In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus equates hate, insult and name-calling with murder. For a long time, I just accepted the common explanation that Jesus is “reinterpreting” the Law, pushing for a “deeper” understanding of “what God really meant”. As I blogged several days ago, however, I am beginning to see that Jesus was reading the Law through the lens of love defined as self-sacrifice. Thus, all commandments must be reexamined through that lens. And so what of “Thou shalt not murder”?
What is murder, exactly? In his compelling analysis of the Cain and Able myth, Volf argues (quite persuasively) that Cain murders Abel because he refuses to redefine himself. Able is the quintessential nothing - he is the second son, he is a shepherd, even his name means something like “vapor”. Cain, on the other hand is strong. He is a farmer, the first son, strong and able (hahaha, get it?). For no good reason we can see, God chooses Abel. God. Chooses. Abel. Cain cannot accept this; the very fact of Abel’s existence now calls his own understanding of himself into question. And, rather than reevaluate himself, Cain chooses to remove that which caused him existential dissonance. He strikes down his brother, the Other, thereby allowing him to maintain his identity unchanged.
If we allow this story to be paradigmatic for understanding the process of murder (and I know it’s not going to be 100%, so let’s agree not to get caught up in the details), I think this sheds some interesting light on Jesus’ comments. Murder arises from a challenge to the integrity of our Selfs. So too I suggest do hate, insult and labeling. Rarely do we hate something that does not affect us; apathy is a much commoner response to these nonentities. Our hatred arises from that which is a challenge to our Selves. Consider, for example, racism in the States - the races that bore the brunt of race-based hatred (Irish, Italian, African, etc) were always those races whose proximity to the dominant culture forced those in power to question and to reevaluate their assumptions about what made them human. We have a tendency toward self-preservation and stability; it seems to be human nature to lash out in anger against that which threatens us. Insult and labeling are public means by which we can consign the Other to safe categories that no longer threaten us.
And so I can see why Jesus considers murder, hatred, name-calling and labeling to be related. They are really all symptoms of the same problem: our tendency to objectify and dehumanize that which threatens our Selfs, our identities. Jesus calls us to lay down our Selfs in favor of embracing the Other. If we cannot allow the Other into our Selfs, to challenge and reshape us, then we will never be able to allow God, who is entirely more Other than any human, to enter into us, to shape us and to change us. Perhaps this is what Jesus means when he teaches us a few verses later to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” and then follows that with, “If you do not forgive sin here on Earth, neither will your Father forgive your sins in heaven.” We are not in a place to accept God’s forgiveness, to repent, unless we can learn how to do the same down here. Only the peacemakers are called children of God.
And let’s not reduce this to cause-effect. We miss the point if we pull a magic formula, a one-to-one correlation between forgiveness on Earth and forgiveness in Heaven. Rather, we learn to be forgiven, to live as the forgiven, in the kingdom of Heaven that is coming to Earth, even as we learn to forgive sin here on Earth.
“Dead man, is it being high that makes you alive, that makes you leave behind three boys and a wife? …As the track marks work their way up your arm, my mother taught my brothers and I not to call you ‘Daddy’, but to call you ‘Father’. And I believe there is something here to be learned of Grace, ’cause I can’t help but love you.”
– “The Widow”, As Cities Burn
63 Comments
“Myth”?
The word “myth” primarily refers to a story from which truths can be obtained. Whether particular myths are historical, quasi-historical, or fiction is not bound to the “mythness” of something, that is a separate attribute.
However, with that said, I am not sure either way about the complete historical nature of the opening stories in Genesis. Could be, but also could not be. However, we can discuss this somewhere else, as the historical nature of the story really does not pertain to the overall message of JR’s post.
Well I disagree, I think it has much indeed to do with the message of the post, he is citing Cain’s murder of Abel, or rather the “myth” of that incident, as an example of how murder occurs. I am wondering whether this fellow thinks that Cain and Abel are real people that existed in real time and space, or if he just vies it as a sort of fable used for teaching points about cruelty. It would seem to me the latter is the case.
That said, I just want to call a spade a spade.
Hey, guys. JR. invited me. Nice to meetcha.
Puritanbob: I can respect your views on myth and historicity, but what do you think about the overall paradigm that JR is proposing?
Darryl? Is that you from Maupin Hall? It's me Winkler! Little Henry Imler. I think we had Biblical Archaeology with Langston together.
Yes, it’s me. Good to cross paths with you again.
How can I post a blog on here? I’m not that techno-savvy.
It’s doesn’t matter whether it’s historical or not. Jesus’ parables aren’t historical events, but they were still narratives intended to teach something about the nature of humanity, God, and the kingdom of God.
Whether it is historical or not, JR’s reading comes out to the same conclusions. I don’t see how historicity is relevant.
Truth transcends historical fact…at least the writers of the Bible thoughts so…and Jesus…and the Revelator. The whole Bible assumes that because none of the biblical writers were modernists who restricted truth to fact.
I think historicity and mythology are questions worth pursuing, but as that is no JR’s point, I think the paradigm (thanks Darryl) provides great insight into the nature of human hatred, murder, and general sinfulness.
I want to mention the importance of sympathetic understanding in the writing of blogs and the commenting…. It is important that we understand what another is saying in order to critique it. It is also important for the blog writers to understand that words carry both meaning and connotation.
The word “Myth” has many connotations, and perhaps JR should have avoided using it. That said, let’s get back to the topic of hatred and “othering” that is being commented on.
I agree with the point that “hatred arises from that which is a challenge to our Selves.” I would even extend this point and say that hatred, labeling etc. are ways that we dehumanize others. The whole idea of making people into “Others” is so that we do not have to interact with them as being as fully human as we are.
i believe that to the degree to which we make people dehumanized “others”, we actually are dehumanizing ourselves. This leads me to a few questions that would be interesting to get responses on:
Can a person, in hating and tearing down other humans, become so dehumanized that they actually become an Other? We all have a bit of monster within us - that which is not human; that which is filled with darkness. When we honestly look at the decadence and cruelty within us we see that there are the seeds of the murderer, the rapist, the thief. Can a person so exploit others that the monster within - the Otherness - actually becomes who they are?
“It’s doesn’t matter whether it’s historical or not. Jesus’ parables aren’t historical events, but they were still narratives intended to teach something about the nature of humanity, God, and the kingdom of God.”
Well if that is one’s thinking I believe it is fairly obvious that you haven’t really thought about what you are saying. The Bible treats Jesus’ parables as parable, a story with the intent of teaching a message. However, Cain’s murder of Abel is a historical narrative, in other words NOT a parable at least that is how it is treated every time it is refrenced by the inspired writers. Christ’s own geneology has Adam in it treating him as a real historical figure that existed in time and space… to say “Oh it doesn’t matter” is a rather poorly thought approach and I really think it comes from caving in to the true mythology that pervades modernity.
I don’t think you can consistently hold that parts of the Bible are “myth” (when it in itself claims that these events modernitsts are labeling “myth” happened in time and space) and not undermine the authority of the Bible as a whole.
Oh since people keep asking I think that yes, murder is very intertwined with envy and a sense of challenge. I think there is more to it than that but that often is the case.
Bob,
you're operating with a post-enlightenment, modernist understanding of myth and history, and you're being unnecessarily cruel to anyone who doesn't share your interpretive lens. frankly, i think you've missed the point of my post entirely, as evidenced by your last comment. i think if you wouldn't have reacted so strongly to the M-word, you might not have.
i'm curious to know how you justify calling others' theologies inconsistent and poorly thought out (to say nothing of language you've used in other posts) is any different from the "christian curse words" you referenced in the Original Sin string.
i think we can discuss theology and our (obviously) differing interpretive lenses without resorting to name-calling, labeling, and othering.
don't you?
