The Redundant Focal Point

[philadiddle]

Shernren,

I disagree that a non-literal reading of genesis is "liberal". I'd like to know what makes you think that it is "liberal" to see Genesis as non-literal, and what makes it conservation to read it literally? I don't think those labels are appropriate at all but I'll wait to hear what you have to say first.

 

[shernren]

Shernren,

I disagree that a non-literal reading of genesis is "liberal". I'd like to know what makes you think that it is "liberal" to see Genesis as non-literal, and what makes it conservation to read it literally? I don't think those labels are appropriate at all but I'll wait to hear what you have to say first.

Bear in mind that I'm trying my best to use "conservative" and "liberal" as descriptive labels, not normative (i.e. "it's better to be conservative than liberal" or the other way around). So I'm not trying to say in a roundabout way that interpreting Genesis non-literally is baaaad; I'm just saying that's how liberals tend to do things.

I'll quote a passage from Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns that seems to address this issue quite thoroughly and holistically:

... Many of the ancient texts listed above [ANE myths, legal codes, and historiography] had the cumulative effect of casting serious doubt on the Bible's uniqueness vis-a-vis the ANE literature and the effects of this for revelation and inspiration. Also at stake were the related issues of historical accuracy, both with respect to the presence of ANE mythic parallels and the biased accounts of history in royal texts such as the Mesha Inscription. The end product of how modern biblical scholarship handled this new evidence was to present the Bible as more or less a purely human book. Sure, God (for those who even addressed the issue) can "speak" in the Bible - perhaps in the faraway echo of human voices expressing their ancient faith. But there is nothing like the traditional notion that God speaks to the church through time in these words. What modern biblical scholarship demonstrated was that the Bible shared many of the standards, concepts, and worldviews of its ANE neighbours. When they got down to it, there really wasn't anything about the Bible itself that made it all that special, and this seemed very inconsistent with conventional notions of inspiration and God speaking to us in the Bible today.

The newfound evidence for the cultural settings of the Bible led many to conclude that the Bible is essentially defined by these cultural factors. The "context of Scripture" became the primary determining factor in defining what the Bible is. That point of view had immediate doctrinal implications for evangelicals, irrespective of the fact that these implications were not always articulated by these scholars.
​

That is essentially the "liberal reaction" to the evidence that the Bible is "human". Enns then goes on to describe the conservatives' reaction; his comment about (perceived) uniqueness is particularly perceptive and helpful.

The conservatives' reaction was also problematic in that it implicitly assumed what their opponents also assumed: the Bible, being the word of God, ought to be historically accurate in all its details (since God would not lie or make errors) and unique in its own setting (since God's word is revealed, which implies a specific type of uniqueness). Rather than challenging these assumptions on a fundamental level, evangelicals adopted them, and so reaction was often intense. As mentioned earlier, conservatives have tended to employ a strategy of selective engagement, embracing evidence that seems to support their assumptions (such as might be done with Tel Dan and the Siloam Tunnel) but retreating from evidence that seems to undercut these assumptions (e.g. Enuma Elish, Code of Hammurabi). In other words, conservative scholarship, allowing modern scholarship to set the agenda while still trying to maintain older doctrinal commitments, was well positioned to listen to some evidence but not all.
​

He then talks about the historical situation and how it has led to today's scene:

To caricature somewhat, if historical context was everything for liberal scholars, regardless of its implications for Christian doctrine, for conservative scholars doctrine was everything, regardless of the historical evidence that challenged doctrine. This impasse defined much of the scholarly landscape for decades. Though there was an impasse, it is inaccurate to say that it was [remained?] a complete stalemate. Theories that once defined older liberalism gave way to newer theories. Also, there has been movement among evangelical scholars in that many routinely employ a variety of methods and draw certain conclusions that in previous generations were highly suspect.

Such a thing is inevitable, but the doctrinal implications of the Bible being so much a part of its ancient contexts are still not being addressed as much as they should. Many evangelical scholars do excellent historical work but do not always squarely address the doctrinal implications of their own findings. More than once, I have observed evangelical scholars pursue a line of argumentation about Genesis or some other topic, come close to drawing out the logical implications for how we understand the Bible, but then retreat to traditional, safe categories.
​

(all emphases in original)

If I may extend his observations, it is also all too possible for us to (rightly) focus on how important it is to read the Bible in its ancient historical context, but then fail to complete our job by drawing out doctrinal implications from that fact.

I'll summarize by borrowing some terms and ideas from Enns: just as God is both immanent and transcendent, the Bible is both immanent - steeped in the contemporary context of its writers and original hearers - and transcendent - containing wisdom able to edify people of all generations, even those far removed from its original hearers. Conservative scholarship tends to emphasize its transcendence, downplaying historical context (except where it helps to "prove the Bible's veracity"); liberal scholarship tends to emphasize its immanence, while running the risk of downplaying its transcendent wisdom that applies even to us today.

