Great questions, Louise, and I agree they are likely to come up.
One of the key points to make, in response, is that not all parts of the
Bible are of the same literary genre, so the appropriate way to read a
creation story is not the appropriate way to read a Pauline letter or Acts
or Matthew.
As for the resurrection, I cannot myself account for the combination of
"empty tomb" and "appearance" stories, and of early church history, unless,
a literal bodily resurrection actually took place. I believe with NT Wright
and many others, that it is the best hypothesis, that no others really will
do the job when all things are considered. And the non-historicity of Jesus
and the disciples I take as absurd, rather like suggesting the
non-historicity of Aristotle (though some works attributed to him are
pseudonymous) or, for that matter, King David. The latter (the claim that
David was a figment of the Hebew imagaination) is quite popular in some
circles, but for purely political reasons related to the modern Middle East;
there is actual archeaological evidence that he existed, according to my
brother (an ancient Near east archaeologist).
And NT writers can refer to tradition in various ways; it isn't always
clear whether their references are fully historical or more literary--indeed
it isn't always clear that this distinction would have occured to them.
That won't please the sceptical fundamentalist, obviously, but it might be
the truth.
Ted
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 30 17:13:00 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 30 2007 - 17:13:00 EST