Let me define sympathetic understanding: it means that you can state another’s position in such a way that they say, “Yes, that’s what I mean.” It seems very clear that Bob is not understanding JR in such a way that JR would say, “Yes, that’s what I mean.”
Wow, talk about ad-hominem…I mean you just slap like 6 labels on me all negatively basically calling me a narrow minded no nothing and then sor of matter of factly state
“i think we can discuss theology and our (obviously) differing interpretive lenses without resorting to name-calling, labeling, and othering.”
As for the rest of the post, I really couldn’t give a rip you still haven’t addressed your use of “myth”, it doesn’t appear that you want to. I don’t want to be overly hostile with you bro, but when you start saying parts of the Bible are myth you better believe I will challenge it. I don’t care how loudly you praise “do unto others” and stuff like that if you are in reality denying the historicity of the Bible. Now I am open for room of disagreement on what and how exactly things happened provided we agree that they happened but to flat out call parts of the Bible myth, I can’t see that as anything but unbelief and a bowing to the spirit of the age.
To clarify so “unbelief” doesn’t need to get edited, I am not saying JR is not saved or that JR is not a Christian I am just saying that he doesn’t believe what the bible says about it’s self. Henve does not believe=unbelief…
“Let me define sympathetic understanding: it means that you can state another’s position in such a way that they say, “Yes, that’s what I mean.” It seems very clear that Bob is not understanding JR in such a way that JR would say, “Yes, that’s what I mean.”
Perhaps, but the meat of the post is irrelevant to me, I am pointing to the skeleton or foundation and find wood hay and stubble.
Oh and to answer this, good question btw:
“i’m curious to know how you justify calling others’ theologies inconsistent and poorly thought out (to say nothing of language you’ve used in other posts) is any different from the “christian curse words” you referenced in the Original Sin string.”
Well the difference is I didn’t just toss out some buzz word. I explained how if you hold that Cain and Abel never existed and Genesis is myth (at least the early parts) you would have a tension because Adam is in Christ’s geneology and viewed as an actual person, Abel is refrenced by Christ and other Biblical writers as an actual person not a parable figure invoked for the purpose of a moral lesson. So to say that Abel never existed, is really to underming Christ’s teaching and innerancy of the Bible as a whole. (Perhaps you don’t care about innerancy, I have the feeling you dont).
Bob,
I never saw where JR. said that Cain and Abel never existed…..”myth” does not necessarily mean “a-historical” (as Honzo so aptly demonstrated).
Bob,
If the Cain and Able account is history according to our standards of history, which are completely different from people in the NT’s standards of history, then the story is still a myth, which is how JR categorized it.
JR,
I love the orientation and vectoring of your post. I know those are abstract and nearly meaningless terms to most of you all. Not only does it illuminate the next, but it orients not only the viewing of past conflicts, but also how one should view the other and approach it and God.
Good application of the passage.
The image of a hampster spining his wheel seems to be the best discription of this dialogue. I seem to have to repeat the nature of the original question in the face of cavilers only to have the question not answered. My goodness. So yes as Darryl states:
“I never saw where JR. said that Cain and Abel never existed…..”myth” does not necessarily mean “a-historical” (as Honzo so aptly demonstrated).”
I understand that and that is why I asked JR several times to define what he means by “myth” no clear response has been given it has just been one fellow after another popping in to tell me to focus on something else or let it go. I think I am getting a taste of what Spurgeon went through in the down grade controversy, nobody liked being called on their error and others kept giving Spurgeon a hard time saying he was making a mountain out of nothing. My two cents is that calling parts of the Bible “myth” is not what people operating on Christian presuppositions do, I am not saying JR is not a Christian or that his valiant defender Henry Honzo is not Christian for using the term. What I am saying is that they are not thinking Christianly in that area. If that makes me the bad guy so be it.
Again all I have been asking is whether by myth JR denies that these events actually occured in time and space, whether Adam, Cain and Abel were historical figures. I have not gotten a response and that was 16 comments and a lot of hemming and hawing ago. You see it is my inkling that JR doesn’t think Cain was a real person and probably doesn’t think Genesis is actual history, I think that is why my rather direct question has been caviled at and skirted around so many times. Perhaps he doesn’t want that skeleton out of the closet…All I am asking for is a definition of what HE MEANT by myth, I didn’t think it was that difficult. I may be wrong in my assumption that he denies the historicity of the events in Genesis. However, due to all the skirting and sidekicks coming out of the wood work to tell me to shut up I am inclined to think I am hitting a sore spot that people would rather not have the peroxide of truth applied to.
Perhaps I have been a bit harsh with JR, if so I apologize, however, my question still stands and remains avoided and shirked.
Bob,
Sorry, I've been on vacation, so I haven't had the time to respond in full to your post.
Honestly, I didn't really want to respond on this string, because, as so many have pointed out already, the question of the historicity of the Genesis narrative is entirely tangential to the point I was trying to convey. But, I respect your wish, so here goes (and forgive if it's a bit jumbled… I've been driving for 9+hours today).
I think the question of whether the Genesis narratives (especially chapters 1-11) are historical is beyond our ability to answer. A modernist will of course answer that I must not believe the bible in this case. Not at all. I believe the Bible is true in all that it claims; I will not claim for the Scriptures what they do not claim for themselves. And, as Honzo aptly demonstrated, the ancients had an entirely different understanding of Myth and History than do we. For instance, Virgil puts Achilles in Augustus' genealogy, but today we recognize Achilles as a mythical hero who could have been based on an historical figure (ala "Troy"), but we can't know that. Similarly, we shouldn't be surprised to find the genealogy of Jesus to have ancient heroic figures in it. If we demand that these (or any other ancient genealogy) be taken as historical, we have greater problems, as the Matthean and Lukan genealogies are irreconcilably contradictory.
But back to Genesis. When I read Genesis 1-11, the stories therein read like ancient Near-Eastern mythologies. That is, they are stories that were told by communities primarily to shape the community and to provide a source of values and structure for the contemporary lived community. Trying to read Genesis 1-11 as literal history creates too many problems.
For instance:
1. The two creation accounts are contradictory when taken literally.
2. The two creation accounts don't make any sense with what we know from modern science when taken literally (and I mean, for instance, that according to Genesis 1, on the 4th day, God placed the Sun, Moon and Stars "in the firmament", which was the sky below the waters above. So, the ancients imagined a water shell with sky underneath in which hung the heavenly bodies. This is not consistent with what we know thanks to modern astronomy).
3. If it's meant to be history, it's terrible history. For instance, where did Cain get a wife? And of whom was he afraid? The stories were clearly not told in order to give an exhaustive accounting of the origins of the world, humanity, or civilization. Rather, the stories that were selected were selected because they gave shape and meaning to the community that told them. I tend to think that Gen 1-11 was redacted in close to its final form in the wake of the Exile. But that's a whole different post.
4. The NT writers don't read Genesis 1-11 as literal history. Paul's arguments in Romans make no sense if we treat Adam merely as a literal historical figure (and this relates to the Original Sin post as well). Paul calls Adam a "type" of the one to come… this is mythological language. In literal history, one thing cannot be a type or foreshadow of something else. That only happens in story, in myth.
My assertion is that if we let the Bible speak for itself, if we try to read the text as would an ancient, without imposing our modernist standards of truth (for instance, by assuming that a literal reading is always best), then I think an honest reading of Genesis 1-11 shows that the stories in there need not be historical. They may very well be; they may not be at all. Either way, to ask such a question of the Genesis text is to ask a question the text did not set out to answer, and asking those sorts of questions can be a very dangerous game (ask the Jesus Seminar).
Bob,
Fair enough.