 

[philadiddle]

I still accept what you is saying, but I still feel the words "conservative" and "liberal" are being misused. First off, I feel that my view of Genesis is actually more of a classical view, and the literal approach is the new knee jerk reaction to Darwinian evolution. Saying that literalists are conservative makes it sound as though that's what the church has thought for centuries, and only recently we've adopted a non-literal approach. Those terms also carry with them many other views. Some people may assume that having a liberal view of the bible also means you're pro-abortion and ok with gays. Those issues, and many other issues are completely separate and unrelated, but I feel that the connotation is still there when we use words like "liberal" to define our non-literal view of the creation account. I like to explain to people that I accept the classical view of creation, that it is a non-literal account that sets the stage for our need for redemption and the history in the rest of the bible.

 

[shernren]

I still accept what you is saying, but I still feel the words "conservative" and "liberal" are being misused. First off, I feel that my view of Genesis is actually more of a classical view, and the literal approach is the new knee jerk reaction to Darwinian evolution. Saying that literalists are conservative makes it sound as though that's what the church has thought for centuries, and only recently we've adopted a non-literal approach. Those terms also carry with them many other views. Some people may assume that having a liberal view of the bible also means you're pro-abortion and ok with gays. Those issues, and many other issues are completely separate and unrelated, but I feel that the connotation is still there when we use words like "liberal" to define our non-literal view of the creation account. I like to explain to people that I accept the classical view of creation, that it is a non-literal account that sets the stage for our need for redemption and the history in the rest of the bible.

Classical is not necessarily conservative; and if these conservatives knew what Origen thought of the Bible, they would foam at the mouth!

Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it.

But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

...

The object of all these statements on our part, is to show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it—a thing which we see to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result; but that we are to understand that certain occurrences were interwoven in this visible history, which, when considered and understood in their inner meaning, give forth a law which is advantageous to men and worthy of God.

- De Principiis 4.1.1.16, 18 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm)

But like it or not, the way that words like "conservative" and "liberal" were used does have a historical precedent which we can't ignore. And I think anyone who will refuse to listen to us simply because we're "liberal" is unlikely to countenance our views even if we hid that label from them.

 

[rcorlew]

This thread is pretty refreshing, too bad I just found it!

First off, I really like the idea of focusing on the differences rather than the similarities.

Secondly, I have heard the case made abundantly clear that the Genesis accounts in 1-11 were oral traditions handed down to each generation. If you take that stance then I do believe that there is a problem with the incorporation of ANE mythology into these accounts. The generational accounts given in Matthew have been used for some calculations which may not be entirely accurate as Hebrews did skip people who were either undesirable or insignificant. That said, even using a strict literal time line, we still have the accounts of a people that date back to circa 4000 BC give or take a few years. The question would solely lie on those who would propose an importation to ANE mythology into Judaism on exactly when were the accounts in Enum Elish actually created. If it were later than 4000 BC is it not more logical that an exportation of Hebrew accounts would have occurred? What group of people would have been more likely to import religious truths or concepts?

Third, I believe that an actual true literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is what best explains it. It does not say much more than what it does say and people say that they are taking a literal interpretation of the passages when they are actually adding to them. Some classic examples:

It does not say that the days mentioned are 24 hours, people assume they are

It does not say the days of creation are 7 consecutive days, people assume they are

It does not say that "In the beginning" was the first part of day one, people assume it is

It does not say that there was a definable first day, the earth could have been sitting here millions or billions of years before God began working

Fourth, there is the whole problem of language, there were not terms for many of the concepts we have today when God shared them with the Hebrews. I also firmly believe that even if God wanted us to know the "how" today we would still not be able to define it using the advanced languages we have today. The Genesis account was not written as a scientific account, although there are some small smattering of scientific observations throughout the OT, its purpose was to be a historical account, not even necessarily the outcome that God intended. One of the key problems are that people read into texts and especially the Bible what they want to get out of it, not trying to understand what the Bible actually says.

Lastly, people have a hard time dealing with the infinite revelation of the Bible. You read the story David and you can see any of the following:

A man who sinned
A man who chased after the heart of God
A man who was a great leader
A man who was a great warrior
A man of great faith
A man who wanted to do great things for God
The presentation of the Gospel

All of the things listed are true about the accounts of David, and this same principle is true for Genesis. We see God creating everything, making provisions for how creation would operate, setting up rules, handling disobedience in Grace, the relationship between husband and wife, the role Jesus would play, the effects of sin, that God has a purpose for creation... Genesis is not just truth, it is a truth that is both true and transcendent, but is also misused, misquoted, misapplied, misrepresented and misunderstood by so many people that each have a belief system that they try to reconcile the Scriptures to that it is little wonder why so many have a hard time with this portion of the Bible. You have to understand the entire purpose of Genesis, both in its place in history and how it applies to us today before any reasonably correct hermeneutics can drawn from it.