Do you dare?

[Akita Suggagaki]

representational and poetic

Well, shoot! Even Heidegger made a "turn to the poetic". Maybe a lot more there than gets credit.

At least I thinks so. Entering into its world. Like the Brothers Karamazov. So much truth in fiction!

And, YES, looking at the world today with a hermeneutic of suspicion is definitely called for. So many "ism"s trying to stake their claims.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you saying that science thrown into the pot of Genesis 1 & 2 put the Creation Story on the same plane as the Mesopotamian and Babylonian creation myths?

No. I'm saying that when people hermeneutically observe the obvious literary aspects present within the narrative structure of Genesis 1, and they do this in comparison to what I've already alluded to above , then Genesis 1 looks BETTER and even, when compared along with the Mesopotamian myths against today's science, more REALISTIC in its expressed meaning THAN the Mesopotamian myths.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, shoot! Even Heidegger made a "turn to the poetic". Maybe a lot more there than gets credit.

The Genesis Flood is "poetic"; 6 million murdered Jews is not poetic.

At least I thinks so. Entering into its world. Like the Brothers Karamazov. So much truth in fiction!

I'd rather cite the Book of Genesis as a form of representational, prophetic literature. Applying today's term "fiction" to it (or the rest of the O.T.) insinuates that it somehow lacks God's power or truth in its narratives.

I could be wrong, but.................I've read too many formidable scholars for me to change my own hermeneutical stripes now.

And, YES, looking at the world today with a hermeneutic of suspicion is definitely called for. So many "ism"s trying to stake their claims.

Sure. The Hermeneutic of Suspicion has its uses. It's not necessarily as if there's several hermeneutical choices and we can only choose one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds promising.

Which form of criticism do you use? higher or lower?

All of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I'm saying that when people hermeneutically observe the obvious literary aspects present within the narrative structure of Genesis 1, and they do this in comparison to what I've already alluded to above , then Genesis 1 looks BETTER and even, when compared along with the Mesopotamian myths against today's science, more REALISTIC in its expressed meaning THAN the Mesopotamian myths.

Re the KJB, as they say, you can't improve perfection.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Re the KJB, as they say, you can't improve perfection.

If that's what lines your boat and prevents you from sinking, then power to ya!

 

[okay]

Genesis is a prophetic book, however we appraise it, and I'm going to assert that we owe it to ourselves as those who follow Christ to take it in the vain in which it wasn't given, literal or not.

I believe we should take every part of scripture very seriously, regardless of what genre we think it probably is. And most days I spend time reading scripture because I sincerely believe God uses it to speak to us.

For a few weeks now I feel like I am constantly being reminded by God that everyone around me is made in His image. All the time! He is working on softening my heart towards folks that I have a hard time relating to. And I get the theology that we are made in God’s image from a part of scripture that I believe is probably best described as myth. It would be foolish of me to not take myth seriously when it is part of scripture.

Does that help clarify how I view and use scripture?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I believe we should take every part of scripture very seriously, regardless of what genre we think it probably is.

And if something is written post exilic by unknown authors rather than earlier Moses it in no way diminished divine inspiration.

 

[Derf]

I don't double down. I consider most likely options.

Apparently not.

 

[Derf]

Yes, I think there is a historical basis for a lot of it. But the details? who knows? But Genesis creation accounts seems pure mythical to me.

You should know, in case you didn’t already, that “there is a historical basis for a lot of it” and “pure mythical” are incongruous.

Can you tell me one part of the creation account in Genesis 1 that seems mythical, and why?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I believe we should take every part of scripture very seriously, regardless of what genre we think it probably is. And most days I spend time reading scripture because I sincerely believe God uses it to speak to us.

For a few weeks now I feel like I am constantly being reminded by God that everyone around me is made in His image. All the time! He is working on softening my heart towards folks that I have a hard time relating to. And I get the theology that we are made in God’s image from a part of scripture that I believe is probably best described as myth. It would be foolish of me to not take myth seriously when it is part of scripture.

Does that help clarify how I view and use scripture?

Yes, I think I've been understanding what you've shared in this thread all along. That's an awesome thing that God' Word speaks to you. It does to me too. You and I also have a similar way in which we appraise the nature of Genesis 1 and 2--as "mythical" [even though I really don't like that term, and by using it, I think we end up insinuating certain qualities anachronistically back into the nature of the text that the original writer(s) didn't necessarily intend ............)

Being that you and I have a similar view on the meaning and nature of Genesis 1 [and 2, and even 3], you might get something out of J. Richard Middleton's book, The Liberating Image (2005). I just thought I'd toss this out to you. Not that you need it, but you might find his book interesting like I do.

But here's the caveat: What I "do" in reading Genesis 1, 2 and 3, or even chapters 4 through 11, isn't the same thing I "do" when reading the rest of Genesis, or especially when reading those books in the O.T. that come after Genesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And if something is written post exilic by unknown authors rather than earlier Moses it in no way diminished divine inspiration.

.... on my part, I would think it does. I EXPECT some sort of, at least, miniminal corroboration between the Bible and the history of the world.

It seems to me too many people are looking and seeing something in the way of "no" corroboration.......................which is strange to me, and they posit, then, that the O.T. for the most part is an "Exihilic Product." Yeah, I can join in with the idea that 'some' of the O.T. is Exihilic, but to say that much if not most of the O.T. was written by Ezra's entourage (or even by unknowns after Ezra) is a bit much in my estimation. And if I ever were to find out that this IS the case, I'm not going to be a happy camper.

