RE: [asa] RE: Conrad Hyers essay [WAS: (much better than) Jonathan Wellsessay

Guys, find a new super hero. Let's look at some key areas where Hyers
shows his ignorance.

"A similar situation exists with respect to the biblical creation texts.
They may have the appearance of narrative accounts, whose purpose is to
convey information concerning natural history and the life and times of
the first humans."

First big mistake! Genesis 2-11 is not about human history at all. It
is the history of the Jews. That's the first point that needs to be
established before we can go any further. I can't really blame Hyers,
it is a typical mistake the majority of Christians make. But by now at
least some of us on this list should have been exposed to enough ANE
history to know better. If you haven't you could read some.

"Collisions between science and religion are, in large part, the result
of religious people insisting that the biblical texts function as
scientific and historical reports, and that to interpret them otherwise
would be unfaithful to them. To compound the confusion, this supposed
scientific and historical meaning is said to be the literal meaning of
the texts."

I see nothing in Hyers article to suggest he knows anything about ANE
history. Josephus and Berossus were erstwhile historians. Their
historical information parallels and supplements the Genesis text. Both
reference the flood. Josephus even quotes Berossus and changes the name
of the ark builder from Xisouthros (Greek for Ziusudra) to the Hebrew
"Noah." What kind of literature does Hyers think they were writing?

After a brief tromping on the late Henry Morris (well deserved I might
add), Hyers says:

"These leaps in the argument indicate the degree to which scientific and
historical concerns have come to dominate the interpretation of biblical
texts."

Biblical, scientific, and historical are three separate domains. Hyers
lumps scientific and historical together as if they are joined at the
hip. If he wants to establish that Genesis is not scientific let him
make that argument. If he wants to argue that Genesis is divorced from
history let him make that argument. But they are two separate
arguments. He just assumes that the writer of Genesis who must be
unenlightened on matters scientific likewise knows nothing about the
history of his forefathers.

"It may surely be said that the Genesis accounts of creation are not in
conflict with scientific and historical knowledge. Yet this is not
because they can be shown to be in conformity with this knowledge, but
precisely because they have little to do with it."

Speaking as one who shows no knowledge of ANE literature that may seem
to be the case. Speaking as one who has an extensive knowledge of ANE
literature I can tell you Hyers is dead wrong.

"To take an example from poetry, which is considerably closer to the
character of the creation materials than scientific or historical prose:
a poetic treatment of an autumn sunset is neither scientifically true
nor untrue."

Psalms is poetry. Other parts of the OT have hymnic elements seen by
repetitions, glowing rhetoric and open worship. Elements totally
lacking in Genesis 2-11.

"Similarly, a "literal" interpretation of the Genesis accounts is
inappropriate, misleading and unworkable."

Conrad, read my book! The rest of his rant is about Genesis 1. He says
nothing about patriarchal history at all. Yet he tars all of Genesis
with the same brush. Ted, please spare your future students. Let them
read my articles, "In Search of the Historical Adam, Parts I and II."
They are on the ASA web site too.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Freeman, Louise Margaret
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:37 PM
To: ASA
Subject: [asa] RE: Conrad Hyers essay [WAS: (much better than) Jonathan
Wellsessay

Certainly a great paper, Ted; I see how you like it for student use.
I'll put it on my list of things to share. It reminds me of the
discussion of Genesis in Falk's Coming to Peace with Science .

But I predict, if I shared it with the largely literalist members of my
church, I'd get the following questions.

1) Is a "literal" interpretation of Noah's Flood similarly
"inappropriate, misleading and unworkable?" What about the Plagues and
the Exodus? How do you stop yourself from falling into the trap of
declaring the entire Bible non-literal, including the miracles and
resurrection of Jesus?

2) What about New Testament passages (1 Cor 15:22, I Tim 2:13, Matt
24:37) that refer to the stories of Adam and Noah as if they were
literal and historically true events?

__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121

Ted responds:
I would say that one person who bothered to read Genesis in light of
what
we know about the ancient Near East is Conray Hyers, whose essay
"Dinosaur
Religion" greatly helps my students to understand the importance of
cultural
context and literary genre for doing biblical hermeneutics. This is my
NUMBER ONE recommended article on origins issues, bar none. I put it
above
articles by scientists, historians, philosophers, theologians, and other
biblical scholars.

It's also one of our own--ie, an article from PSCF. It ought to be
getting
thousands of annual hits, but sadly it is not very well known.

Here it is:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html

ted

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 Wed Jan 31 10:38:15 2007