rmwilliamsll
avid reader
butxifxnot said:
how do you get that?
look at my reviews of 3 critical books in the exegesis of Genesis 1-3
- review of _in the beginning_ by blocher, henri
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/40385.html
First, i come to this book as an extended directed self study on the issues involved in the Creation-Evolution-Design debate. This book i rate as one of the 5 most significant books for a conservative reformed Christian who wants to come to reasoned and faithful conclusions in the CED debate. It is conservative which i define to be conscious and considerate of the traditions of the past, to take them seriously, not simply accepting something because it is new. It is Biblical in the way the author is very careful to allow the Scripture's Words to speak for themselves, being very careful not to read into the words his own cherished beliefs, but to allow the Word to speak to him, authoritatively and reliably. To this end he is not infected by the liberal J-P-D documentary interpretation so often evident in exegesis or interpretation.
Second, the book is significant on two levels, the first is the exegetical level, the principles of understanding that the author explores in the first few chapters. Second is the line by line study that forms the bulk of the book, roughly chpt 3 on.
The structure of the book is that of Gen 1-3 but the way he writes is interesting and worth a moment of reflection here. The chapters are more like consistent essays than the usual exegesis bound to the text. He takes a major theme in the next section of Genesis then expands it to cover this issue through the past interpreters and links to other related Scripture. It roughly follows the systematic organization of reformed covenant theology.
pg 26 has what i think is the best analysis of the human writers relationship to Scripture. "That rule follows from the humanity of Holy Scripture. In the act of inspiration God did not turn his sookesmen into robots; his Word became their word, under their signature and their responsiblility. Thus we have no right to go over their heads in order to set forth a 'divine' meaning which they would never possilby have imagined-even if those men did not grasp the whole import of what they attested God in his condescension has limited himself to their instrumentality; our interpretation must conform to the corresponding discipline."
If the church would hend this advice much of the CED debate would be solved, for we would cease to search Genesis for the equivalent of quarks, trying to query the first few chapters of the Bible and mine it for scientific truths. Rather we would, as this author does, submit to the authority of Scripture to speak to the way we do science, to the ideas that we bring to the universe as we question the master workmen's creation that we are a small part of.
The book is literary framework in its approach to Gen1-3, M. Kline being the best example of this in the english speaking world. Anyone familiar with the CED issues would be advised to read the first 2 chapters of this book simply to see a careful analysis of exegesis and the result of allowing Scripture to speak for itself rather than being pushed out of shape by young earth creationists whom would interpret the 7 days too literally. Or by scientific reconcilationists would would try to find modern science confirmed in the light appearing before the sun(ie the big bang).
The first principle he outlines carefully is to allow Scripture to speak to its first listeners, their culture, their history. His exegetical task doesn't end there but extends to teaching what these things mean to us in our place in space and time. But this application, this preaching follows critical-historical interpretation not prior to it as so many would desire.
Thanks to the author for this excellent book and i hope to read more from his pen.
limited to less than 1000 words and what the average person will skim read *grin*
now the full story-----
The first chapter "Approaching Genesis" is where Blocher outlines his method of exegesis and is where the reader forms his first and most lastly impressions of the author. The chapter is one of the best conservative exegetical statements i can remember reading. For instance,
"If we give the name 'inspiration' to that divine work by which the Bible was composed and which allows us to identify it with God's own utterance, then we must approach the opening chapters of Genesis as inspired texts, rich with the truth of God clothed with the authority of God. We must also, in order to understand them better, make use of the harmony of the Scriptures. We must take advantage of the common inspiration, bringing other passages to illumine the difficulties. That we shall do. We shall trust the method of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to 'the analog of faith'." pg 17
In the section, "the place of the sciences" he introduces the theme of 3 ways that bible and science can interact: concordism, antiscientism and fideism. He consistently uses the term antiscientism(this is a translated french book) for that constellation of theology-exegesis-science that we label YEC. On the concordist he writes "badly equipped and badly trained for exegesis, the concordists have more than once projected the science of their own time on to the Word of God, superimposing a different and varying authority of that which should remain supreme." pg 22
i posted the review to _the fourth day_ by H. Van Till earlier in this thread at #2
at amazon.com, review of _meaning of creation_ by Conrad Hyers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is one of those drop everything and read now type of books. very much appropriate to a discussion of gen 1 and 2, and the extended discussion of creation evolution, with attention to the relationship of religion and science.
his thesis is that the first two chapters of genesis are polemic against the neighboring cultures of the hebrews. simply put genesis has nothing to do with modern science at all. we impose our catagories of thought, but more importantly we impose what we want to hear onto these chapters.
just a few quotes will help:
it is quite doubtful that these texts have waited in obscurity through the millennia for their hidden meanings to be revealed by modern science. it is at least a good possibility that the "real meaning" was understood by the authors themselves. pg 3
and in response to henry morris who wrote "the creation account is clear, definite, sequential and matter-of-fact, giving evey appearance of straightforward historical narrative"
---hyers writes on pg 23 "this may indeed be the way things appear to certain modern interpreters at considerable remove from the context in which the texts were written, living in an age so dominated by scientific and historical modes of thought. It may also be the way things appear to those for whom modern science and historiography offer the criteria by which religious statements are to be understood and judged to be true or false. Yet it is by no means obvious that this represents the literary form or religious concern of the Genesis writers"
the problem of the debate over origins from genesis is like pogo said in the widely quoted cartoon "we have met the enemy and he is US".
the reason we have so much smoke over genesis is that we forgot the first rule of hermenutics. approach the text as the first readers did, with their assumptions, their world and life view. with the issues they were interested in understanding in the forefront. NOT OURS. the extension of scripture to all times and ages is done after this culture and historic criticism. not before.
therefore genesis is a religious not a scientific document addressed to the questions of that time. polytheism, and sacralization of the physical world. this is in alignment with _battle for god_ by karen armstrong and her analysis of logos and mythos. our problem is that we so depreciate mythos as being NOT TRUE that we very much miss the point of the first two chapters of Genesis....
show me how i deny the truthfulness of Genesis?
what i deny is the 19thC interpretation of Genesis as a modern historical scientific document to be read in the manner of a science or history textbook without exegesis of it's literary, cultural, historical, context.
i don't think anyone can get a grip on this CED discussion without understanding what these 3 men have to say.....(of course plus Kline's framework interpretation *grin*)
----
Upvote
0