So, I'm going to have to part with you on this point.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Can you tell me one part of the creation account in Genesis 1 that seems mythical, and why?

6 day creation when it seems more likely to be a much longer process.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So, I'm going to have to part with you on this point.

And that is fine. I try not to argue. Just looking for kindren spirits.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And that is fine. I try not to argue. Just looking for kindren spirits.

I know you're not trying to argue, and I accept you as a kindred spirit--- that is, as a fellow Trinitarian Christian ---even if we don't wear the same shoe size where Hermeneutics and Historiography are concerned.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

original writer(s) didn't necessarily intend ............)

You are reminding me of something I just read. tell me what you think of it. I am not sure, "Hans-Georg Gadamer, after all, was a major hermeneutical thinker who taught the important hermeneutical truth that an author's intention cannot be allowed to control the meaning of a text."

So if something is inspired by God is it really necessary for the writer to understand it or intend it?
Especially in the same way that we might now thousands of years later?

Again with the OP. If Genesis is post exilic does the intention of the author change the theological message?

And in regard to Biblical critical methods:
Form-critical, redaction-critical, and literary critical methods develop, correct and challenge theological understandings but do not replace them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are reminding me of something I just read. tell me what you think of it. I am not sure, "Hans-Georg Gadamer, after all, was a major hermeneutical thinker who taught the important hermeneutical truth that an author's intention cannot be allowed to control the meaning of a text."

Before I answer very firmly here I'd prefer to know where you've drawn this quote from.

Be that as it may, the main thing I'd say is that where the "original authorial intention" is concerned, Gadamer disagreed on certain points with Derrida's postemodern insistency that the text essentially loses authorship and becomes the realm and reign of the reader. For Gadamer, and for other later Philosophical Hermeneuticists with whom I'm more familiar, to say that the text goes beyond the author himself or herself is to instead insist that the intertextual situatedness of a text is, and was, always much wider than the mere, selective intention of the author to write. Knowing this, it is up to the reader to be responsible for the sake of interdisciplinary self-education to not simply appropriate the text for him or herself as he/she sees fit.

On an epistemic scale, some of the contrast (and methodological and ideological) conflict between Gadamer and Derrida can be seen by understandking the difference between Critical Realism and Anti-Realism.

So if something is inspired by God is it really necessary for the writer to understand it or intend it?

How do we know if something is inspired by God? I'm not the sort of philosopher who just takes it as a given because someone slaps a Bible in my hands and tells me, "It's the Word of God." I'm going to assume you don't either. There are complex reasons 'why' we each even deign to think the Bible, collectively considered, is inspired---whatever inspiration actually is.

Especially in the same way that we might now thousands of years later?

Again with the OP. If Genesis is post exilic does the intention of the author change the theological message?

It depends on who is writing and asking "how would he [or she] know?," especially the much, much, much further out one goes in time. I mean, I'm not assuming angels just show up out of nowhere to drop huge nuggets of Divine-Info about "THE PAST" into people's brains. At least not at the drop of a hat. So, if the O.T. is Post-Exilic and not contemporary in conceptual alignment with the contexts of the writing, generally speaking, even if not in exact corresponding fashion, then I have a difficult time applying any method by which to make heads or tails coherently out of the nature of what it is I'm reading in the Bible.

So, if the O.T. is all Post-Exilic, that makes it highly suspect to me and I'm less willing to give it the benefit of the doubt as I sift through what other outside historians and archaeologists find in comparative historical inquiry.

And in regard to Biblical critical methods:
Form-critical, redaction-critical, and literary critical methods develop, correct and challenge theological understandings but do not replace them.

Maybe, but from what I've seen across the board in and within academia, whether or not Critical Scholarship "replaces" theological understanding depends upon who you're asking. For some, it does replace it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are reminding me of something I just read. tell me what you think of it. I am not sure, "Hans-Georg Gadamer, after all, was a major hermeneutical thinker who taught the important hermeneutical truth that an author's intention cannot be allowed to control the meaning of a text."

So if something is inspired by God is it really necessary for the writer to understand it or intend it?
Especially in the same way that we might now thousands of years later?

Again with the OP. If Genesis is post exilic does the intention of the author change the theological message?

And in regard to Biblical critical methods:
Form-critical, redaction-critical, and literary critical methods develop, correct and challenge theological understandings but do not replace them.

Also, just for the record: I am not overly familiar with Gadamer himself. My own foray into the field of Philosophical Hermeneutics and/or Critical Realism comes through several other later similar voices in the P.H. camp, two of whom are Jens Zimmermann and Merold Westphal, among others (who are within the constellation of someone like Peter Enns).

But, I don't want to get into all of that. You're focused on David Tracy, so I'm not going to try to interrupt your own studies here other than to say that where the Biblical document's authorship is of interest in relation to the Babylonian Exile, I fall with within the understanding of Maximalists and see the O.T. as essentially, even if not completely, Pre-Exilic and in terms not too radically dissimilar from mainstream evangelicals.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Before I answer here very firmly here I'd prefer to know where you've drawn this quote from.

David Tracy, Fragments p. 209.

You sound a lot like him.

I am a bit weary of Fragments. Next chapter is Paul Recoeur. I went back to Analogical Imagination where in the last half of the book it is mostly Christology. It is more refreshing and inspiring.

Nevertheless, I will reread your last posts more slowly.

 

[Derf]

6 day creation when it seems more likely to be a much longer process.

Seems, based on what?