Re: [asa] Original Sin and Genesis 3

David said:? What "Western" preconceptions?? Is relationality and fellowship with God not part of the Eastern tradition??

No, I'm not saying anything about Eastern theology since I don't know anything about it.? I only added "Western" in case Eastern?theology happens to be different and I wanted to limit the statement to what I know about.?

But I do think you're telling us about your (and our) preconceptions and not about the text.? The text doesn't say much of anything about the nature of Adam's fellowship?with God prior to the Fall, nor how it would have affected him both pre- and post- Fall.? We have filled in the details with all kinds of invented ideas, and these form our view of the "text", but really it's not too closely related to the text at all.?

These filler ideas are all based on the belief that Moses originally intended the text to be read as literal history.? I'm moving?toward the idea that this was not Moses' intent.? If we suppose that Moses intended the text to be interpreted according to the common genre for origins accounts of the time, then we would not have invented the same filler ideas.? How much of our theology is really based on filler ideas rather than on the actual text?

David wrote:
>> Anyway, before deciding on an exegesis of this phrase, I'd like to understand (1) the nuances of the original Hebrew; (2) any cultural and contemporary literary context for this kind of "knowledge"; and (3) how the phrase has been understood in the tradition (including the Eastern tradition).? I don't think we can decide it just based on what the English word "knowledge" might mean to us today.<<? (end quote)

I'd add some others to your list and put them ahead of these three.? I'd put no value in (3), or in what anybody thought about the text after Alexander the Great had conquered the Levant.? By that time, worldviews had changed so much that the culture was completely disconnected from the original context.? That rules out getting any value from the church fathers of the 1st century, or subsequent.? It's better to go back to Sumerian and Babylonian literature, which is surely connected to this text since Abraham came from there and since the account was set there.? So evaluate it by that standard, and not by 1st century Hebrew thought, which evolved 1 1/2 millenia later.? If we had other material from Moses' time, then that would be even more helpful, but unfortunately we don't.? So the Mesopotamian literature is the best we've got to go on.

So first I'd ask, what was the common genre that Moses' audience and that Abraham's forebears would have assumed for this text to decide how to interpret it?? Second, does the text (prior to the Seth geneology) fit the pattern of a mythopeic genre or does it fit the pattern of literal history?? Those would be the first two things to resolve before getting into the nuances of single words.

Did you see that silly movie "Galaxy Quest" starring Tim Allen?? The premise of that movie was that a far distant civilization in space saw our TV broadcasts of a show much like Star Trek, and they assumed it was history instead of fiction.? So they based their entire culture on the TV show.? The basic problem was that they failed to recognize the genre and so they didn't follow the correct rules associated with interpreting that genre.? We are like the far distant civilization trying to interpret the account that has been broadcast to us across 2 1/2 millenia of time.? We might have gotten the genre wrong.? Like in the movie, when faced with facts to the contrary, we may need to reassess that most important question before getting into other details.

I spent a few years studying Sumerian, Babylonian, and Greek mythology.? From all that I read, the Genesis 1-4 accounts (until after the birth of Seth) read just?like that genre.? That's not to say that the Bible is false because it is a "myth".? Rather, it is to say that perhaps Moses intended his audience to be educated and bright enough to understand the rules of that very common genre, and that they would therefore understand what to take away from the text and not get caught making up irrelevant filler material to make it seem more plausible as a story of literal people.? If God did indeed inspire Moses to write an allegorical account about mankind's Fall, then we should interpret it as allegory and not as literal.

By comparison, other cultures understood that the genre of "myth" was not to be taken literally.? For example, Homer and Hesiod were very inventive in writing their versions of the Greek myth.? They adapted and changed as required for the sake of their literature.? Their accounts of the Greek gods were not considered by them to be a literal history that had to be told verbatim.? It was understood to be a medium for communicating abstract concepts by using symbols, and therefore could be changed by the poet.? Later generations then cast the myths into stone as though they were actual accounts.? But the original authors did not treat them this way.

Think of the symbols in Genesis 3 and 4:? the talking snake, the two trees with metaphysical powers, the woman being made from a body part of the man, the names of the Cain geneology being symbolic distortions?of the Seth geneology, the three rhyming sons of Lamech who invented major, diverse cultural advancements in just one generation and all in one family.? Are these really plausible?? Do snakes really talk?? Were they really the craftiest beast of the field?? Was it three brothers who invented music, pastoral nomadism, and metallurgy?? Or is the Bible telling us that sinful people invented these things as part of mankind's overall effort, like Cain, to assert his value through his own works apart from trusting God?? Sacrifices of crops that mankind grows by his sweat, rather than the blood sacrifices and faith of Abel?

It really does seem to be a different genre than the later events in Genesis, does it not?? The Bible does have miracles, and I want to affirm my belief in them away by all means.? But here I'm talking about looking for the overall pattern of the account to see what Moses intended.? I don't know any other part of Scripture that are as symbolic and unworldly as this one, except the parables that are told by the prophets and Jesus, which were intended?to be read as parables.

Also, the Bible does imply that all mankind is biologically descended from Adam.? Both Cain (the evil people who invent the idea of cities along with all the major cultural advancements) and Seth (the godly people) are descended from him, and nowhere does it state that anybody else lived who was not descended from Adam.? It would be impossible for such a?purposeful tale as Genesis to fail to state that others not descended from Adam lived as his neighbors, if in fact the author intended that to be part of its background setting.? That's just unfathomable!? The author told us about the origin of rain and animals and plants and stars and sin and thorns and cities.? How could he fail to tell us about the origin of people?? Think about that.

The wife of Cain and the people who populated Cain's city are much better explained as being normative to a telescoped, symbolic tale of that genre.? The author would not feel the need to tell us that Adam had many other children if Adam were a non-literal representation of the origin of humanity, and Cain were a non-literal representation of the origin of cursed, wandering mankind who eventually invented cities.? It would be understood that they were symbolic and so of course many other people were born by the time "Cain" (mankind) built cities.? On the other hand, if the account were meant to be literal, then the author would never have failed to tell us that God created people apart from Adam's children?if in fact he had believed such a thing to be true.? It's a terrible ad hoc assumption that goes against reason to say that Adam had historical neighbors that are hinted at but not directly explained in the text.?

And we now know that biological descent from only one man who lived in _Mesopotamia_ makes sense only if the text is part of a non-literal genre.? So if we hold the theological position that the text is inerrant, as I do, then it makes sense to believe on theological grounds that it was intended to be non-literal.

Phil

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 10 20:22:58 2007