Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

I think I have a little more insight into what bothers me about saying Paul
was wrong about Adam being historical, because the prevailing Judaic thought
of the day is that he was, and not being as bothered by the author of
Genesis using the ANE cosmology because it was all that he knew.

The difference to me is that in the latter example, the ANE cosmology was a
broad theory of origins, and the writer was using the accepted and known
mythology of the day to teach monotheism and refute polytheism.

But in the example of Paul, it seems that he was actually trying to make the
actual claim that Adam was an historic figure. It may not have been the
primary point of the text, but he was talking about this single falsifiable
fact. Since this fact of Adam's actual existence is an isolated truth or
untruth, and was part of the point Paul was trying to make, to say that this
was in fact not true, and Paul was just a product of his culture, raises
questions about what it means that scripture is inspired.

This bother me a lot less that the author of Genesis not understanding true
cosmology, because this understanding of cosmology was more pervasive, and
not as easily falsifiable.

Similarly, I have less problems with an accomodationalist approach lets say
to NT scripture supporting slavery, or claiming that only men should preach
scriptures. As these seem, in a similar way to the Genesis account, more
pervasive cultural ways of thinking, than isolated facts.

But my distinction strikes me as arbitrary, which is the point of my
question.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

> Is such interpretation arbitrary? It seems highly subjective, and that it
> could justify just about any viewpoint.
>
> For example. I do not mean to pick on George exclusively, but I just read
> his article in Perspectives on Original Sin. In this article he makes
> reference to Paul Seely's argument that, "citing Calvin, there is
> accommodation to cultural context in such matters (the ANE cosmology)
> which are inessential to the text's (Genesis 1:6) theological message.
>
> I can accept this as accommodation, the ancients likely had no conception
> of cosmology as we do today.
>
> But George also claims that even though Paul thought of Adam as a
> historical figure, there is no reason for us to do so. George makes the
> claim that Paul's understanding, even though it was incorrect, was an
> accommodation based on the understanding of Judaism at the time. Also,
> in the 666 thread, he claimed that even though John expected that the end
> of the age, was going to occurr in the first century, he was mistaken.
>
> I have trouble being convinced of this accommodationalist position.
> Perhaps because, as inspired writers, Paul and John should have known
> better. The ideas of Adam being historical, and the end times being a
> first century event, certainly seems to be something that Paul and John
> could understand, which seems, to me anyway, not the case with the author
> of Genesis 1.
>
> Is there any book or article that explains this method of interpretation?
Received on Sat Jun 10 20:08:27 2006