Loren Haarsma wrote (29 May 2002 16:54:57 -0400 (EDT)):
> Peter Ruest wrote:
> > Can you specify in which way the 11 Hebrew words were "redefined"? In
> > particular, I'd like to know what you consider to be "redefined" in
> > "Genesis reconsidered" by Armin Held and myself, PSCF 51/4 (Dec. 1999),
> > 231-243; http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html
> >
> > Under redefinition, I understand an illegitimate or improbable
> > interpretation or translation. In principle, I accept your definition
> > of "from the author's original intent" as a point of departure. The
> > mere fact of a difference from traditional interpretations does _not_
> > constitute redefinition! But how do you know the author's original
> > intent? And, more precisely, we should ask for the original (divine)
> > Authors's intent (or possibly multiple simultaneous objectives).
>
> "Illegitimate" is stronger than my intent. Under redefinition, I simply
> mean a definition different from what the author had in mind when it was
> written.
I repeat: how do you know the author's original intent? How do you know
the original (divine) Authors's intent (or possibly multiple
simultaneous objectives). How do you know that?
> Which terms are redefined? Trees bearing fruit, "every winged bird",
> making of the sun and moon, setting the sun and in the firmament/expanse
> - -- and especially -- the terms firmament/expanse and "the deep." These
> words or phrases must take on new definitions (almost certainly different
> from what the author had in mind) to make concordism work.
We didn't write anything about "trees bearing fruit". The only
interpretation we made of "every winged bird" was to (correctly!)
include flying insects. The only thing we did with "the deep" was to
(correctly!) equate it with the ocean, which was certainly the same
thing a few thousand years ago and today. Now, of course, the "expanse",
as well as "making" and "setting" sun and moon, is interpreted
differently by you, Paul Seely and others who presuppose an "ancient
near eastern" cosmology, ignoring all indications pointing the opposite
way, but in our paper we discussed this in detail. We also responded in
detail ("Taking Genesis as Inspired", PSCF 52/3 (Sep.2000), 212-214) to
Paul Seely's objections.
So your claim is incorrect, and you don't answer my specific request to
justify your claim of redefinition. Have you not (re)read what we wrote?
Also, you shouldn't throw into the same bin all those you consider
"concordists", without bothering to differentiate, or even to understand
what they are saying, and why.
> How do we know what the author had in mind when writing these terms?
> Look at all the other passages in the Old Testament, and look at the
> archeological evidence from the ancient near east. Again, I would point
> to Paul Seely's web article, the book "Portraits of Creation", and the
> many other scholarly references contained therein. Those are the
> references that must be tackled.
It is not a fair discussion to just refer to "the archeological
evidence" in general, a web article and a book and the "references
contained therein". Please be specific and formulate the reasons for
your claims!
> But before anyone does that, can we please address the following:
>
> Scripture must illuminate scripture. If we're going to talk about Genesis
> 1, can we please also talk about Psalm 104, Job 38, Proverbs 8, and Isaiah
> 48? Read those passages again. Is there any doubt that the author had in
> mind the physical picture of ANE cosmology when writing those passages?
> If we can't agree about that, then I don't think we can make progress
> discussing Genesis 1.
I agree that scripture must illuminate scripture. But we must be careful
not to do this after having decided beforehand, on the basis of
extrabiblical texts, what scripture has to mean. I have reread the 4
chapters you indicate. They are all highly poetical formulations, yet
all of them without the aspect of historicity or narrative clearly found
in Genesis 1 (which, in addition, is also poetical, of course). They all
refer, among other things, to the historical creation, but just to its
results, or to God's working in nature, in general.
I was struck by the fact that the references referring to creation,
found in these 4 chapters, can be interpreted at least as easily in
terms of what we know today. Various expressions, in fact, contradict
the supposed "ancient near eastern cosmology" (a flat earth swimming on
the ocean and covered with a solid dome, above which there is another
ocean), but are more consistent with modern views and simple
observations accessible without any scientific knowledge. This casts at
least some doubt on the supposed generality and exclusivity of this
mythical ANE.
If you want to, we can discuss these passages in detail. But I am only
willing to do so if you are ready to use specific and clearly formulated
arguments primarily from scripture (on the basis of the Hebrew text),
refraining from vague appeals to authority ("scholarly references"). Of
course, if you want to, you may take your arguments from there, but
formulate them! Also, we won't get anywhere if you don't concede the
possibility that new aspects of the biblical text (not contained in
traditional interpretations) may be legitimately found: we discussed
this point in our "Genesis reconsidered" - quo vide.
> Again, I'm not saying that the words in these passages can't be given a
> secondary meaning to accord with modern science. I'm simply saying that I
> don't think it's a good hermeneutical approach.