And you’re not a bad guy for wanting to think Christianly or to operate on Christian presuppositions. I believe that is the goal of everyone here. My caution (to all of us, myself included) is that different people will have different ideas as to what a Christian presupposition looks like. Granted, there are matters of primary importance that cannot be disputed if we are to maintain any semblance orthodoxy (ie, a proper Christology). However, not all doctrines are equal (see Romans 14-15 and the whole of Galatians); some are indeed second-order matters that are of great import, but do not necessarily impinge upon an eternal (earthly and heavenly) destiny. We can go even further and divide these into tertiary and quadrary matters, although the weakness in this is that one man’s molehill just may be another man’s mountain. But I believe that an ecumenical theology will strive for a unity in the midst of diversity; we can still sit at the same table and have cordial disagreements (rabbis did and do it all the time).
That being said, the historicity of the Genesis narratives may indeed be important (in differing degrees to different individuals), but I think you will agree that one’s eternal destiny is not contingent upon the interpretive schema one utilizes to interpret those texts.
If I contributed toward any ill feelings (on anyone’s part), I apologize. Let’s just all realize that we’re on the same team here.
Well, it would seem that my assumptions aand apprehensions about JR’s use of “myth” are somewhat confirmed. You start to get a sense for when folks are more left leaning just in the vocabulary they use. Nobody who accepted in full the accounts in Genesis as historically accurate would call it “myth”, people operating on believing presuppositions just don’t talk like that, that is an entirely secular (or unbelieving) approach to interpreting the Bible irregardless of how one uses the word.
As for some things JR said:
Honestly, I didn’t really want to respond on this string, because, as so many have pointed out already, the question of the historicity of the Genesis narrative is entirely tangential to the point I was trying to convey.
In all reality this actually is near to the root of our disagreement, to you it doesn’t matter whether these people really existed in time and space or whether this is truly historical. I on the other hand say that to pull on this thread and falter on this will undermine the Bible and Christian doctrine as a whole. I have given reasons which you try to refute which I will address momentarily. Suffice it to say though that this really is near the heart of the matter, you equate the necessity of believing Genesis 1-11 is real history to the necessity of believing that there was a real man who built his house on a rock next to another who built on sand, it is not the historical reality but the message that matters. I on the other hand view this just as essential as believing Joseph and Mary were real people simply because that is how they are both treated throughout the Bible.
“I think the question of whether the Genesis narratives (especially chapters 1-11) are historical is beyond our ability to answer.”
Only if you have some epistemological standard or criteria that is really resting on unbelieving presuppositions. For me it is rather simple, the Bible doesn’t treat this story like it is a parable with fictional characters so I have no reason to, irregardless of what the PHD’s at Yale say.
” believe the Bible is true in all that it claims; I will not claim for the Scriptures what they do not claim for themselves.”
You and I are in complete agreement here, yet again reach opposite conclusions. The Bible nowehere treats these figures and metaphors for a better life, nor should I. One would think the existence of them in the geneologies would be fairly clear evidence of how the Biblical authors viewed the real existance of these men, yet as we see, that is not convincing to JR. I only bring this up because I don’t think you are practicing what you preach here, you can say that you only believe what the Bible claims about itself and then just make it only say about itself what you want it to say about itself.
“For instance, Virgil puts Achilles in Augustus’ genealogy, but today we recognize Achilles as a mythical hero who could have been based on an historical figure (ala “Troy”), but we can’t know that. Similarly, we shouldn’t be surprised to find the genealogy of Jesus to have ancient heroic figures in it. If we demand that these (or any other ancient genealogy) be taken as historical, we have greater problems, as the Matthean and Lukan genealogies are irreconcilably contradictory.”
Well, now I do believe that you are commiting a fairly blatant fallacy here. So because some pagan poet put a false god in the geneology of the emperor and we know that is not true, therefore, when the Bible has Adam in the geneology of Jesus we know that is not true because other people have sliped pseudo figures into geneologies? This is rather poor reasoning and can’t even remotely be considered an argument for actually doubting Adam’s existence in Christ’s geneology, the only way you would even think Adam isn’t a real person is with some non-Christian a-priori assumptions about the genesis of life on earth.
As for the Lukean and Mathean genological differences, I would think that a person holding some theology degrees whould know that the different geneologies are just that different geneologies, one of Joseph the other of Mary. This isn’t all that shocking when we realise that Joseph wasn’t Jesus birth father. Hence the Lukean says “supposed the son of Joseph…and boom it is different from Matthew’s.
“When I read Genesis 1-11, the stories therein read like ancient Near-Eastern mythologies. That is, they are stories that were told by communities primarily to shape the community and to provide a source of values and structure for the contemporary lived community. Trying to read Genesis 1-11 as literal history creates too many problems.”
That just sounds like unbelief to me. And wouldn’t we expect myth to be similar to the truth? C.S. Lewis does a wonderful job explaining myth, you see when you see everything through the lense of the Christian worldview you see the myths as just shadows and memories of paradise lost in the minds of lost men, they don’t denegrate the truthfulness of Christianity but cause it to shine all the brighter. But when you look at these things starting as an unbeliever, you start pulling on the threads of the Bible and tossing out the hunks that “modern scientific man” finds to be “mythical”. Perhaps it isn’t the Bible that needs to be demythologized but your philosophical ssumption about the world that aren’t resting in the word of God?
“1. The two creation accounts are contradictory when taken literally.”
No they aren’t.
“2. The two creation accounts don’t make any sense with what we know from modern science when taken literally (and I mean, for instance, that according to Genesis 1, on the 4th day, God placed the Sun, Moon and Stars “in the firmament”, which was the sky below the waters above. So, the ancients imagined a water shell with sky underneath in which hung the heavenly bodies. This is not consistent with what we know thanks to modern astronomy).”
I don’t think that is what that is saying at all, “heavens” is used in multiple senses Biblically so there are multiple possible interpretations to this text apart from just rankly saying “That’s not what science says!”.
“3. If it’s meant to be history, it’s terrible history. For instance, where did Cain get a wife? And of whom was he afraid? The stories were clearly not told in order to give an exhaustive accounting of the origins of the world, humanity, or civilization. Rather, the stories that were selected were selected because they gave shape and meaning to the community that told them. I tend to think that Gen 1-11 was redacted in close to its final form in the wake of the Exile. But that’s a whole different post.
Terrible by what standard? Cain married his sister, Cain was afraid of his relatives. As for them not giving exhaustive accounts of the origins of the world and history…NO KIDDING! The Bible isn’t a Science textbook, nor is it primarily a history book, it is a book revealing God and His work of redemption to a fallen rebelious race. However, as you said it is true in all it claims about itself. These men whose existance you obviously don’t believe are treated as real historical figures, sure we don’t have an exhaustive account of the physics that went into creation ex nihlo…SO WHAT? As Francis Schaeffer would say: “The Bible is not exhaustive but it is true truth.”
I really don’t think you can consistently make utterances like that, like “I believe that Bible in all it claims about itself.” You can’t say that consistently. We look at Christ’s geneologies and BOOM! There’s Adam…what do you say? Do you lay aside your unbelieving presuppositions about the early accounts in Genesis…No you don’t, you continue to say “Naw, Adam was just a made up figure to help cave people make sense out of their pitiful existance after they came down from the trees…we know better then to believe that stuff now.” One of those sort of statements needs to be banished from your vocabulary.
“4. The NT writers don’t read Genesis 1-11 as literal history. Paul’s arguments in Romans make no sense if we treat Adam merely as a literal historical figure (and this relates to the Original Sin post as well). Paul calls Adam a “type” of the one to come… this is mythological language. In literal history, one thing cannot be a type or foreshadow of something else. That only happens in story, in myth.”
