Do you dare?

[Akita Suggagaki]

Maybe, brother Akita, not many of us sally forth into, nor dally much within, the realm of Minimalist hermeneutical appraisals of the Biblical literature, or of its archaeology and historical development.

So, even though I'm dauntless and do sally forth into nearly all philosophical and hermeneutical terrain, even I---- who fearlessly engages Higher and Lower Criticism of the Bible----don't entertain the Minimalist view for the purpose of either spiritual solace or inspiration.

If anything, with Pascal's A.A.S.S. in hand as one of my leading axioms, I find the Minimalist view to be drab, dreary and devoid of anything capturing my devotion. There's not much there to appreciate, other than as an opportunity to learn and understand the hermeneutical methods of analysis that Minimalists employ in their respective academic fields.

Just sayin'

Now, as it stands, I'm not yet seeing anywhere in David Tracy's thought evidencing that he considers himself to be a "Minimalist." Are you seeing something different in his thought than I am?

So Philo, you go with 6 day creation, talking snake and literal forbidden fruit? and that captures your devotion?

In Analogical Imagination Tracy, I think directly speaks to the question. My book is at home.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So Philo, you go with 6 day creation, talking snake and literal forbidden fruit? and that captures your devotion?

[EDITED]

Obviously, I don't. But that doesn't mean I'm not a Maximalist. Maximalism isn't a synonym for "Literalism." Rather, Maximalism is a term that provides a surprising spectrum of positions in archaeology and historiography. And Minimalism, has a smaller range of meaning, and essentially is applied to those who don't really think the Bible represents anything in the way of "reliable evidence."

The caveat, here however, is that I tend to think that without Moses and the Exodus, at the least, beyond the book of Genesis itself, there's much less by which to anchor my devotion being that my own Epistemology is situated in the study of History rather than in Spiritual Mysticism.

Here, let's take a quick look at just the Wikipedia definition of "Minimalism" and "Biblical Criticism" for a starter. The minimalist wiki is somewhat brief, and notice too, it includes a taxonomic description of what "maximalism" is in contrast to "minimalism." I mean, who knows? Maybe I'm more of a 'centrist,' but from all I've read, I think I still qualify as being in the maximalist camp, even IF perhaps my position could more accurately be positioned as that of "maximalist-LITE" as it relates to both the fields of Hermeneutics and Biblical Criticism

Biblical minimalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Biblical Criticism - New World Encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

​

In Analogical Imagination Tracy, I think directly speaks to the question. My book is at home.

I prefer the term, "Representational" to Analogical. I also prefer the term "Historical Craft" to Imagination, but it'd be interesting to know if David Tracy considers himself to be a Minimalist.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

[EDITED]

Obviously, I don't. But that doesn't mean I'm not a Maximalist. Maximalism isn't a synonym for "Literalism." Rather, Maximalism is a term that provides a surprising spectrum of positions in archaeology and historiography. And Minimalism, has a smaller range of meaning, and essentially is applied to those who don't really think the Bible represents anything in the way of "reliable evidence."

The caveat, here however, is that I tend to think that without Moses and the Exodus, at the least, beyond the book of Genesis itself, there's much less by which to anchor my devotion being that my own Epistemology is situated in the study of History rather than in Spiritual Mysticism.

Here, let's take a quick look at just the Wikipedia definition of "Minimalism" and "Biblical Criticism" for a starter. The minimalist wiki is somewhat brief, and notice too, it includes a taxonomic description of what "maximalism" is in contrast to "minimalism." I mean, who knows? Maybe I'm more of a 'centrist,' but from all I've read, I think I still qualify as being in the maximalist camp, even IF perhaps my position could more accurately be positioned as that of "maximalist-LITE" as it relates to both the fields of Hermeneutics and Biblical Criticism

Biblical minimalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Biblical Criticism - New World Encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

​

I prefer the term, "Representational" to Analogical. I also prefer the term "Historical Craft" to Imagination, but it'd be interesting to know if David Tracy considers himself to be a Minimalist.

