your understanding of Genesis 1-11 hermeneutics and inerrancy.
24 August 2008 at 9.18 am
I assure you both that Dr. Johnson is very real.
Here is his bio page at his church’s website.
And here are some books that he edited and contributed to.
Apparently he will neither be apologizing nor commenting any longer (according to an email I received from him…which did not contain an apology but, rather, a notice that an apology will not be forthcoming).
No matter. At least the conversation can continue!
24 August 2008 at 1.23 pm
Art, I have one more question regarding your hermeneutic. Do you believe that the majority of the difficulties that you see are mainly found in Genesis 1-11? Or do greater difficulties arise outside of those areas? What about in the NT where academics disagree about who wrote some of the Pauline epistles? Do you believe that is an area that needs to be treaded or ignored? Thank you in advance for your response.
24 August 2008 at 1.47 pm
Elliott,
I know you did not ask me, but I thought I might weigh in, if that is acceptable. For me the general issues we are discussing are not confined to Gen 1-11, but concern the whole Bible. What I mean is that throughout the whole Bible I think we find it behaving in ways that, at times, cut across some of our traditional notions of what it means that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, Revelation, etc.; not if the Bible is inspired Revelation.
Maybe this will be helpful. A while back I posted some examples of these issues in our Bible on a blog Art and myself (and others) run: http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/nine-marks-of-inerrancy-a-repost-of-one-that-was-lost-original-author-stephen-young/ . This might be somewhat along the lines of what you are asking here.
As to your specific example, I happen to agree with the many (most) scholars who do not think Paul wrote (or dictated, or wrote through a secretary, etc.) 1 Timothy, Titus, and probably 2 Timothy. About five out of seven days of the week I think Paul wrote Colossians and/or Ephesians. I do not see these as problems for inspiration or inerrancy. Again, I start with the presuppositions and faith that everything in the Bible is God’s Word and inspiredly doing exactly what He wants it to be doing. So, if God wanted pseudepigraphal epistles in our New Testament, then that is what He did and it is my/our place to submit to His wisdom here.
At the same time, this does not surprise me since, historically speaking, pseudepigraphal epistles and writings were all the rage in the ancient Mediterranean world at this time—despite what some Evangelicals say. Furthermore, I think accepting this about the Pastoral epistles, for example, frees us up to study them better for what they are, how they functioned, etc.—to study them more properly and accurately thus letting us study God’s inspired Word better.
I know this is a general answer. Does this at least start getting at your questions and concerns?
24 August 2008 at 2.39 pm
I also have a question. Because Genesis is generally regarded as a single book, do you think that the final composition of Genesis would have … revamped Genesis 1-11 to fit the current culture of that day and thus their hermeneutics?
I agree that the cosmogony seems very strongly to fit an ancient Sumerian/Israelite perspective, but with the lack of research and knowledge, at what point would that have become foreign to the Israelites?
24 August 2008 at 11.57 pm
Elliot: First, FTH put it very well. He is much more versed in the issues of authorship of epistles that have been attributed to Paul yet which are called into question by scholars. However, I agree with his assessment (although I might be 6 days a week in regards to Ephesians).
These are two good questions.
I’ll start with the second one and move into the first: I’m not sure “greater” is the correct term. I’m also not sure they are “difficulties” if that term has negative connotations. I think that some issues that have become normative ways for Christians to view Scripture (such as Solomonic authorship of Qoheleth, belief that the superscriptions in the Psalms are meant to be historical, etc.) are issues that need to be re-opened in the evangelical world. Like FTH said, we are not calling into question whether or not the Bible is inspired or whether or not it is revelation from God. It is. That is our basic confession. These questions and our exploration for answers are our attempt to flesh out exactly what it means that God revealed himself in this way and what that says about what we think about Scripture. With that said, there are issues that need to be more thoroughly fleshed out in light of all the advancement in the field of Biblical studies. Views need to be more nuanced and robust, which is what both FTH and myself are working towards.
So, the short answer: there are issues outside of Gen 1-11 that need to be fleshed out. I wouldn’t say they are more difficult; I would say that they are different.
I am a firm believer in the fact that the Bible is revelation from God and that, because of that fact, it can be upheld under the highest amount of scrutiny. So I would not back down from any form or type of scrutiny that we can put Scripture under. It is God’s word and, on the other side of that scrutiny, it is still going to be God’s word. i would tread those waters in order to find out how God revealed himself: did he do it through a pseudepigraphal epistle or a Pauline epistle? Either way, he revealed himself and, as FTH said, we are to submit to his wisdom in this regard.
v02468: ( As an aside, what do you have against odd numbers? )
Great question.
I’m not quite sure at which point this worldview would have become foreign to Israel. What seems to be clear is that in 2 Isaiah, some Psalms, and Job (later books of the OT), the same type of familiarity with ancient creation stories is present (Leviathan, water as chaos, sea monsters, etc.). These authors present YHWH as conquering these mythical characters and present YHWH as the world’s creator. So, based on this, it seems that the exilic, maybe even post-exilic, community is hearing the same types of things incorporated into their scriptures. Even the later Jewish midrash includes stories about Leviathan and other mythical characters that originated within the cultures of the ANE.