Say What?! Um, quite the contrary Romans 5 makes no sense unless Adam is a real historical figure and we really are his offspring and connected to him as our federal head. Yes, he does use “type” but that is a far cry from saying: “Adam was a fictional figure whose existance I doubt whose fictional use was and is employed purely to teach spiritual lessons.” That is what you are importing into the text. Again, from what Honzo tells me you have theological degrees and should know that there are many figures who we refer to as “types” of Christ. So if you are going to be consistent and say “type”=”historically doubtful/myth” you need to banish many more Old Testemant figures from real time and space, David was a type of Christ as was Solomon, Joseph, Moses, etc.
Again, I can’t say it enough, the only way you would reach these sort of conclusions is rooted out of unbelief. From what it appears you sat under unbelieving “theologians” who out of their cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting have made their unbelieving presuppositions into what it means to be a “thinking Christian”. So when at the end of all your criticism of what the Bible says about itself (about Genesis) you say:
“My assertion is that if we let the Bible speak for itself, if we try to read the text as would an ancient, without imposing our modernist standards of truth (for instance, by assuming that a literal reading is always best), then I think an honest reading of Genesis 1-11 shows that the stories in there need not be historical.”
My jaw is on the floor and I am simply baffled that you don’t see any contridiction here, perhaps contridiction does not matter to you (I mean you seem to think the genologies in the NT are contriditory…all of this probably leads to a rather flimsy view of Biblical innerancy when investigated more). Also, nobody is advocating a strait up literal interpretation of every Biblical text, why is that always the charge from liberal theologians?
To close I will give my reason why I believe Genesis happened in time and space. I believe those events actually occured because I believe the Bible is the word of God, we may be wrong in our interpretation of the details but these events happened. I believe Adam was a real person because the entire Bible treats him as such. When I look at the reasons you gave to think Adam wasn’t a real figure JR I really only find myself more confirmed in my stance because of how far out you need to stretch to make the Bible fit your unbelieving doctrine.
Bob,
First, I would really appreciate if you would stop calling me a pagan, unbelieving liberal. I understand that you disagree with my theology and interpretive lens. Fine. I clearly disagree with yours too. But we have been saved by the same Lord and are both being sanctified into his image. I don't see how name-calling furthers the unity of the body. I am more than happy to discuss these issues, but let's agree to leave the epitaphs out of it.
Second, I'm not sure that your position is as impeachable as you claim. And certainly you did not answer my objections in a compelling way…
First, you seem not to understand my definition of myth. You seem to think a myth is a made-up fable used to teach a moral lesson. This is a very modernist/rationalist reading of myth, and a biased one. The post-Enlightenment modern world assumes that the literal reading of a text is always the best. But this just isn't true! We find a plethora of literary genres in the Scriptures, a rich literary tradition given to us by a unique and creative God who desires a unique and creative people. We simply cannot read every text as though it was meant to be taken literally (the Psalms would get us into all sorts of trouble then). Rabbis often speak of Genesis as full of "true stories that never happened". I have suggested to you that the biblical writers (and early readers) didn't assume these stories to be historical factual, but still to be true in the way that all great stories are true - they show us who we are, they show us who God is and they show us who we can be. You assume that the Biblical writers must have read the text the same way you do, and you've done nothing to contradict my suggestions much beyond simply gainsaying them. Why can Romans 5 only work if Adam is historical? I submit that, unless you believe Sin to be somehow genetic, it makes no sense to claim that we are all guilty of his Sin. But if he is a type of fallen humanity, humanity that is separate from God, then it makes sense to see him as our representative. Similarly, we can view Jesus as our type of recreated humanity. Jesus is who all believers have been predestined to become (and Paul never argues for the historicity of Adam the way he does for Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15).
Also, despite the fact that you claim that "there are many figures who we refer to as “types” of Christ. So if you are going to be consistent and say “type”=”historically doubtful/myth” you need to banish many more Old Testemant figures from real time and space, David was a type of Christ as was Solomon, Joseph, Moses, etc," this is the only place in all the Scriptures that any person is called a tupos/type of Jesus. All those other examples I can only assume you've derived from later Church Fathers and theologians (which of course makes your assertion no less true, but certainly para-Scriptural).
You claim that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are Mary's and Joseph's respectively. But go back and read them. They both claim to give Joseph's lineage (Matt 1:1 and Luke 3:23). Unless you're willing to claim that the Bible is lying, you have a hard time showing me where Mary's line fits in. Similarly, nowhere does Genesis say that Cain married his sister, or that he was afraid of his relatives (in fact, immediately after he murders Abel, the only other person besides his parents, he moves to a city). Yet you claim knowledge of these events, to which the Bible does not speak. How can you be so certain? In fact, the only way is because you have a priori assumed that these texts are historical narratives, rather than mythic narratives. Why should your assumption be any more valid than mine? I suspect because you have pushed me into the Other category by calling me a liberal and an unbeliever. Of course a conservative faithful believer has more insight into a text than such an evil person as I.
I am saddened that you accuse me of stretching the Scriptures to fit my own interpretations while refusing to see that you are guilty of the same crime. Indeed, I recognize that every reader does this sort of thing… there is no "pure" interpretation of Scripture… every interpretation is a product of a specific person in a certain time and place. So why am I so different from you? Why do you consistently force me to be so Other? I fear you only demonstrate what point I made in the post that began this whole discussion.
Well, what am I going to call you then? I have clarified several times and I thought I was being excruciatingly precise in how I applied ubelieving to you, I apply it to your thinking and philosophical presuppositions. So no, I am not saying you are a pagan, you just think like one when it comes to the parts of the Bible the modernistic spirit of the age scoffs at. I don’t think I used the term pejoratively at all, so I am sorry but I don’t take it back. It really isn’t my goal to offend you.
“You seem to think a myth is a made-up fable used to teach a moral lesson.”
Well that is what you said bro, that is how you have defined your view on Genesis 1-11! LOL…I mean come on now. You are saying Adam is an A-Historical figure! You say it again right here:
“Why can Romans 5 only work if Adam is historical?”
Which I reply to: BECAUSE THE POINT IS THAT WE ARE IN UNION WITH HIM AND THEREFORE SINFUL! You can’ be in union with a person who never existed. Come on now.
And who cares about what unbelieving Rabbis think, that’s an appeal to authority. Oh if a “rabbis” sad X about the OT then it must be true cause he’s a Rabbi…it just begs the question.
“and Paul never argues for the historicity of Adam the way he does for Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15).”
I really feel like your beating the air here…I mean come on, that’s argument from silence, Paul didn’t argue that Adam was a historical figure…Jesus never said any thing about homosexuality…pure spacious reasoning. But since you bring it up Paul does refer to Adam as a real historical figure in 1 Cor 15…you brought it up this is what he says:
“Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (v.45)
“You claim that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are Mary’s and Joseph’s respectively. But go back and read them. They both claim to give Joseph’s lineage (Matt 1:1 and Luke 3:23).
No they don’t, lets actually look at them this time…
Matt1:16: “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.”
Luke3:23Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,”
“As was supposed” is key to understanding why the genologies are different, you’d think they would at least be able to get Josph’s dad’s name right wouldn’t you? Well Jesus was “supposed” the son of Joseph but actually…the son of Heli…Mary’s father. Ther GK word is Nimizo (3543) and literlly is “deemed” “called” “labeled” the point is rather obvious, Jesus was deemed the son of Joseph…(but actually) son of Heli. So, no they are not both claiming to give Joseph’s lineage.
Unless you’re willing to claim that the Bible is lying, you have a hard time showing me where Mary’s line fits in.”