"spectrum of positions" I think best represents the reality hermeneutic out there among the faithful ( and not faithful).

You say, "my own Epistemology is situated in the study of History rather than in Spiritual Mysticism." I think, though I am not yet sure, I tend toward mysticism. Maybe because I am skeptical of the history.

Now with Tracy, I am still trying to understand him and where he is on that spectrum. With his "revisionist theology, he definitely leans minimalist and yet speaks of the importance of correlating scripture to lived experience. He has quoted someone, I forget who, "myth must be taken seriously but not literally."

So for me, creation accounts are myth. Patriarchs, well who knows probably some mixture of legend and history. The closer we get in time, I think, the more reliable the historical content. I certainty think focusing on a polemic asserting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 is completely missing the point.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And I find Narrative criticism most engaging. Whether taking about Adam and Eve or the Brothers Karamozov we can enter the story, explore the themes, motifs, symbolisms, etc without requiring literal historical "truth".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"spectrum of positions" I think best represents the reality hermeneutic out there among the faithful ( and not faithful).

You say, "my own Epistemology is situated in the study of History rather than in Spiritual Mysticism." I think, though I am not yet sure, I tend toward mysticism. Maybe because I am skeptical of the history.

Now with Tracy, I am still trying to understand him and where he is on that spectrum. With his "revisionist theology, he definitely leans minimalist and yet speaks of the importance of correlating scripture to lived experience. He has quoted someone, I forget who, "myth must be taken seriously but not literally."

So for me, creation accounts are myth. Patriarchs, well who knows probably some mixture of legend and history. The closer we get in time, I think, the more reliable the historical content. I certainty think focusing on a polemic asserting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 is completely missing the point.

[EDITED]

I'm in agreement with your essential appraisal of Genesis 1 & 2, but even so, I still see these Genesis narratives as being more than mythical in nature. I think a better term to apply to their literary nature is "prophetic" so as to distance ourselves from our modern nomenclature and ask ourselves questions pertaining to how the original authors the Old Testament writings thought about their own processes and intentions of writing.

For me, personally and existentially considered, my ability to hold the biblical writings as worthy of my time in "devotion" is dependent upon how much veracity I think they have for being prophetic in nature, whether they're approximate historical narratives or purposefully written poetic expressions. ........ all in all, if Moses and the Exodus didn't 'actually' happen, and humanity was able to come to know this in a highly objective, nearly absolute fashion via our various scientific investigations, I would NOT be able to hold the Pentateuch in my hands for the purpose of "devotion."

Moreover, if there was no Moses or a superlative Exodus of some sort, and if I were to find out that Dominic Crossan was right about Jesus' history, then I'd be tempted to be like so many others who kick the Bible into the fireplace and walk on.

BUT, from my own studies, I don't think we're at a place where we can say with definiteness or precision that the Bible has barely any historical reliability. No, it's more than 'barely,' even if some of the earliest writings are, as I've said before, representational to varying degrees.

I know one thing, I definitely am not of the mind to see the Eridu Genesis, Enuma Elish or The Atrahasis, or any other possible post-Neolithic writing as being inspired or prophetic in nature. Ancient? yes. Cultural? yes. Inspired? Absolutely not. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm a realist to the core, and due to this, an existentialist and one who is prone to skepticism.

In sum, I expect that anything so-called "spiritual" we have to hold and read better have some level of historical substance to it, or it's not worth my time or devotion.

Anyway, I have "dared" and that's where I am currently in my own appraisal of the Minimalist viewpoint, which I know can only see the biblical writings as non-factual, and mostly originating after Israel's Exile from Babylon.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

........ all in all, if Moses and the Exodus didn't 'actually' happen, and humanity was able to come to know this in a highly objective, nearly absolute fashion via our various scientific investigations, I would be able to hold the Pentateuch in my hands for the purpose of "devotion."

Do you intend to write that you would NOT be able?

Moreover, if there was no Moses or a superlative Exodus of some sort, and if I were to find out that Dominic Crossan was right about Jesus' history, then I'd be tempted to be like so many others who kick the Bible into the fireplace and walk on.

