One of the dangers for conversing theology is that people often do not have the same basic framework of meaning for their language.

If their never can be a simple understanding of what “myth” meanings then it makes our conversation extremely difficult (not just our conversation but also our conversation with LAITY IS HUGE).

One thing that I have to be conscience of “Illegitimate Totality Transfer” of the word myth.

Casey

“What it really comes down to is that you don’t like my position so you try to say it is just my interpretation and not any more valid than saying Adam was a cyborg, both result from our cultural conditioning. So you try to pigon hole me as “modernist”, that’s getting rather old, there is nothing inherently modernistic about seeing texts that claim to be historical as historical.

This cultural conditioning talk is an irrefutable argument, that invalidates all forms of argument as “modernist”. Well, if that is the case why are we even discussing this Cheapham, just go plunge into your POMO subjectivist abyss and stop debating.”

Just because I’m pointing out cultural difference doesn’t mean I’m “invalidating” anything. There’s nothing inherently wrong with an historicist reading of biblical texts. It’s not that I think your reading is fundamentally bad, I’m not “pigeon holing” anything. I’m merely trying to explain the motivations and criteria by which we judge things, which obviously has had an affect.

What’s wrong here is when one tries to lord an historicist reading over others, especially over those who likely were the orginal writers and readers of such texts. It’s done under the guise of “objectivity,” an objectivity which I feel I’ve done a pretty adequate job of dispelling. Just like you yourself (and JR) said, many modernist scholars make a great deal of claims about the dating of the gospels or the divinity of Jesus based on sound objective scholarship, natural readings, etc. They have very base assumptions about the way the world works that they really aren’t honest about. I’m personally highly critical of such scholarship because of the work they claim to be doing under the banner of objectivity. What I’m saying is, there is no such thing…and realizing that will do us all a great deal of good.

“Well, ok. So if you can give any reason WHY we should read the genologies in the Bible in a way that says these individuals are a-historical then you make your case other than that you just muddy the waters with your subjectivist appeals. So WHY should we interpret the geneologies differently than what I have said is the natural reading?”

First off, I’m merely pointing out that what you’re doing isn’t a “natural reading” because no such thing exists. Reading Hagar and Sarah as covenants of flesh vs. spirit by no means seems anywhere near “natural” to us, yet Paul seemed to be just fine with it. The writer(s) of Genesis seemed to have no problem with two accounts of creation that are in completely different order, yet such a thing seems incredibly unnatural to us. The biblical writers seemed to not have much of an issue of both God and Satan provoking David to sin (2 Sam. 24.1 & 1 Chron. 21.1), yet such a contradiction seems very wrong to us. Luke didn’t seem to have a big problem with Paul’s conversion accounts containing directly contradictory information (Acts 9.7 & 22.9), yet such contradictions jump out as wrong to us…it’s just not natural.

My point: judging by the biblical texts themselves, the writers and intitial readers of our most sacred texts possessed a radically different hermeneutic than we do. Being that I hold the Bible as sacred, I find it very important to work toward a better understanding of the worldview(s) in which our biblical writers were operating. Part of this endeavor is realizing the problems that come up when we try to force these texts to conform to our expectations of them.

As for the Documentary Hypothesis, you’re absolutely correct that it grew out of modernist scholarship.  However, that doesn’t mean we should discount things that it can teach us.  In fact, little JEDP scholarship revolves around matters that have anything to do with supernatural (i.e. prophecy, etc.) - Gospels scholarship is a better example of what you’re saying.  JEDP is actually based much more on a ‘natural’ reading of the Torah - especially with respect to clear doubling and contradictory passages throughout.

“What some of us are trying to point out in this discussion is that what you call a “natural reading” is actually very conditioned. There’s no such thing as a “natural reading,” because reading takes place within culture/society, which in turn gives you a set of guidelines and criteria with which to view texts. Our modern values tell us that when we read a story that seems to take place in a historical setting with historical figures…it should be “historically accurate.””

Well, ok. So if you can give any reason WHY we should read the genologies in the Bible in a way that says these individuals are a-historical then you make your case other than that you just muddy the waters with your subjectivist appeals. So WHY should we interpret the geneologies differently than what I have said is the natural reading?

What it really comes down to is that you don’t like my position so you try to say it is just my interpretation and not any more valid than saying Adam was a cyborg, both result from our cultural conditioning. So you try to pigon hole me as “modernist”, that’s getting rather old, there is nothing inherently modernistic about seeing texts that claim to be historical as historical.

This cultural conditioning talk is an irrefutable argument, that invalidates all forms of argument as “modernist”. Well, if that is the case why are we even discussing this Cheapham, just go plunge into your POMO subjectivist abyss and stop debating.