Well, this at the time was a patrilineal society so it was the males lineage that was emphasized, I am just wondering how YOU deal with this since you think these 2 accounts are contradictory? Do you just leave it at that…the Bible is full of contradictions? (Probably) Huh, I wonder what your view then of Scripture as a whole is…or better yet the work of redemption…perhaps elsewhere as these issues arise.
“Similarly, nowhere does Genesis say that Cain married his sister, or that he was afraid of his relatives (in fact, immediately after he murders Abel, the only other person besides his parents, he moves to a city). Yet you claim knowledge of these events, to which the Bible does not speak.”
Well, it’s logical deduction, if Adam and Eve were the first two people, and Cain their son eventually takes a wife she would have to be his siter or perhaps, neice. Either way there was some incest going on. I am not trying to be mean, but these are the sorts of issues that guys like Sam Harris bring up…again this is why I have been sayin you are thinking like an unbeliever.
“I have suggested to you that the biblical writers (and early readers) didn’t assume these stories to be historical factual, but still to be true in the way that all great stories are true - they show us who we are, they show us who God is and they show us who we can be. “
Well I would say asserted rather than suggested, you have no evidence that they actually thought like modern higher critics do, you just assert that. Also, they (OT Gensis narrative) only show us who we are IFF they are true. If not I might as well get meaning smoking pot and making up my own story sittin in some Ashram.
“In fact, the only way is because you have a priori assumed that these texts are historical narratives, rather than mythic narratives. Why should your assumption be any more valid than mine? I suspect because you have pushed me into the Other category by calling me a liberal and an unbeliever. Of course a conservative faithful believer has more insight into a text than such an evil person as I.”
Well, (chuckle) you see my reasoning is more valid because as I have pointed to texts in the NT where Adam is treated historically, one sees the genologically, now unless one comes with some a-priori assumption to a genology you would naturally think when it says “Adam” in the geneology Adam was an ancestor. That is why your interpretation isn’t valid, you are importing and twisting an otherwise strait forward interpretation. The thing of it is is that Adam is refrenced unanimously as a historical figure again:
” It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,” (Jude14)
I mean you can’t say things like that without believing these were real people…so as you asserted earlier that the NT writers saw these men as fictional I find that to be nothing more than a hollow assertion. The onus is on you to give reason to think otherwise. Pointing to Achilles (lol) in Ceaser’s geneology isn’t reason to think that Adam was a fictional figure. That’s like saying, Joseph Simith made up a book to minipulate and control people…therefore, the Bible was also all made up uh…by the Catholics to control people. Again that fallacious reasoning.
Again, I don’t use Liberal pejoratively, perhaps if I said “foaming at the mouth lib”, but I use it to identify the stream of thought you are in. I assure you I am not name calling, I tried to refrain from using it honestly.
“I am saddened that you accuse me of stretching the Scriptures to fit my own interpretations while refusing to see that you are guilty of the same crime.
Well that remains to be seen, you can’t just assert things like that. I don’t se how reading a text like “Enoch the seventh from Adam” and then assuming that Adam was a real person who had kids and Enoch was a great great great great great great grandson of Adam is reading into the text at all. That is just the natural reading. The thing is you have all this secular baggage that you bring to the Bible and THAT IS WHY you have problems with the early chapters of Genesis, there is nothing in the Bible by itself that would make you think that Genesis is myth, that really is my point. Now while I agree there is a good bit of subjectivity, and yes we do all bring our baggage to the Bible it does not follow logically that all interpretations are equally valid.
Bob,
I agree with JR in that you need to stop calling him "liberal" in such a demeaning way. I agree that his theology sounds liberal, but I know JR and I don't think he is a "flaming liberal" in any negative sense. I think that if an unbeliever read some of the things that I have said, and other authors, they would have the same opinion as Ghandi and Jesus' words speaking about by our love for each other they will know we are Christ's. I need to be careful in how I speak to others on this site and make sure that my love for my brother in Christ shows through. The bulk of what we have discussed here on this site so far is "in-house" and will not alter the Gospel of the Glory of Jesus Christ who is the image of God.
JR,
This is a little off topic but you did bring up OS here in your comment when you said "I submit that, unless you believe Sin to be somehow genetic, it makes no sense to claim that we are all guilty of his Sin" so…I think that you should read Calvin's Institutes of the Chistian Religion and the first chapter of the second book. Calvin never claimed that sin was transferred genetically but by God's decree. Calvin argues this point from Romans 8:20-22 where the whole creation, including mankind, is subjected to corruption by the one who subjected it in the hope of the revelation of the glory of the children of God. Paul explicitly says the creation was subjected not of its own will. What Calvin says is that the image of God was corrupted by Adam's sin and fall. That corrupted nature, according to God's decree, was put upon all of his posterity. They are not guilty of Adam's sin, they are guilty of their own sin. They sin freely. But their will and nature has been corrupted by the God's curse upon the whole creation. In ICR 2.1.5, Calvin defines the term "sin" in Original Sin as "meaning by the term the depravation of a nature formerly good and pure."
I admit I wasn't totally arguing that in the OS thread to my fault. But I do agree with Calvin's position on OS. I only ask that you argue against Calvin's actual position, as you ask Bob to do.
Here's the big problem…
You assume the ancient writers think like you (a modern reader) do, and say because there is no other evidence to the contrary, you must be right.
I assume the ancient writers thought like every other ancient writer around, so I cite examples in Caesar's genealogy and ancient near easter myths to support my viewpoints. You claim those don't count because (in your view) the ancients thought the way you do, not the way all other ancients did.
I have tried (repeatedly) to emphasize the fact that the modern distinction of "myth=made up, false, untrue story" vs. "history=reliable, factual, yes-it-really-happened" is a false dichotomy. The ancients did not see a contradiction between mythic and historical figures. That is a modern distinction. You refuse to acknowledge this, and so (of course) strike down my examples as erroneous. Of course they're erroneous if you reject the premise upon which they're based.
We are reading the same texts. We are interpreting them differently. I can assure you that this is not due to the fact that I have "liberal, secular baggage". I'm not sure how you can justify making such judgments without knowing anything about me. I know plenty of conservative Christians who read the Scriptures the same way I do. I know plenty of atheists (like Sam Harris, whom you cited) who read the Scriptures the same way you do (you come to different conclusions, but you both treat the texts as literal, historical narratives).
And, since you asked, yes, I think the Scriptures contradict one another fairly often. I don't think this means their uninspired. I don't think this means there's anything wrong with God's revelation to us. I do see that these contradictions weren't a problem until the modern era, when we started to assume that everything should be taken as literally as possible. I don't care that John claims Jesus cleansed the Temple at the beginning of his ministry and the Synoptics place it at the end. I'm unconcerned that in 2 Samuel, God causes David to take a census, while in 1 Chronicles it's Satan. I don't mind that in Mark, Jesus casts the Legion out of one man, while in Matthew he casts them out of two men. I don't mind that both of Joseph's genealogies contradict (your argument is decidedly uncompelling). These 'contradictions' don't bother me at all, because they speak to a rich Scriptural tradition that has been passed down for 4,000 years. I am thankful that Jewish and Christian scholars have gone before me, who have seen these and wrestled with these issues and produced wonderful interpretations that inspire me to incarnate for a new culture and a new generation the Word to which I am being conformed.
In short, there was a time in my life when I read the Bible as you do, interpreting everything through a modernist lens and therefore insisting that mythological texts such as Genesis be read literally. But as I grew as a student of the Word, I immersed myself in the world of the Scriptures. I recognized that I am an alien to the text. It was not written for me; it was written for people who lived at least 2,000 years ago. If I wanted to understand it on its terms and not my own, I needed to learn to think as did the ancients. I am still very much learning to do so. But in all of my learning and study, I have grown closer to God and I can see that I look much more like Christ now than I did five years ago. This alone would be proof enough, but I could go on and on boasting about the works that God has done through the transformative magic of his Word. This is the Word that I preach and teach, and this is the Word that I watch change lives. I grew up in a world shaped by that other word, the modernist word, and frankly I found it terribly lacking. It was as though we'd shackled God, tied down his creative power by insisting that he meet us on our terms rather than we on his. We forced the terrible, divine Other to become We, rather than allowing him to transform us as he wished.