Ya, well Crossan and those guys are too far for me.

BUT, from my own studies, I don't think we're at a place where we can say with definiteness or precision that the Bible has barely any historical reliability. No, it's more than 'barely,' even if some of the earliest writings are, as I've said before, representational to varying degrees.

I know one thing, I definitely am not of the mind to see the Eridu Genesis, Enuma Elish or The Atrahasis, or any other possible post-Neolithic writing as being inspired or prophetic in nature. Ancient? yes. Cultural? yes. Inspired? Absolutely not. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm a realist to the core, and due to this, an existentialist and one who is prone to skepticism.

In sum, I expect that anything so-called "spiritual" we have to hold and read better have some level of historical substance to it, or it's not worth my time or devotion.

I did find a line in Tracy's Blessed Rage for Order, which I happen to have with me now. p. 5 "To continue to uphold a literal interpretation of the Genesis account is simply and irrevocably impossible for anyone who accepts the findings of the modern physical and life sciences.. To continue to believe a literalist theory of scripture interpretation seems no longer an option for anyone who has investigated the results of modern historical study of the scriptures."

Anyway, I have "dared" and that's where I am currently in my own appraisal of the Minimalist viewpoint, which I know can only see the biblical writings as non-factual, and mostly originating after Israel's Exile from Babylon.

You are more daring than most others here. But again we must consider the spectrum. I find myself being at peace with an indefinite position on the historical accuracy of Pentateuch narrative. Far more important to me is are the underlying messages. The Gospels are another case. Certainly the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, while questioned and challenged for some, remains an "substitutable" belief in Christian faith and life. Other things that might point to detail discrepancies don't bother me.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

As presented in post #48 above, you pursuit is contrary to the mind of Jesus.

What is in agreement with the rest of the Scriptures, as is the NT, is not subject to "alternate views" which are not in agreement with the rest of the NT.

Why the need for alternate views? Is not the word of God throughout Scripture sufficient for you?
What is lacking there to you?
Are you unhappy with any of its disagreement with human thinking?
Do you actually see yourself in a position to object to or improve upon the infinite divine wisdom?

Why is your goal, purpose in this?

You presume a little too much for me, Claire. You presume that your view, your interpretation is God's view.
I do not want to tamper with your view or faith if that is where you are.

I think just as Jesus reached out his hands to Thomas and said, " “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side." He invites us to probe. And so I dare.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you intend to write that you would NOT be able?

Correct. My apologies. Sometimes my fingers fall behind the intentions of my brain ...... So yea, I would NOT be able to. I've corrected that in the prior post.

Ya, well Crossan and those guys are too far for me.

Ditto!

I did find a line in Tracy's Blessed Rage for Order, which I happen to have with me now. p. 5 "To continue to uphold a literal interpretation of the Genesis account is simply and irrevocably impossible for anyone who accepts the findings of the modern physical and life sciences.. To continue to believe a literalist theory of scripture interpretation seems no longer an option for anyone who has investigated the results of modern historical study of the scriptures."

That's an interesting quote. But it's still apart from a definitive statement that Tracy is a Minimalist. However, if he's on record somewhere saying that he thinks much if not most of the O.T. writings as we now have them were written after the Exile, then it sounds like he would be somewhere on the spectrum of the Minimalist camp. If that's the case, I'm flabbergasted that he can find much in the way of any feelings of devotion toward God when reading the O.T.

But I get it-------everyone is different.

You are more daring than most others here. But again we must consider the spectrum. I find myself being at peace with an indefinite position on the historical accuracy of Pentateuch narrative. Far more important to me is are the underlying messages. The Gospels are another case. Certainly the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, while questioned and challenged for some, remains an "substitutable" belief in Christian faith and life. Other things that might point to detail discrepancies don't bother me.

I'm the Pinball Wizard of "daring," Akita. I've made it one of my life's goals to be conceptually familiar with as many taxonomic comparisons as possible in Philosophy and Theology and the spectrum of singular classifications within those taxonomies. The Old Testament is just one Pinball Machine that I happen to play. The Lord has graciously provided me the quarters by which to pay.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm the Pinball Wizard of "daring," Akita

Just "Who" I am remains a mystery.