Even if we push that to the side, we have to also understand the function that these early narratives played in the Israelite religion. These functioned (at the very least) as pedagogical stories which told about the origins of people groups and nations that appear much later in Israelite history as well as Israel’s own creation narratives. Because of the place of Torah within the Israelite religion, it seems almost sacrilegious that they would change something about an ancient narrative with explanatory value that has been highly treasured by their ancestors. It seems more likely that these narratives would continue to be told and re-told to future generations, along with explanatory remarks (as seen, for instance, in the Targums).
Of course, that is just off the top of my head. I’ll keep an eye open to any books or articles that deal with this.
25 August 2008 at 8.30 am
Art,
Do you see evidence of this interpretation within the Targums?
Andrew
(the v02468 is a leftover piece of nostalgia from a player name I used for ‘Perfect Dark’ back on the N64)
25 August 2008 at 12.06 pm
v02468: When you say “this interpretation” are you referring to the explanation I just gave or the interpretation of Genesis 5 in the post?
25 August 2008 at 6.05 pm
Kevin Said…
“In the history of the church nothing good has ever come from doubting the historicity of the Scriptures, no matter how well intentioned those doubts are. Such musings have wrecked seminaries, churches, and souls.”
Funny, from where I sit it was often the backlash of response to different ideas (not necessarily liberal ones) that causes the problem. Person A preposes a new idea (such as justification by faith alone). Persons B-R dont have much problem with this, but then there is that tricky person Q, who starts a conflaggration and turns everything into a heresy trial. Sides form, words are exchanged and then badda bing badda boom the church splits. Imagine all the heartache that would have been saved if people just drank a beer and had a discussion about these issues in an irenic fashion. The lack of civility and downright hatred exhibited by GWL et. al. is what threatens to wreck my faith. And as far as the non christian world, just ask them what bothers them about churches. I bet they wont site karl barth but will tell you all about the unloving “believer.”
Pax Christi…Nick
25 August 2008 at 7.59 pm
[...] my faith in the Jesus of the gospels really hinge on Genesis 5 being literally true, as opposed to an Israelite retooling and repurposing of the Sumerian kings list? On insisting as true that Samson was a historic figure and his deeds were accomplished as [...]
25 August 2008 at 10.58 pm
I meant more towards Genesis 5. To my knowledge at least we don’t have Targums to support this understanding of the genealogy. I am curious though what you may have encountered in your readings.
25 August 2008 at 11.14 pm
v02468: I do not have my copy of the Targums with me in FL, but I honestly do not think that there are going to be explanations of how Genesis 5 mirrors ANE king lists. That’s not the type of interpretation that happens in the Targums. I was using the Targums as an example of a type of corresponding oral tradition, not as something that would contain this type of explanation.
26 August 2008 at 1.04 pm
Did you ever get a chance to check out John Waltons article?
26 August 2008 at 4.39 pm
v02468: I did get a chance to. It is interesting, with the differences between a decimal and sexgesimal numerical system, but I am wondering about his logic of leaving Adam off of the Biblical list when he does his math. After I read his article I started rethinking the links between the SKL and Gen 5 more in terms of what Nathan was getting at earlier in this thread rather than mimetic fiction. But I’ll keep researching this area to see what else I can find.
26 August 2008 at 11.32 pm
I was also wondering today how we could determine whether the SKL genre would purposely exagerate the ages, or whether the genealology really did have numbers meant to more accurately represent their reigns. Sure it has a boastful purpose, but it may be more true than we realize.
In other words, do we see the SKL list and see more evidence that our human lives were longer in the past, or do we see evidence that exagerating lifespans as a literary feature was practiced.
If Walton’s math is correct, it would seem that more evidence is for the prior analysis. I’ll leave your response for a follow up post someday if you wish.
5 September 2008 at 5.30 pm
[...] my faith in the Jesus of the gospels really hinge on Genesis 5 being literally true, as opposed to an Israelite retooling and repurposing of the Sumerian kings list? On insisting as true that Samson was a historic figure and his deeds were accomplished as [...]
4 May 2009 at 12.25 am
In simple words…
In the bible there is mention of only one living person that never experienced dead and went to heaven and that is Eliah… I must disagree with: “This should remind the readers of Enoch, who is also considered a teacher and who also did not die”
Please refer to Genesis 5:21-24 where it clearly states that Enoch had Matusalen at age 75 and after that he walked with God 300 years and ALL his days where 375. It says that all his days were 375 just like it accounts for all the other “kings” before him. He disappeared but it doesn’t state that he never died. I just recently saw a History channel documentary where they speculate that Enoch had some involvement in the creation of the pyramids and that there may be a manuscript about his life and his time with God. I have not been successful at finding more facts, yet.
History points out that he lived only 375 years. Much shorter than the other descendants of Adan PRIOR TO the Great Flood.
I also would like to share this information with you:
Longevity of the Patriarchs
Adan 930 years
Set 912 years
Enos 915 years
Cainan 910 years
Mahal.. 895 years
Jared 972 years
Enoc 375?
Matusalen 782 years
Lamec 777 years
Noah… then the great Flood which is believed to have change everything on earth including Longevity. If you continue looking at the longevity of these biblical figures from Noah to Moises you can see how close the actual decay rate or curve fits the exponential decay curve. a clear relation between the age at the time of dead and the Decay Factor (scientific formula) with only an 11% deviation! The life span average before the flood was 912 years, after the flood? 222 years. Please refer to research by: Arnold C. Mendez, Sr.