That is why I read the scriptures as I do. I have found this reading to be the most powerful in effecting God's Kingdom on this Earth. This was no ivory tower pursuit into which I gradually slipped while lapping at the feet of secular or liberal professors. I found it within the Church, in the body of Christ.
And if your reading does the same for you, if the way you read Genesis really makes you a better disciple and a better evangelist, then don't change, don't read differently. I only ask that you have a little more compassion for those in whom God works differently. If we can't love one another, then we can never love God.
Man…
Wish I had some popcorn.
Hey guys!
Forgive me for being so late in entering into this post. I have read/skimmed some of what is being said, and I am feel like I need to take a nap :). I know this might be bit of a rabbit hole, but perhaps it will shed some light on things. I read earlier Tom said:
“Truth transcends historical fact…at least the writers of the Bible thoughts so…and Jesus…and the Revelator…” and “The whole Bible assumes that (truth transcends fact) because none of the biblical writers were modernists who restricted truth to fact.”
Now I need some help here. I am no Modernist, but just a lowly philosophy student here at Mizzou. So, suppose someone came up to me and showed me this truth functional statement:
1. (x)(Tx->Fx)
or
“For all X, if X is a truth, then X is a fact.”
or
“All truths are facts.”
After showing me such a statement, let’s call it (1), I was then asked if (1) was in fact (no pun intened) true. I would have to whole-heartilty and joyfully conclude that (1) is true, and not only this, since it is a truth, then in order to stay conistent with myself, I would have to conclude that this (1) is also a fact.
Now, I believe that Tom and others here would refute (1). This being the case, we can formulate another truth-functional statement held by Tom and others here, which would merely be the negation of (1).
2. ~(x)(Tx->Fx)
or
($x)(Tx.~Fx)
or
There exists an X such that, X is a truth and X is not a fact.
Thus, we now have a new statement, call it (2), held by Tom and, according to some, our Lord Jesus Christ. This claims that there is necessarily at least one truth that is also not a fact. Notice how this does not mean that all truths are not facts, but just that one truth has to be not a fact, lest (2) be incorrect. And if in fact our Lord, who never erred, did hold (2) to be true, then it is impossible for (2) to be false.
So, what we need is a true and real example that validates the truth of (2). Can anyone please give me an example of a truth that is not a fact?
In Him,
-Travis
I think they are talking about truth vs. historical fact. JR, Tom, Darryl have all given examples that embody this distinction.
Travis,
before we can answer your question, we need to know your definitions of “truth/true” and “fact”.
If “fact” only means “empirically verifiable event” then Love is a truth that is not a fact. Of course, prehistory fits into that category as well, since no one was there to observe those things, and we could argue (and are arguing) that the Genesis narratives are this sort of thing. Even if you hold to Mosaic authorship of Genesis, Moses was not an eyewitness to any of the “facts” of the book… reading Genesis as literal history places Moses 400 years past the events narrated therein.
Am I on the right track with your definitions?
JR,
I think the questions you are asking are the right ones. What is at heart here is a epistemological matter that needs to be fleshed out.
As for my definitions, I do not agree that emperical verification is necessary for something to be a fact. For example, there are plenty of a priori facts that are known without the aid of our senses, such as the law of non-contradiction, mathematics, and even the existence of God.
Now, this does not mean that our senses our useless for obtaining true knowledge. Our Lord knew this when giving Thomas the opportunity to place his hands and fingers in the wounds of the resurrected King. We are not told whether Thomas did this or not, but it is irrelevant. Jesus was in effect saying, “Thomas, look, see, touch, know.”
As for Moses’ account of Genesis, his presence at a time 400 years prior to him was neither necessary nor sufficient for giving an accurate and true account the earth’s historical beginnings. It was not necessary because it was the Holy Spirit that inspired and wrote these ancient and sacred texts. It was not sufficient because had he experienced all events in Genesis firsthand, that does not guarantee Moses’ ability to properly and precisely convey these events to us withouth error.
The key experience is not nessecary for knowlege with regards to religous truth. I refer you to Alvin Plantiga: “it is dubious that knowledge by way of the sensus divinitatis and the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit, if there is any such knowledge, should be thought of as knowledge by experience.” (Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 337)
What then is a fact? A fact is simply something that we know to be true with certitude and assurance (my definition is not exhaustive, please forgive me). You could say that facts are the material causes (to borrow from Aristotlian language) of knowlege. Truths would be the same as facts in this sense, but Truth as a whole would be the final cause of knowledge.
Of course I could be very mistaken on all of this. So, can anyone tell me a truth that is not a fact?
PS. Henry, I love all Venn Diagrams and your’s is no exception. But it is mistaken. All narratives that lie outside historical occurances are not truths but merely fiction (i.e. The Iliad, all 3 Lord of the Rings, and anything by Richard Dawkins).
You could say:
1. (x)[(Nx.~Hx)->~Tx]
For all X, if X is a narrative and X is not an historical occurance, then X is not a truth.
Travis,
I think you're falling into the same fallacy as did bob… that is, that anything that is non-historical must not be truth.
The best examples are Jesus' parables… did they ever actually happen? No. Are they true? Most certainly. They lie outside the realm of "historical occurrences" but are not "merely fiction". There is a big range of options in between on the spectrum from historical event to pure fiction. (and really, even 'pure fiction' can be truth. Look at, for instance, LOTR or the Iliad. There are a lot of truths in both of those works… and we can't call the Iliad pure fiction… it was probably based in some sort of historical occurrence.
I would prefer to change your definitions. A "fact" should be used in the scientific sense of the word… anything that is empirically verifiable. Thus, my weight is a fact. The distance from the earth to the sun is a fact. Even things such as a person's favorite book could be under this definition considered a fact.
What you call 'facts', on the other hand, I would call 'truths'. This is a broader category which allows for concepts such as God's love for us (not empirically verifiable but certainly certain).
I think these categories will help us to move this discussion in a fruitful direction. Your thoughts?
“I agree with JR in that you need to stop calling him “liberal” in such a demeaning way.”
Well I really wasn’t trying to be demeaning in using the term, and on the OS thread I was using the phrase “Flaming liberal” as a satire on the phrase “overly literalist”…but I do apologize, I know my attitude towards JR hasn’t been the best I know this to be true. JR I am sorry for my attitude. To be honest I have the hardest time talking with people who are left leaning theologically and not getting angry…I mean when a guy says “Yes I believe in the resurrection” and you know that he is twisting every word he just said…well I get upset. I am not saying that is what JR is doing although I see shades of it. In either case my reaction isn’t the best and most glorifying to the Lord and that’s what really matters, so Hank, thanks for the rebuke and JR, sorry I will really try to be nicer.
“You assume the ancient writers think like you (a modern reader) do, and say because there is no other evidence to the contrary, you must be right.
Well not so much that they think like me but I think like them. My point is simply that unless you can give real reasons (particularly internal to the Bible itself) to think that they didn’t read Genesis as real history it would seem that they treated it as such when they refrenced it.
“I assume the ancient writers thought like every other ancient writer around, so I cite examples in Caesar’s genealogy and ancient near easter myths to support my viewpoints. You claim those don’t count because (in your view) the ancients thought the way you do, not the way all other ancients did.