The naturel question is, If I take some things literal and somethings mythical how and where do I draw the line. Case by case I guess.
Tracy more often reviews other theologians and philosophers. That is why I like him. It is like sitting in a classroom. (I am still waiting for my email reply). As I continue to read him I will watch out for his own views on the minimalist/maximalist question.

I would guess, or so far have realized, that he has a strong and deep appreciation for the prophets.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think just as Jesus reached out his hands to Thomas and said, " “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side." He invites us to probe. And so I dare.

Jesus was showing objective evidence for His identity.

What kind of evidence are you probing? objective or otherwise?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just "Who" I am remains a mystery.

The naturel question is, If I take some things literal and somethings mythical how and where do I draw the line.

Who says you "have" to draw a hard and fast line? Each of us will draw a line at some point in the human attempt to discern the nature of what we read in the Bible. I think you know this, and those of us who are familiar with the field of Hermeneutics, like you and I are, will know that being able to engage the Bible in a "hard and fast" way---as if it could be done that way---is fraught with all kinds of conceptual and methodological difficulties.

For my part as one who is invested in Historiography and Hermeneutics, I think it's best not to think of 'the Past' and our human records of that past, as something that can be easily measured and understood. You may be surprised to know, or maybe your wouldn't be, even someone like archaeologist and historian, Israel Finkelstein, will tell you the same sort of thing I'm saying here.

I've heard Finkelstein claim to an interviewer that he doesn't consider himself to be a Minimalist but rather a Centrist where archaeology rubs against the biblical literature, and he claims that it's his critics who say he's a Minimalist. I think he's a MInimalist, but either way, I can still learn about how he envisions his praxis on where he attempts to "draw the line" on the matters of your OP. Even he says it's not a clear and distinct set of conclusions one can draw in all cases of analysis.

So, maybe set this issue of where to draw the line to a secondary, backburner place of concerns?

Case by case I guess.
Tracy more often reviews other theologians and philosophers. That is why I like him. It is like sitting in a classroom. (I am still waiting for my email reply). As I continue to read him I will watch out for his own views on the minimalist/maximalist question.

It sounds like he has a similar praxis to my own. The difference being, of course, he's a PhD/ThD, and I'm just yesterday's roast beef.

I would guess, or so far have realized, that he has a strong and deep appreciation for the prophets.

As do I. So far, I like what I hear about his interests, whether I agree with his conclusions or not. If we're all Christians here, which we are, then I really don't have reason to be surprised at the overlap and similarities.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Who says you "have" to draw a hard and fast line? Each of us will draw a line at some point in the human attempt to discern the nature of what we read in the Bible. I think you know this, and those of us who are familiar with the field of Hermeneutics, like you and I are, will know that being able to engage the Bible in a "hard and fast" way---as if it could be done that way---is fraught with all kinds of conceptual and methodological difficulties.

For my part as one who is invested in Historiography and Hermeneutics, I think it's best not to think of 'the Past' and our human records of that past, as something that can be easily measured and understood. You may be surprised to know, or maybe your wouldn't be, even someone like archaeologist and historian, Israel Finkelstein, will tell you the same sort of thing I'm saying here.

I've heard Finkelstein claim to an interviewer that he doesn't consider himself to be a Minimalist but rather a Centrist where archaeology rubs against the biblical literature, and he claims that it's his critics who say he's a Minimalist. I think he's a MInimalist, but either way, I can still learn about how he envisions his praxis on where he attempts to "draw the line" on the matters of your OP. Even he says it's not a clear and distinct set of conclusions one can draw in all cases of analysis.

So, maybe set this issue of where to draw the line to a secondary, backburner place of concerns?


It sounds like he has a similar praxis to my own. The difference being, of course, he's a PhD/ThD, and I'm just yesterday's roast beef.


