glenn morton wrote:
................................................
> > > So, now answer the questions I asked (I will add a couple).
> > >
> > > Do you believe Balaam's famous talking donkey is historical?
> > > Do you believe an ax head floated, I mean actualy floated?
> > > Do you believe Jonah was a real historical tale? (you have previously
> said
> > > no).
> > > Was Jesus born of a virgin?
> > > Did he actually change water to wine or is that merely a theological
> tale?
> > > Did Peter actually heal that lame man or is that a theological tale?
> > Each of these would require detailed theological, historical, literary &
> > scientific treatment. I don't know how interested you are in the
> rationale for my
> > answers so won't launch into such a treatment now. I can go into more
> detail if you're
> > interested. But please realize that there are reasons for my answers &
> that they aren't
> > just arbitrary "I like this one, I don't like that one" decisions. I
> assume that
> > "historical" here means "reasonably accurate account of historical events
> as they
> > actually happened".
> >
> > Balaam: Probably not historical.
> > Ax head: I don't know.
> > Jonah: I've given reasons before for thinking that this isn't an
> historical
> > narrative (& it isn't simply because of the fish).
> > I believe that Jesus was conceived of a virgin. ("Virgin birth" in the
> strict
> > sense, _virginitas in partu_, is not attested in Scripture & in any case
> > its meaning is obscure.)
> > Water to wine: Probably historical.
> > Healing of lame man: Historical.
> >
> > Except for virginal conception these are my own opinions, subject to
> change (though not,
> > I hope, capriciously).
>
> What I think I see in your position is an inconsistency in accepting
> miracles. Why can't God make a donkey speak miraculously? If God can change
> water to wine, miraculously heal a lame man, what is the problem with a
> miracle in the other cases? It seems to me that once one accepts the
> possiblity of miracles and the inspiration of the Scripture it seems
> contradictory to say one purported miracle is and one isn't. That position,
> as I see it, is incompatible with inspiration of those portions of scripture
> containing false miracles.
You are focussing far too narrowly on the issue of miracles & (as usual) the
idea that Scripture must be all accurate reporting of historical events if it's to
be inspired.
In Jonah, e.g., the fish is simply a plot device to get Jonah from A to B.
There is nothing intrinsically impossible about a man being swallowed by a fish &
surviving (though I think Ted Davis has disposed adequately of the most popular urban
legend about this happening in modern times) & it certainly isn't impossible for God
to bring this about. The reasons for thinking Jonah to be nonhistorical have nothing to
do with that, but rather with the great exaggerations & obvious humor of the story & the
fact that there is no evidence at all of the mass conversion of the capital of the
Assyrian empire & the "King of Nineveh".
Similarly with Balaam: The talking donkey is only a small part of the story,
& appears at what seems to be a very strange point in that story. As it begins in
Num.22 Balaam is a faithful prophet who insists on doing only what God tells him to do,
including going with the princes of Moab. Suddenly in 22:22 God is angry with Balaam -
for doing what God told him to do! - and the donkey becomes the means by which Balaam is
- what? Told to do exactly what he was going to do before! Then after arriving in Moab
he obediently does what God tells him, refusing to curse Israel & blessing them instead.
The story ends with him going back home (24:25). Only later does he suddenly &
inexplicably become the bad guy of the later Jewish & Christian traditions.
It is obvious that there are different sources behind this whole account.
(Conservative commentaries on this can make hilarious reading with their
"harmonizations.") At the juncture of what appears to be two different versions of the
story we have a talking animal, a familiar figure in myth & folklore. Sure, God could
make a donkey talk. But it is quite contrary to donkey nature & (in view of what I said
about the account as a whole) the historical evidence for it is pretty shaky.
You can argue those things if you wish. But the issue is not just - or even
primarily - "Could God make a fish swallow a man?" or "Could God make a donkey speak?"
> > In spite of appearances, the above responses do not mean that OT accounts,
> & in
> > particular those of miracles, are not historical while NT ones are. That
> appearance is
> > a result of the examples you chose. & I should note that the heavy
> emphasis on the
> > miraculous tends to distort things somewhat.
>
> What OT miracles to you accept?
>
> Moses parting the Sea?
> Moses striking the rock and getting water? (I wish I could do that and get
> oil)
> The plagues of Egypt?
> Did Jacob actually wrestle with God physically?
> Was the widow's son raised from the dead?
The miracle mania really isn't theologically healthy & if we continue with
true-false tests on miracles we'll continue to miss the point, as I explained above.
I believe that the Exodus & at least some of the plagues of Egypt are historical.
The sense in which they were "miraculous" is another matter.
> > In turn, let me ask this. Do you believe, on the basis of Mt.26:26 that
> > communicants receive in the Lord's Supper "the true body of Christ that
> was born of the
> > Virgin, offered on the cross for the salvation of the world, and sits at
> the right hand
> > of the Father"?
> > (No, this is not a strictly historical question, and yes, I realize that
> some on
> > this list think it's gauche to talk here about sacraments. But the
> question gets at the
> > basic issue of "picking and choosing" literal or figurative
> interpretations.)
>
> If it were a historical example I would feel much more trapped than I do by
> this one. It is my understanding of Catholic theology that they do believe
> in transsubstantiation (is that the theological term). Who knows, they
> might be right.
There's a chain of restaurants in this area called "Wally Waffle". You
could probably get a job with them if you get tired of the oil industry.
........................
> > But I have & always will deny that either of the Genesis accounts has
> > "absolutely no bearing or conformance to reality"! If that were so then
> they wouldn't
> > be about the creation of the real world. To see what I actually say (or
> said briefly 15
> > years ago) about them read Chapter 3 of _The Trademark of God_.
>
> Note, that I specifically said that the details of the account don't match
> what really happened in your view. And I do beleive that is a correct
> characterization of your position. Thus I conclude, that if any story has a
> whole lot of details that don't conform to what actually happened, the story
> has no conformance to reality. I will re-read that chapter.
Your hyperbole makes communication difficult. You can't say "Little conformance
to reality" but have to say "No conformance" - which is manifestly wrong.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 09:32:06 EDT