See here’s the problem I see, you begin anthropologically, rather than theologically. When you do that sure it makes sense to interpret scripture through it’s anthropological context. However, if scripture is what is says (the inspired word of God) then our starting point in interpretation is not anthropological but theological. Simply put when these men were inspired by God and saw things through the light of His revelation they thought differently than their pagan neighbors. That is the hallmark of the Judeao-Christian system it’s stark contrast to the rampant paganism. This is seen in that not likeness of God was to be made for example. And that appeal to the Achilles business doesn’t count because EVEN IF Adam is just a fictional figure, you can not deduct or reach that conclusion on the premises you have given in appealing to tampered extra-biblical geneologies. Your are commiting a logical fallacy by making such an appeal.
“I have tried (repeatedly) to emphasize the fact that the modern distinction of “myth=made up, false, untrue story” vs. “history=reliable, factual, yes-it-really-happened” is a false dichotomy. The ancients did not see a contradiction between mythic and historical figures. That is a modern distinction. You refuse to acknowledge this, and so (of course) strike down my examples as erroneous.”
I don’t acknowledge the distinction because it begs the question against the historicity of the Bible. I understand that the pagans held myth in the manner in which you described, and because THEY did that you seem to think that it is fine and dandy to approach the inspired word of God in that manner. This again comes back to the starting point, anthropology or theology (God and His revelation).
“And, since you asked, yes, I think the Scriptures contradict one another fairly often. I don’t think this means their uninspired. I don’t think this means there’s anything wrong with God’s revelation to us. I do see that these contradictions weren’t a problem until the modern era, when we started to assume that everything should be taken as literally as possible. “
Well, I don’t think it is so much that we are concerned about alleged contradictions because of a rabid foaming at the mouth literalism so much as a defence of the AUTHORITY of the Bible in all doctrine, theology and religion. I don’t know how you can consitently hold to both a: “The Bible is full of contradictions” and b: “The Bible is authoratative” the latter will be diminished by the former. As for the alleged discrepencies you rais I don’t really feel the need to reply blow by blow but all of those have pretty simple answers to them, most are solved generally by simply saying “both”. But since were on your biew of Scripture, do you believe that the miracles recorded actually happened in time and space? For example Christ walking on the water?
“In short, there was a time in my life when I read the Bible as you do, interpreting everything through a modernist lens and therefore insisting that mythological texts such as Genesis be read literally. But as I grew as a student of the Word, I immersed myself in the world of the Scriptures. I recognized that I am an alien to the text. It was not written for me; it was written for people who lived at least 2,000 years ago.”
Well I am glad that you were able to rise out of the ash heaps of a belief in the historicity of the Bible, but for those of us who are still struggling to escape from the shambles we call a thriving city we find it to be the case that the texts were written for both us and them. The word of God is timeless, I have the same issues that they had because I am cut from the same cloth…Adam, my relative. Now I am glad you have had this nice transforming experience and you feel closer to God but I really think that this is all in a big way beside the point. But what you say at the end is what really bothers me and THIS is why I have been saying that you are thinking like an unbeliever (I insist I do not mean that pejoratively but technically):
“And if your reading does the same for you, if the way you read Genesis really makes you a better disciple and a better evangelist, then don’t change, don’t read differently. I only ask that you have a little more compassion for those in whom God works differently. If we can’t love one another, then we can never love God.”
So it really doesn’t matter what is true just what works. Pragmatism is antithetical to the claims of the word of God. When you start talking pragmatically “better” becomes a relative term, what I percieve as better or you percieve as better. Because honestly if we see what we are saying in antithises all that you were saying about being “more” like Jesus is purely subjective, and if I am right the way you view scripture makes you less like Jesus because you don’t view it like He did. So away with this “what works of you” nonsense.
Oh and as for this:
“I think you’re falling into the same fallacy as did bob… that is, that anything that is non-historical must not be truth.”
Saying it is fallacious to view truth in antithesis because myth doesn’t necessarily mean a-historical only begs the question as to whether the Biblical figures viewed the Bible that way, this is why I have been saying you need to support such a claim internally in the Bible and start with theology rather thatn beginning with anthropology and viewing the Bible through the lense of lost pagan writers’ views of myth and history. My point is that the people of the Book had a different worldview thatn their pagan neighbors, one based on revelation.
Bob,
You assume that a literal reading is the "default" mode, the best mode, when you make statements like "My point is simply that unless you can give real reasons (particularly internal to the Bible itself) to think that they didn’t read Genesis as real history it would seem that they treated it as such when they refrenced it." Why should you assume reading Genesis as 'real history' (which is a biased phrase… why should your history count as 'real' and the ancients' history not?) is the most natural way to read it? Your method of reading history is a product of your post-Enlightenment, modernist reading community. I think it goes without saying that the Biblical writers were products of different worlds.
Furthermore, you claim that we have to choose between starting anthropologically or theologically. Why? Why can't God inspire myths? Again, I think Jesus' parables are fantastic examples. Jesus rarely told someone he was "just telling a story". Rather he said, "A man had two sons," something similar. And his community understood the context well enough that when they began to write down the Gospels, they often put in signal markers (Jesus began to teach them in parables, saying), but even then they didn't always. And these stories are true, they are inspired, they are God's Word, even though they never happened. As for Genesis, I do not think the Genesis myths have the same amount of historical content as parables. I do not think they are purely made up stories to prove a point. They are myths. They are quasi-historical narratives told through the lens of the interpretive community that told them. I believe God can inspire these as well as he can inspire poetry (Genesis chapter 1, the Psalms, etc), erotic love poetry (Song of Songs), and ancient historical narratives (Samuel-Kings), as well as the other genres we find in scripture.
These various genres absolutely had different worldviews than their neighbors, as you stated. But they still thought like their pagan neighbors, just like modernists all think the same way whether they're Evangelicals or devout atheists.
I do not accept your premise that unless something is historically accurate it is untrue. Travis has given us a symbolic language in which to talk about this issue - there are many truths which transcend history. And of course we have the same problems as our ancestors… human nature never changes (and that's not what I was saying). My point was that we can't read the text on our terms (using our definitions of truth and history). We have to enter into the world of the text. You are using the "theology" card to demand that the ancients think the way you do, write like you do and interact with God the way you do.
And I assure you my approach to the Gospel is not pragmatic. I am simply following Jesus and Paul, who said, "He who is not against me is with me" and "By any means, the Gospel of Christ is preached" (this about those who were trying to undermine his authority in Corinth, I think). I believe that God works in a million different ways all over the world and throughout history. I refuse to demand that he only work in ways I understand or with which I'm comfortable.
So, this disagreement has really whittled it’s way down to a definition of “truth.” What strikes me is that Bob and JR come to certain essential theological truths from different perspectives:
Both believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word
Both believe that sin separates us from God
Both believe the historicity of Jesus
Both believe Jesus is the redeemer of humanity (different than a cool guy to model so we can be all peace and love, hippie style).
Throughout the history of the church, a tremendous amount of division, and even war, resulted from (as JR would say) “Othering” those that disagree. Disagreeing and wrestling with the scripture to understand more and more are not bad, but when hatred is sown and division is created, then it seems the work of Christ is hindered by His own Body.
Now we get to the heart of the matter: Theology is a tool to understand who God is, how to become like him, and how to live. I can claim to believe something, but unless it is put into practice, I do not actually believe it. There is no discrepancy between belief and action (I believe this is a Biblical understanding based on the Gospel of John and many other texts). If I claim that I don’t believe in paying taxes, but every April I send them away, then I do in fact believe in paying taxes (even if I were to disagree with paying them).
That being said, how do we, as theologians (though some of us more amateur than others), disagree and still become agents of unifying the Body of Christ and building the Kingdom of God? How do we fight our own anger and even hatred in order to be agents of reconciliation? How do we become a people who can look at all those around us and, with love, extend an invitation to meet “Him who called us out of darkness and into His wonderful light,” (1 Pt 2:9)? How do we love even our enemies?