As do I. So far, I like what I hear about his interests, whether I agree with his conclusions or not. If we're all Christians here, which we are, then I really don't have reason to be surprised at the overlap and similarities.

At least I found the term for my interest: Hermeneutic phenomenology.

Did you know that Heidegger took a meditative poetic language "turn" in his later years? Zen and such. "Non calculative language".

I was always too intimidated by him. Never read him at all.

Tracy is a big name dropper so I searched for what he might say about Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas Thompson, Philip Davies and Keith Whitelam.
I didn't find anything. Nor Copenhagen School.

 

[public hermit]

At least I found the term for my interest: Hermeneutic phenomenology.

Did you know that Heidegger took a meditative poetic language "turn" in his later years? Zen and such. "Non calculative language".

I was always too intimidated by him. Never read him at all.

Tracy is a big name dropper so I searched for what he might say about Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas Thompson, Philip Davies and Keith Whitelam.
I didn't find anything. Nor Copenhagen School.

Maybe this has been discussed, but in terms of theology, the primary Heideggerian is Rudolph Bultmann (not to be confused with Moltmann, who was a very different German animal). Bultmann basically appropriated (in the usual sense of the term) Heidegger for Christianity. It is an existential/phenomenological approach.

 

[public hermit]

Maybe this has been discussed, but in terms of theology, the primary Heideggerian is Rudolph Bultmann (not to be confused with Moltmann, who was a very different German animal). Bultmann basically appropriated (in the usual sense of the term) Heidegger for Christianity. It is an existential/phenomenological approach.

@Akita Suggagaki

When I was spending a lot of time in the German theologians (existential/phenomenological approaches), reading Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God had a profound effect on me. Some of that content is in the marrow of my understanding of Christ. I should read it again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At least I found the term for my interest: Hermeneutic phenomenology.

Did you know that Heidegger took a meditative poetic language "turn" in his later years? Zen and such. "Non calculative language".

No, I didn't know that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did since he had a Nazi conscience in need of post-war assuaging.

I was always too intimidated by him. Never read him at all.

Well, I haven't read much of him either even though he is, unfortunately, one of the core, influential names in Philosophical Hermeneutics. That has bothered me. But the good thing to know where Germanic or French phenomenology is of interest, Heidegger isn't the only game in town. No one "has" to start with him. ................ you can always read others, and as it is, you've already been reading Paul Ricœur.

Tracy is a big name dropper so I searched for what he might say about Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas Thompson, Philip Davies and Keith Whitelam.
I didn't find anything. Nor Copenhagen School.

Ok. Well, let me know what you find.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe this has been discussed, but in terms of theology, the primary Heideggerian is Rudolph Bultmann (not to be confused with Moltmann, who was a very different German animal). Bultmann basically appropriated (in the usual sense of the term) Heidegger for Christianity. It is an existential/phenomenological approach.

..... y'know? Everytime someone mentions Heideggar, I start thinking, "Hey, maybe I'm NOT actually an existentialist........."

I mean, existentialism is sort of like going to Vegas. It's an interesting [**cough**] place to visit, but I don't want to live there.

Then again, just when I think that maybe I could instead pass as a sad excuse for an Evidentialist, I realize that Existentialism comes in all sorts of forms and degrees, kind of like the different ways we could list about how life can, at times, suck.

 

[public hermit]

No, I didn't know that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did since he had a Nazi conscience in need of post-war assuaging

Ouch! Lol. Poor Heidegger.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ouch! Lol. Poor Heidegger.

.... and you can always tell the extent to which someone is actually "into" Heiddeggar by the way they spell his name.

 

[public hermit]

.... and you can always tell the extent to which someone is actually "into" Heiddeggar by the way they spell his name.

I have to look it up. Is two d's or two g's or who cares? I am a fan of his teacher, Husserl, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have to look it up. Is two d's or two g's or who cares? I am a fan of his teacher, Husserl.

I think it's the "I don't care" option.

As for Edmund Husserl, he was definitely an interesting read back in college and I liked his hermeneutic of "Framing." That was one idea that has always stuck with me, however badly I may appropriate it.