RE: [asa] RE: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

Well, if your read the Bereshith you certainly get the idea that they
believed it was history. Indeed, they said so. Note the word history:

The unity of God is at once set before us in the history of creation, where
we are told he, not they, created.

Then you find things like:

"Michael and Gabriel acted as "best men" at the nuptials of Adam and Eve.
God joined them in wedlock, and pronounced the marriage-benediction on
them."

And the Midrash Tanhuma says:

"As one who finishes the building of his house proclaims that day a holiday,
and consecrates the building, so God, having finished creation in the six
days, proclaimed the seventh day a holy day and sanctified it."

There seems to be an assumption that the Bible was history. They did think
it also contained secret mysteries but history was the first and formost
view. I have never run into anything that indicates he ancients thought it
didn't teach history. (Of course, some might take that as proof of
accommodation).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Hamilton
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:57 AM
> To: Don Nield; Dick Fischer
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Are there guidelines for
> accommodational interpretation?
>
>
> Dick
>
> I was hoping in yhour response to my qquery that you'd cite
> some rabbinic commentary that asserted that Genesis 1-11 is
> Jewish history. Maybe such a thing doesn't exist, but it
> doesn't hurt to ask.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 15 07:09:07 2006