Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

*at some point in Genesis we almost all agree it has become actual history
*
Merv, I think I know what you mean by this and generally I'd agree. But to
be very precise, I wouldn't be totally comfortably with the phrase "actual
history." To me, "actual history" implies a modern category of
historiography, which seeks to be objective and comprehensive. Biblical
history is never objective or comprehensive -- it is told for a polemical
purpose from a given point of view. And, it is told using ANE literary
conventions, for example, rounding numbers or using numbers
symbolically. This doesn't mean Biblical history is "untrue"; it just means
that it is a particular type of literature and must be understood as such.

As one small example of this, compare the exchange between Nathan and David,
recorded both in 2 Samuel 7:16 and 1 Chron. 17:14. The wording differs: in
2 Samuel, Nathan says "*your *house and *your* king" and in 1 Chron., he
says "*my* house and *my* kingdom." This small difference has big
theological consequences: in 2 Samuel, the focus is on David's line, and in
1 Chron., the focus is on God himself (Nathan is speaking for God).

The evangelical impulse is to try to harmonize these accounts. For example,
maybe Nathan uttered both of these lines, and only portions of the speech
were incorporated into 2 Sam. and 1 Chron. respectively. This is possible,
but it seems that there are many examples like these and that after a while
these kinds of harmonizations begin to strain credulity (or break
it). Perhaps a better way to understand this is that it is part of the
literary convention of Biblical history. Both accounts capture the truth of
what Nathan said from different perspectives, on pre-exhilic and one
post-exhilic.

Those who've read Peter Enns' "Inspiration and Incarnation" will recognize
that I took this example and much of the argument directly from him.

(Also, we could have an interesting discussion about whether even modern
historiography is truly objective and comprehensive, but that's another
subject.)

On 7/1/06, Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
> I agree with David's point (I don't mean to suggest any of us would be
> purists), but the categories still retain their usefulness for purposes
> of recognition.
>
> The "necessary historicity" was just my reference to points previously
> made by others here that at some point in Genesis we almost all agree it
> has become actual history -- with the strictest concordists saying it
> was history from the first word (for them the Bible is all or nothing),
> and the least strict willing to dabble in "non-historical" explanations
> on up through the flood and even beyond should they deem it necessary.
> I think the point was made that it would be difficult to spell out how
> such transition could work. It does introduce a messy seam, hard to
> explain -- but not impossible I would think (who says it has to be a
> clean break?). But we all do agree, don't we?, that Abraham was a
> real person, and to deny that historiocity is to throw out the entire
> O.T.. That's what I meant by 'necessary'. Where ever that fuzzy line
> may be, most of us would put it before Abraham.
>
> The wide swath of history that you refer to, complete with genealogies,
> wars, etc. would, I expect, be historical. But I'm not bothered by
> discrepancies from one genealogy to another, or other such details that
> I feel a need to explain them away. But if you were to demonstrate that
> Moses never lived, or that he never led the people of Israel out of
> Egypt --- THAT would shake me up quite a bit since it is such a woven
> theme throughout the entire Bible, something Israel is commanded to
> remember. Whereas Adam, even though his theme could be said to be woven
> through the Bible as well, that theme could still be meaningful without
> a historical Adam, I don't think the same could be said about Abraham or
> Moses, etc. I am probably playing faster and looser with scripture
> here than I ought to be, in which case I'll be happy to accept correction.
>
> --merv
>
> I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
> --Steven Wright
>
> Randy Isaac wrote:
>
> > Good question, Merv, and I think you've received some good responses
> > already. We don't have good data on demographics within the ASA. It
> > would be very interesting to know. I do get the impression from
> > personal interactions that there's a pretty broad spectrum of beliefs
> > and on this list we simply don't hear as much from the more
> > conservative end. I wish we could sustain a broader balance and
> > portray the respect for each other that we proclaim.
> >
> > As Dave pointed out, everyone is concordistic to some extent and
> > accommodationistic to some extent. The issue is which passages we're
> > discussing. Usually we share the foundation of the reality of Jesus'
> > life, death and resurrection and then vigorously debate Gen. 1-11 and
> > related passages. You brought up Jonah, Job, and NT parables. But I
> > wonder how you and people on this list consider Gen. 12 through the
> > Kings and Chronicles? To what extent are you concordistic with respect
> > to these portions of the Old Testament? To what extent is it
> > important? I've never researched the archeology and recorded history
> > of that period to know the extent of concord that exists. If
> > hypothetically such concord were to be shown not to exist, would that
> > also be of little or no impact to your faith? You used the intriguing
> > phrase "...the necessary historicity in later Genesis...."
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: < mrb22667@kansas.net>
> > To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:19 PM
> > Subject: [asa] restrained accommodationism?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> My early impression of this [ASA] list was that most of you are TEs,
> >> and that
> >> with that you are probably accommodationists of varying degree. Yet
> >> since I've
> >> been lurking over the last months, the most active threads have
> >> always involved
> >> concordism of varying flavors. (i.e. debates over Adam as
> >> Neolithic, or
> >> ancient, etc. -but always as a historical person) so much so to
> >> make me think
> >> my impression was mistaken.
> >>
> >> Are most of you actually concordists who just differ over the
> >> details? Am I
> >> alone in my thoughts that my faith would not be much affected if, for
> >> example,
> >> Jonah, Job, NT parables, (or even early Genesis) was not completely
> >> historical -
> >> in fact, some of it maybe not historical at all -- but yet is truth
> >> without
> >> having to be so in the modern/historical sense?
> >>
> >> Granted the difficulties much expressed about messy transition
> >> between early
> >> Genesis mythology (NOT to be taken as a demeaning term here) and the
> >> necessary
> >> historicity in later Genesis, that problem seems no less messy than
> >> awkwardly
> >> forced concordisms.
> >>
> >> Or is my original impression correct, and you just find yourselves
> >> engaged with
> >> a vocal group of well-researched and persistent concordists (who do
> >> indeed
> >> bring a great wealth of knowledge and perspective to the debate -
> >> don't get me
> >> wrong.)
> >>
> >> As always, I'm sure my inquiry is the umpteenth of its nature on this
> >> list
> >> history, and any patience you all choose to extend is always
> >> appreciated. You
> >> have every right to start saying: To your inquiry (#23) we respond
> >> with
> >> devastating reply #219 and for penance read "you idiot" #64. Or you
> >> can just
> >> refer to earlier posts. But I do mostly appreciate the exchange
> >> here from all
> >> sides be they concordist or accomodationist -- or at least the ones
> >> I've taken
> >> time to read out of the volumes written.
> >>
> >> --merv
> >>
> >> Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
> >> --Steven Wright
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 1 05:01:35 2006