JR:

Your speech betrays you:

“Hank -

There are plenty of myths in American creation history; i.e., George Washington and the Cherry Tree, throwing the dollar across the Potomac, Paul Revere’s midnight ride, Betsy Ross sewing the American Flag, etc.”

So the point is that we know there are FALSE stories that are made up to prove points…we call them “myths”.

So should we talk about the Bible that way? You say yes.

Also your understanding of OS is pretty crude:

“Unless you understand sin to be genetic, Adam-as-historical-figure cannot pass sin along to everyone else.”

It is both partly genetic (through curse of death), and imputed by God into our immaterial nature. It is the same as how Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. I don’t understand the mechanics (Bible doesn’t divulge that) however it is clear that God is in the business of imputing righteousness to the descendents of Christ, likewise to those of Adam. So it is not an either or, genetically transmition of sin vs well I don’t know what you even think about OS (probably deny it no doubt), but rather both genetic and and imputation done by God.

Unless you understand sin to be genetic, Adam-as-historical-figure cannot pass sin along to everyone else.  Rather the typology of Romans 5 (which is a mythological term - myth often - if not always - deals in types) shows us that we have 2 types of humanity - those who are in Christ and those who are in Adam.  Each person represents a type of person - the old-creation humanity or the new-creation, resurrected humanity.  While Paul certainly understood Jesus as a real, historical figure (cf. 1 Cor 15), he is not discussing Jesus as a real, historical figure here.  He is discussing him as a Type.

This may be a terrible analogy, so if it doesn’t help, then forget it.  But comparing Adam to Jesus is like trying to compare apples to oranges.  You can’t do it b/c one is a pre-historic (and therefore unknowable figure) and the other is clearly a historical figure.  So while we can’t compare apples and oranges, we can compare fruit.  And this is what Paul does.  Ignoring historical questions, he uses mythological language to discuss what the two new types of humanity are (old-creation vs. new-creation), as opposed to the former categories operating in the Roman church (Jew vs. Gentile).

First, I would agree that Paul is using Adam typologically in Romans 5. The main difference between Romans 5 and Galatians 4 is that Paul is using Midrash on the story of Hagar and Sarah. But I don’t see the same thing being done in Romans 5. Adam’s act of disobedience produced this result, namely that all of humanity sinned (however you want to construe that). Jesus’ act of obedience produced that result, namely justification and righteousness for all who will believe (Romans 5:1). I don’t see how one act does not have to be a real act and yet one does, the parallel would break down. Both acts have to had occurred. Jesus death had to be a historical reality and Paul is contrasting that act with Adam’s act, a real and historical act. Adam introduced sin into the world, Jesus introduces perfect righteousness to the world. Those who are in Adam are sinners, those who are in Christ are righteous. I am only saying that to be consistent in this passage, both Adam and Christ are either mythological or not. My vote is that since Paul wants us to understand that Christianity is based upon the historical reality of the crucifixion and resurrection. He views the introduction of sin into the world based upon historical events, namely Adam’s transgression.

And I am not certain that typology and using a character "mythically" are the same thing. Could you show me how they are?

I feel that this discussion should be its own post though, that is the exegesis of Romans 5:12-21.

To say that Paul is “reading Adam mythically” doesn’t necessarily make Adam a mere myth. It’s more of a statement of the methodology that Paul is using. He is citing Adam as a type-case, an example…and then juxtaposing Jesus in response to this prior textual example.

Just because Paul engages Adam mythically doesn’t require that his engagement with Jesus is the same…in fact it’s quite common to use a mythic reading of a past event/character and use it to teach us something about the present (just look at my discussion on Gal. 4 above), and for Paul Jesus was a very present reality.

For Paul, Adam is the mythic type-case for sin. Paul is only using Adam’s story as part of his argument for Christ’s atonement, as something to work off of. He says quite clearly that Adam’s example brought sin into the world and death with it, but “death spread to all because all have sinned” (Rom. 5.12). It’s not a historical argument, it’s a rhetorical one. Did Paul think Adam was a real historical figure? Maybe, probably…but that’s not how he engages him.

The same cannot be said for Jesus, for while Paul is definitely dealing primarily with the risen/exalted Christ that reigns in heaven, he goes to significant links to establish Jesus as a historical figure (Rom. 9.5; 1 Cor. 15.3-8; Gal 4.4; etc.). I’d say there’s a distinct difference.

I’m gonna stop now…Paul isn’t an area I have made myself as well-versed as I should be. I don’t want to overstep my bounds. JR has done much more work and reflection on Paul’s reading of Adam’s story, hopefully he can contribute. Similar for JEPD and the Post-Exilic final formation of the Torah. I can certainly contribute to the discussion, but there are others here much more well-versed in such issues than I. I will say this, while Wellhausen is an important scholar…he’s a product of his time, that being working as a German Orientalist scholar in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. In my opinion, his documented anti-semitism should be taken into account when assessing his handling of Jewish scripture.