Are you saying that what you label the "secondary meaning" is bad
hermeneutics? I repeat my above question once more: how do you know the
author's original intent? How do you know the original (divine)
Authors's intent (or possibly multiple simultaneous objectives). How do
you know that? Would an Old Testament prophet refer to world views
connected with Moloch, Baal, Thammuz, or Nebo without an indignant
dismissal? That's not accommodation.
> And to address that point:
>
> Mike Slatterlee wrote:
>
> > Does someone here see a problem with the idea that God might have
> > deliberately chosen to use words with dual meanings in Gen. 1 to allow
> > Gen. 1 to be understood in different ways by people living at far
> > different times? After all, the Bible was not written just for the
> > ancient Hebrews. It was also written to serve as God's word to men
> > today.
>
> This is a very good question, which Peter and Jim also raised.
>
> A medieval scholar once told me that some medieval theologians read four
> meanings into every passage of scripture: literal, allegorical ... and two
> others that I can't remember (I think one of them was christological and
> the other eclesiastical). (I've tried calling my medieval scholar friend
> this afternoon, but she wasn't in her office. Sorry I can't be more
> specific about this.)
>
> Was this practice of finding four meanings in every scripture
> passage a good practice? The church has come to reject it.
Mike Satterlee will have to answer for himself. But allow me, as well,
to answer some of what you are telling him.
What Armin Held and I are doing is something very different from what
those medieval scholastics did. We certainly don't have a fixed scheme,
but try to find out from the text itself, and the whole possible
context, what the proper mode(s) of interpretation might be. And as I
understand Mike, your medieval scholastics comment has nothing to do
with what he says, either. And I might add, the accusation (by someone
else) that Mike's statement would make God a deliberate deceiver (I'm
formulating from memory) is similarly out of place.
> I keep coming back to Hermeneutics 101: Taking into account the
> background knowledge of the author, the original audience, the historical
> context and the type of literature, we ask ourselves what message the
> passage would communicate from the author (and therefore from God) to the
> original audience.
Why are you limiting God to what the author could or could not do? If
you would be consistent in what you are saying, you would in fact
eliminate any possibility of divine revelation. I agree that kenosis
also characterizes God's written word, but certainly not to the extent
of eliminating everything the human author "could not know"!
> If you apply this hermeutical strategy consistently to Genesis 1, Psalm
> 104, Proverbs 8, Job 38, Isaiah 48, or any of the other passages I listed,
> you hear a powerful theological lesson accomodated to the pre-scientific
> cosmology of the ancient near east.
Yes, the theological message is primary, in any case. But we disagree
with respect to the kind of God's accommodation. God's true
accommodation is much more likely communicating truth to people of ALL
times and cultures, without confusing either ancients or moderns by
conflicts with facts known to them or to us.
> If, on the other hand, you attempt
> concordist hermeneutics of Genesis 1, what do you gain and what do you
> lose? You might gain the claim that Genesis 1 chronology matches modern
> science (a weak claim, in my opinion, because of the need to redefine so
> many words). You have lost a consistent hermeneutics. You have lost a
> great example of how God can work with human limitations to speak his
> truth. You have burdened yourself with the need to redefine words
> repeatedly as our scientific understanding changes over time. You have
> burdened yourself with an apologetic claim which is problematic to defend.
> You have burdened yourself the question, "How many other biblical words is
> it OK to assign secondary meanings in order to match modern science?"
> (Or, for that matter, to match modern economic theory, or social theory,
> or aesthetics.)
I disagree with virtually every one of these assumptions (with the
exception of your final parenthesis which, of course, is quite a
different pair of shoes: it's usually the theologically "liberal" who do
that). Please try to see your presuppositions behind all this - and
behind your confidence of having the (only?) true hermeneutic! Of
course, with changing scientific understanding, many of our
interpretations of scriptural passages might have to be modified (this
is NOT redefinition!). This has been going on since they were written;
it's our legitimate job, anyhow. All missionaries work at
"inculturation" of the word, making it understandable to their audience
or their readers - taking great pains NOT to change any of the text's
meaning or redefine any original words.
> On what basis, then, would we criticize a theologian who might want to
> redefine the word "prophet" from "one who speaks God's words" to "one who
> calls us to live better lives and be nicer to the poor;" or redefine the
> word "prayer" from "speaking with God" to "attuning oneself to the reality
> of one's own being and the cosmos;" or redefine "God's law" to mean "good
> guidelines for living in society;" or redefine "resurrection" to mean "a
> psychological event in which Jesus' teachings took hold in the disciples'
> hearts and emboldened them to become teachers themselves." All of those
> redefinitions could be done in the name of making the Bible more in line
> with modern science.
This is completely beside the point. These "liberal" theologians will
usually be happy to redefine the words of the biblical creation texts to
accommodate ANE cosmology, as well as other myths. In the tradition of
Bultmann, they claim to demythologize the bible, but in fact they
mythologize it. What we are doing is something very different.
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 12:32:02 EDT