Re: Discussion of von Rad's _Genesis: A Commentary_

On 05 Dec 2007 04:55:33 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartographical@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I've copied in a few lengthy quotes to give you the flavor of these
works. It might help you decide which to focus on if you're not able to
borrow them all cheaply. (I assume you either have a good university
library nearby or are doing interlibrary loan.)

I got von Rad through interlibrary loan. I've ordered John Taylor's
St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis, whether we discuss it
or not. It should get here in the next couple of days.


I did skim over a few other books and was hoping to find an author that
represented the literalist tradition, but nothing turned up. I'm also
not seeing any citations to scholars supporting literalism. This may be
selection bias -- books that tend to make it into university libraries
tend to cite other books that make it into university libraries, and for
whatever reason literalism may have been out of favor in academia for a
while. To balance things out, please don't hesitate to make suggestions,
or ask your pastor (or equivalent) for ideas.


On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:21:39 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:

_Understanding Genesis_, Nahum M. Sarna, Schocken Paperback edition.
(BS 1235.3 .S33 1970)

I'm finding I agree with most of what's here -- and it's written well.

<q>
Unfortunately, the response of the fundamentalists to the challenge of
scientism served only to exacerbate the situation. They mistakenly
regarded all critical biblical studies as a challenge to faith. There
remained no room for the play of individual conscience; the validity of
genuine intellectual doubt was refused recognition. By insisting
dogmatically upon interpretations and doctrines that flagrantly
contradicted the facts, the fundamentalist did not realize the self-
exposure of an obvious insecurity that was more a reflection upon his own
religious position than a judgment upon biblical scholarship. For it
declared, in effect, that spiritual relevance can be maintained only at
thee expense of the intellect and the stifling of conscience. (pgs xxi-
xxii)
</q>

<q>
It should be obvious that by the nature of things, none of these stories
can possibly be the product of human memory, nor in any modern sense of
the word scientific accounts of the origin and nature of the physical
world.

Biblical man, despite his undoubted intellectual and spiritual
endowments, did not base his views of the universe and its laws on the
critical use of empirical data. He had not, as yet, discovered the
principles and methods of disciplined inquiry, critical observation or
analytical experimentation. Rather, his thinking was imaginative, and
his expressions of thought were concrete, pictorial, emotional, and
poetic.[] Hence, it is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to
reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern
science. Any correspondence which can be discovered or ingeniously
established between the two must surely be nothing more than mere
coincidence. Even more serious than the inherent fundamental
misconception of the psychology of biblical man is the unwholesome effect
upon the understanding of the Bible itself. For the net result is self-
defeating. The literalistic approach serves to direct attention to those
aspects of the narrative that reflect the time and place of its
composition, while it tends to obscure the elements that are meaningful
and enduring, thus distorting the biblical message and destroying its
relevancy.

Whether the Hebrew Genesis account was meant to be science or not, it was
certainly meant to convey statements of faith. As will be shown, it is
part of the biblical polemic against paganism and an introduction to the
religious ideas characteristic of the whole of biblical literature. It
tells us something about the nature of the one God who is the Creator and
supreme sovereign of the world and whose will is absolute. It asserts
that God is outside the realm of nature, which is wholly subservient to
Him. He has no myth; that is, there are no stories about any events in
His life. Magic plays no part in the worship of Him. The story also
tells us something of the nature of man, a God-like creature, uniquely
endowed with dignity, honor, and infinite worth, into whose hands God has
entrusted mastery over His creation. Finally, this narrative tells us
something about the biblical concept of reality. It proclaims the
essential goodness of life and assumes a universal moral order governing
human society. (pg 2-3)
</q>

I think that the last paragraph in particular addresses some of your
questions far better than I could.

Garamond. these quotes are, so far, all opinion. I actually think
that von Rad made a better attempt to justify a non-literal
interpretation. And you know what I think of him. This introduction,
so far, has stated no research, no evidence, just a person's opinion
of fundamentalists. Such opinions are a dime a dozen.


_Rethinking Genesis_, Duane Garrett, Baker Book House. (BS 1235.5 .G32
1991)

It may just be that the author is a little too eager to paint the
hypothesis he wants to refute (the Documentary hypothesis: 4 authors/
editors of the first five books of the OT), but a couple of his initial
points ended up looking like straw men. I'm completely unfamiliar with
Hebraic textual criticism, but I have done some litcrit in my time and
there are a couple of points where I suspect he's, well,
overenthusiastic. More detail later if you decide to pick this one up
(or are curious), but I'm not nearly as impressed as I am with the other
one.

And finally, from chapter 19 of Augustine:

<q>
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit
of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the
predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the
seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking
nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an
embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an
ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of
the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great
loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture
are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian
mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him
maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to
believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think
their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have
learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent
expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their
wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false
opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish
and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy
Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they
think support their position, although <i>they understand neither what
they say nor the things about which they make assertion.</i> (pgs 42-43)
[emphasis in original]
</q>

once again, statements like this from Augustine are misapplied to the
modern "science" of evolutionary theory. Back then, what was known
was a general knowledge about "the earth, the heavens, and the other
elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and
even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses
of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth...."

You are right when you say that evolutionary theory did not exist when
he was alive. If it did, I'm betting that he would have had
something entirely different to say had he been faced with the present
contention that nature arrived here on its own; that it does not
reflect God's creative power.

snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Discussion of von Rads _Genesis: A Commentary_
    ... not seeing any citations to scholars supporting literalism. ... selection bias -- books that tend to make it into university libraries ... It should be obvious that by the nature of things, ... Hebraic textual criticism, but I have done some litcrit in my time and ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Charles Rosens latest piece in the NYRB.
    ... Charles Rosen has again demonstrated in his NY Review of Books review ... what he exposes is his own opinions rather than any facts ... play well, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: OT View From the UK: Outrage Over Plans To Build Library Next To Sarah Palin
    ... 'blurbs' support the opinions you have previosly formed. ... read only books that confirm my prejudices and hard-won opinions. ... Mark you are required to respond to every single post and every ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: _Disgrace_ by J. M. Coetzee
    ... >> I read this novel because of the enthusiastic comments posted on ... >> respect their opinions, but not quite as much now. ... While seemingly less allegorical than some of Coetzee's other books, ... the lack of verisimilitude in the major characters keeps it as slight as its ...
    (rec.arts.books)