I think this is right, with the qualification that there was more than one
"penman" & apparently an active editorial process involved as well.
That strikes me as a crucial concept. The penman did
> not write as if he were writing allegory, poetry, myth, parable, novel or
> scientific history. Nor did he write as God's secretary. He wrote in terms
> of what was the ordinary opinion (cosmology, pre-history, geography) of his
> day. What else could he do? What would we have done if we were the penmen or
> penwomen of Genesis?
Until fairly recently, "ordinary opinion" didn't differ radically from the
best scientific opinion. I.e., science was in accord with "common sense." It isn't any
longer, & that's one reason there seems to many to be dissonance between science &
Scripture.
>
> Seely wrote, "But did not the writer of Gen. 11:1-9 intend to teach history
> also? I think it is more accurate to say that as with the cosmology of the
> times, the writer simply accepted the historical tradition and motifs of the
> times, the ordinary opinions of his day about prehistory with no critical
> concern about their historicity, even with a certain willingness to remold
> them for theological purposes."
> Would it not be more appropriate for us to stress this "theological" meaning
> in dealing with biblical critics--that God is the Judge of collective human
> pride--rather than falling into their trap of trying to justify a historical
> basis for the story? The theological meanings are as relevant today as they
> were in early biblical times, and put the discussion on an entirely different
> and sounder basis.
Yes. It is always the theological meaning of the text which is important,
whether the text is an accounting of straight history or not.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/