Noah's Ark

Iosias · #11 2nd August 2008, 11:36 AM

The Art Of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter
The Art Of Biblical Poetry by Robert Alter
Genesis: Translation and Commentary by Robert Alter

Catherineanne · #12 2nd August 2008, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by alexwylde

I'm just wondering how many of you TE's interpret Noah's story. (I'm a TE myself.) I have my own limited theories but would LOVE to hear what some of your thoughts are, as I'm sure most of you have a lot better ideas than I do, as I'm pretty much a newbie.

I would especially like you to take into account of when Jesus himself spoke of the "Days of Noe" and talks about how Noe actually "entered the ark".

I think, regardless of the myth/history aspect, Our Lord was saying the flood caught everyone but Noah by surprise, and the second coming will take everyone but those who are prepared by surprise.

Pretty standard Christian thinking, in other words, comparable to the wise and foolish virgins, and a thousand other similar metaphors.

Mallon · #13 2nd August 2008, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Iosias

I know where you are coming from but we need to remember that the narrative is not a strict factual acount but is in fact a story written by a Hebrew. that is to say, the author is recounting a story and he makes use of literary devices to emphasise things.

Hmmm... I think I get what you're saying. And, in fact, I don't think we're in disagreement. But just to understand you better, do you think Solomon's story in the chiasm you just posted actually unfolded in the same sequence in which it is presented? If not, can we really refer to the story as an historical event? What effect does the shaping of the story in the form of a chiasm have on the historicity of the account?

Iosias · #14 2nd August 2008, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Do you think Solomon's story in the chiasm you just posted actually unfolded in the same sequence in which it is presented? If not, can we really refer to the story as an historical event? What effect does the shaping of the story in the form of a chiasm have on the historicity of the account?

As you are probably aware there are two 'authors' of Israel's history, the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler. Each tells us the same story but with different emphasies and each uses different literary devices. The events are historical and they took place, however the writer uses different devices e.g. the inclusio, repetition or chiaism to emphasise certain things. So with respect to Solomon, we don't know if Solomon's story in the chiasm you just posted actually unfolded in the same sequence in which it is presented. We would be daft to make such a judgement, but what we should do is to recognise that one exists and take the relevant lessons from it. The events described are historic, but we need to remember that we should not read the 21st Century concept of history into the ancient Israelite conception of history.

I would point you to He Gave Us Stories by Richard Pratt and The Art Of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter for more information as well as Interpreting the Historical Books by Robert B. Chisholm and David M. Howard.

Bringing it back to Noah, I struggle with the question of whether it is literal history or whether it is more "mythic" and I suppose I shall continue to do so. What I find helpful is canonical criticism, "What is the theological message from the final form of the canon?" This helps us to deal seriously with the text without getting bogged down in the difficult questions that perplex greater minds than mine.

Whilst Peter Leithart take it all as literal history he explains the theological message most excellently in his A House for My Name.

gluadys · #15 2nd August 2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Iosias

I know where you are coming from but we need to remember that the narrative is not a strict factual acount but is in fact a story written by a Hebrew. that is to say, the author is recounting a story and he makes use of literary devices to emphasise things.

We need to note that whilst history simply doesn't unravel itself in chiastic structure the telling of that history can, especially when written by an Israelite!! The whole of the OT is full of them!

So my point is that you cannot determine the historicity of the event based upon the literary device used.

Welcome to the conversation. I am delighted to meet someone else who has an eye to the literary structure of scripture. And who knows that "prose" and "narrative" neither equate to nor deny "literal history".

Iosias · #16 3rd August 2008, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Welcome to the conversation. I am delighted to meet someone else who has an eye to the literary structure of scripture. And who knows that "prose" and "narrative" neither equate to nor deny "literal history".

Not too sure what to say so, "Thanks" will have to do

OutsideNormal · #17 31st August 2008, 10:20 AM

My belief.

I believe that the story of Noah's Ark was part of the oral history of the middle eastern region at the time that the Old Testament was written. This half remembered story of an actual event, most likely a severe flood of the Tigris and Euphrates or the flooding of the lake that preceded the Black Sea, was then reused as a part of the Old Testament.

alexwylde · #18 31st August 2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by OutsideNormal

My belief.

I believe that the story of Noah's Ark was part of the oral history of the middle eastern region at the time that the Old Testament was written. This half remembered story of an actual event, most likely a severe flood of the Tigris and Euphrates or the flooding of the lake that preceded the Black Sea, was then reused as a part of the Old Testament.

If parts of the Bible are just a collection of embellished oral histories and stories, then does that affect how you view the book as a whole? If Noah's Ark was just an oral history, then why is it included in the Bible the way it is and says that he whole world was flooded? Wouldn't this make the Bible blatantly false in this respect?

gluadys · #19 31st August 2008, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by alexwylde

If parts of the Bible are just a collection of embellished oral histories and stories, then does that affect how you view the book as a whole? If Noah's Ark was just an oral history, then why is it included in the Bible the way it is and says that he whole world was flooded? Wouldn't this make the Bible blatantly false in this respect?

One of the tell-tale words I see again and again in this type of objection is "just". It indicates that in your frame of reference a "collection of embellished oral histories and stories" is somehow inferior to your ideal of what scripture ought to be and therefore an unworthy vehicle of divinely inspired teaching.

What interests me is what that ideal is and why it is seen as being superior to an embellished collection of oral histories and stories.

What reason would exclude an oral history of Noah's Ark from the Bible? On what basis would this be judged "blatantly false"?

I can think of no reason other than a modernistic turn of thought which gives privilege to scientific empiricism as the supreme guarantor of truth.

But if the principal message of scripture is theological, not scientific, and its message was revealed in a pre-scientific age to people who had a different way of imaging truth, why should the non-science of a global flood reflect at all on the theological truth of the flood story?

It is still a powerful and true story of wickedness, judgment and redemption.

Iosias · #20 31st August 2008, 03:30 PM

Alex, I would suggest you buy and read Form Criticism of the Old Testament by Gene M. Tucker and think about this (pp. 73ff.)