So, an issue that would be very compelling to discuss, and one that would have implications in our own lives and also for the “masses” is: How do we, despite differences and personal history and wounds, become peacemakers?
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God.”
“I would prefer to change your definitions. A ‘fact’ should be used in the scientific sense of the word… anything that is empirically verifiable.”
As JR said, all facts are those and only those that are empirically verifiable. If this is true, then there are a lot “truths” that are not facts. Examples: 2+2=4, A does not = ~A, and that two parrel lines shall never meet. However, I would have to say with certainity that 2+2=4 is a fact, because I believe a fact to be something that has the quality of acutality or something that is true in the actual world.
As for the supposed fallacy I made, I would have to graciously disagree. Allow for this hypothetical: Suppose I told my brother that our mom and dad were in a car accident and were in the hospital, on the verge of death. He then rushes over to the hospital, and finds neither me nor my parents there. After calling me again, he seems a bit perturbed that I have given him a supposed truth that was not historical. I then tell him he has no need to be angry, for I was simply telling him a parable about the dangers of automobiles and the need to wear seat belts for protection. Should my brother be angry at me for giving him truths and not facts?
So, is Genesis 1-11 a parable? Perhaps. Perhaps Adam and Eve never really did exists in actuallity. Perhaps there never was a Fall. Are we ready to accept these “truths” in light of Genesis 1-11 being devoided of facts?
I guess in this whole discussion on whether or not people in believed Abel was real or not to the NT writers, maybe we should bring up a NT writer who wrote about Him. I am speaking of the writer of Hebrews.
Hebrews 11 is, at least how I have learned it, known as the faith chapter. It is supposedly real people who had faith in God who had not seen the fulfillment of the promise God had for them. We should take a look at the people named in this passage as having faith. Here is a list: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Moses’ parents, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel. These are all people who had faith. Perhaps the the most telling verse that shows that the author of Hebrews believed that these people really existed is in Hebrews 11:39. Now we have a person during the time of the NT who believed that Abel existed and that at least the first part of the Cain and Abel story was true. I want to now know how it has been concluded that no one during the time of Christ believed that Genesis was historical.
Hey JR, I am liking our discussion, you asked:
“Why should you assume reading Genesis as ‘real history’ (which is a biased phrase… why should your history count as ‘real’ and the ancients’ history not?) is the most natural way to read it? “
Well, as I said when someone says “Mr.X is in my geneology” you naturally assume Mr.X was a person who had sex and eventually his offspring gave birth to the person with whom you now speak. You naturally assume that unless you have reason to think the person is either a liar or you have reason to doubt that Mr.X existed. I am just saying lets come to the Bible and read it for what it says, Adam had children, Enoch was the seventh from Adam (Jude 14), Christ’s geneology in Luke traces it’s roots back to Adam (Luke 3:38), death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:14) Adam is called the first man (1 Cor 15:45), Paul points to the order of creation of Adam and Eve in a seeming historic fashion in order to teach about the roles of men and women (1 Tim 2:13-14).
Adam is refrenced numerous times in the NT as if he were a figure who existed in time in space, so much so that He is in geneologies, the order of his creation and Eve’s gives us insight into the roles of men and women, and also because of his rebellion against God all of his progeny are now cursed. So yes, it would seem that a historical reading of the existance of Adam is that natural, UNLESS you can give reason to think otherwise. This is just NT, nevermind the OT Adamic references. I mean (Gen 5:5) gives the age of Adam 930 years, it would seem to me a natural reading is to think that this fellow was a real historical individual.
“Your method of reading history is a product of your post-Enlightenment, modernist reading community. I think it goes without saying that the Biblical writers were products of different worlds.”
Well, I would say the opposite. The only reason you would even think that Adam is not a historical figure is because you come to the text with presuppositions against the earlier chapters.
“Furthermore, you claim that we have to choose between starting anthropologically or theologically. Why? Why can’t God inspire myths? Again, I think Jesus’ parables are fantastic examples. Jesus rarely told someone he was “just telling a story”. Rather he said, “A man had two sons,” something similar. “
Well here you are commiting a fallacy of equivocation. Myth does not equal parable. As far as anthropology or theology, well because you can’t do both, your starting point is either going to be God and His revelation and through that grid you will interpret anthropology or it will be the other way around. It seems that you are doing the latter in that you keep pointing to Greek myth as if we should see the Bible (or at least parts of it) in the same fashion.
” I do not think they are purely made up stories to prove a point. They are myths. They are quasi-historical narratives told through the lens of the interpretive community that told them. I believe God can inspire these as well as he can inspire poetry (Genesis chapter 1, the Psalms, etc), erotic love poetry (Song of Songs), and ancient historical narratives (Samuel-Kings), as well as the other genres we find in scripture.”
Ok…I can’t help but see a lot of this as double speak. They aren’t made up stories but they are quasi historical narratives…I see you using the word “inspire” in a kind of loosey goosey fashion here as well, what does that even mean? So God inspired people to write things He knew weren’t actual events in a manner that is like recording actual events? I understand God does inspire certain men with a certain type of background to write in a certain typ of way (I hold to plenary inspiration of Scripture) so different types of literature or style aren’t an issue at all, what I take issue with is the seeming conclusion that God inspired pseudo history or “myth” to be written.
“I do not accept your premise that unless something is historically accurate it is untrue.”
What do you call it then? I mean if I said that this fellow named Red Bonnet single handedly beat back the English out of Scotland by shooting fire from his eyes in the year of our Lord 1234…what would you say? Espescially when every history book from that era says nothing of this Red Bonnet fellow? I would hope you would say not only is that not historically accurate it is not true because that is the definition of truth, that which corresponds to what is there is true, likewise the negation would be that which does not correspond to what is there is false. I don’t know how you can’t see accuracy and truth as near synonymns.
Jessica, good word. I know I get a bit firey and have to apologize a lot, espescially talking with left leaning theologians. I really don’t get firey talking to Catholics of JW’s or LDS, so I really need to watch my attitude. I know it hasn’t been the best towards JR, and I have apologized several times.
Travis, well done. Empirical verification is not the standard for how we arrive at truth and fact, it is not the standard the Christian holds to.
Andy, you are right we need to look at the NT references to the early figures, here are some: (1 John 3:12), (Jude 1:11) In the Jude account Cain is refrenced right along with Balaam and Korah, as if their historical existances were equally certain in the writer’s mind. In Matt 23:35 Christ speaks of the blood of the martyr’s from Abel to Zechariah (the whole OT in the Jewish arrangement Genesis-Chronicals). And as Andy mentioned Abel is refrenced in the hall of faith in Hebrews 11, fictional characters don’t have faith.
Travis,
Two things… first, I would say that your brother could be upset with you because you communicated truth to him in a way that made it seem as though you were communicating factually. In the case of Genesis et al, I argue that both the authors and the recipients knew they were reading myth. We (who are not the intended audience) come to the text with wrong expectations (much, I suppose, like your brother in the example). A better example would be if you and your brother both understood you were telling a 'parable', but a third party observed you and did not understand your method of communication, so went to the hospital and was angered.
And while the stories in Genesis may be devoid of facts, they may not be too. I maintain that we can't be certain what facts are contained in the narratives because the point of the narratives was not to convey facts but truths (for instance, your story contained facts… you have parents, they can drive, hospitals are historically known buildings, etc.)
Andy,
For answer to your question, I refer you to earlier comments on this post… Paul cites Adam, but that doesn't mean that Paul thought he was historical. I submit that the same can be said for those in Hebrews 11. The point