Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

David Opderbeck wrote:

> "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.
>
point well taken. I don't want to set up a current modern approach as
the final or ultimate measure of what would be called "actual
history". Perhaps more awkwardly but accurately I should have said
something like "history as it is currently understood".

By the way, if anyone wants to provide a link to a site or previous post
that gives a good summary of 'ANE' I would appreciate it. Googling it
didn't get me too far other than "Antiochian Exegesis Symposium" if that
is on the right track.

I'm not familiar with Peter Enns' work, but I think I understand the
examples you gave. Here is another example that also fits the
"credibility straining" category:

If one were to take verbatim the disciples' responses to Jesus at the
first and then the subsequent feedings of the large crowds (Mt 14 and
then Mt 15), one is left with an impression of the disciples as
pathologically dull. Who among us, after witnessing the feeding of the
5000 could turn around later and repeat exactly the same skeptical words
to Jesus for the next crowd. It would have been more in keeping with
their characters to want to be on top of the action next time the
opportunity arose. "Hey Jesus --- remember how you fed that
multitude? -- can we do it again here? can we!? can we!!?"

I imagine that recognition of literary device would give a more
satisfying explanation for such things --- I'll want to look into that.

--merv

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 11:15:09 2006