The Meaning of the Word "Day" in Genesis 1

Faith & Science Conversation
208

I guess I need to read and maybe reread more of the comments above on the vav-consecutive topic. I don’t understand why there is such strong disagreement here.
But it does looks like there is some confusion between the terms “narrative” and “historical narrative”.

Does everyone agree that in a Venn Diagram, “narrative” is a bigger circle than the “historical narrative” inside of it?

Everyone seems to agree that Hebrew OT narratives have lots of vav-consecutives in them and that lots of vav-consecutives are considered a marker of narrative. Am I correct in saying that?

It looks to me like Dr. Mccabe gets himself into trouble when he sneaks “historical narrative” into statements which would more accurately apply to narratives in general. Agreed?

Is this surprising question implying that Dr. Mccabe didn’t write the paragraph quoted in Oldtimer’s comments? OldTimer provided the sources for Dr. Mccabe’s arguments at the top of his presentation. He said that Dr. Mccabe’s vav-consecutive discussion was in the 2nd of the two listed. I don’t have those journals available to me in my personal library at home so I can’t say for sure that the sources are accurate. So I googled the first sentence of Dr. Mccabe’s paragraph and found it at http://creation.com/robert-mccabe-old-testament-scholar-genesis.

Jonathan Sarfati interviewed Dr. McCabe for Creation.com and that same quoted paragraph appears at the end of the webpage article. Dr. McCabe probably told Dr. Sarfati to copy the paragraph from his Detroit Baptist Theological Journal article.

I want to make sure that I understand the controversy. @LT_15, are you only saying that Oldtimer’s criticisms of that paragraph are not accurate? Or are you also saying that that paragraph doesn’t correctly summarize Dr. Mccabe’s position on vav-consecutive?

I had what I would call an average seminarian’s exposure to Hebrew exegesis and OT emphasis in seminary. (M.Div. program.) I had a single semester of Logic as an undergrad. So I’m certainly not an authority on these topics. At that time I was a young earther and traditional creationist. But I did have enough Hebrew to recognize the fact that the vav-consecutives in Genesis 1 do nothing to tell us that the passage requires a literal six days, literal history of the beginning of the world. The vav-consecutives present a story of creation week but whether that story is literal history or a story explaining God’s relationship with his creation is not resolved by the presence of vav-consecutive. Does not Dr. Mccabe claim that the vav-consecutives make it the former, literal history? And is that not why so many disagree with him?

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding the controversy. I’m not trying to disagree with anybody on this thread. I’m just trying to clarify what Mccabe says and why his position deserves to be reconsidered.

210

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:206, topic:4219”]
Nevertheless, now I understand it so much better especially the logical fallacy aspects.
[/quote]Just keep in mind that OldTimer grossly misrepresented the argument and attributed things to McCabe that he explicitly rejects. He did that to me as well.

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:208, topic:4219”]
Is this surprising question implying that Dr. Mccabe didn’t write the paragraph quoted in Oldtimer’s comments? OldTimer provided the sources for Dr. Mccabe’s arguments at the top of his presentation.
[/quote]No, it was a question of where it was. It is not in either of the journal articles that are being discussed. So it was a question of where it was. The beginning of it (“Yet”) leads me to believe that there is a larger context to it. I would like to see the context.

McCabe’s two articles are available online (and that quote appears in neither):
http://archive.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf
http://archive.dbts.edu/journals/2005/McCabe.pdf

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:208, topic:4219”]
are you only saying that Oldtimer’s criticisms of that paragraph are not accurate? Or are you also saying that that paragraph doesn’t correctly summarize Dr. Mccabe’s position on vav-consecutive?
[/quote]I am saying that the criticism’s are not accurate; they are not fair criticisms in that they do not take McCabe’s arguments on their own terms. They are misguided. His attempt to use logic failed in that he misrepresented the argument and twisted it to fit his goal (by switching the P and the Q). I think the paragraph is an accurate simplistic summation of a much longer argument. It’s hard to imagine that someone with the reputed CV that OldTimer has managed to write what he did here.

The historical narrative part of the argument is not based on solely on the waw-consecutive. McCabe knows (and provides the documentation) that the waw-consecutive does more than historical narrative. (The claim that McCabe didn’t know that was nonsense; McCabe documented it so he obviously knows it)… So the paragraph is a simplistic summary of a longer and more complex argument, and OldTimer misrepresents it. And it’s hard to know what else in the source that OldTimer omitted. He didn’t bother to document it (a major failure of scholarship even for a forum like this).

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:208, topic:4219”]
Does not Dr. Mccabe claim that the vav-consecutives make it the former, literal history?
[/quote]No, it is a more naunced claim, based on a complex of factors.

I would urge you to read the articles carefully. Of course, if you read them at all you will be ahead of most people here probably. But read them carefully and try to understand the full picture of the argument. It might not change your mind, but you can at least understand what the argument is.

I would not state the argument has firmly has McCabe has, but I think he deserves to be heard on his own terms; not on OldTimer’s.

211

I said fairly clearly: they support you in saying that it is used for narratives in general (what I am sometimes calling a “rule”, although this is not the best description), but they do not support you when you extend this to using it as a means to distinguish specific genre types (which neither of us are referring to as a “rule”). I was also clear that you do this by way of a fallacious inference that the grammars don’t even start to discuss (probably because they are grammars). There is no flipping back and forth, I have continued to be clear about this distinction. The confusion here is only possible where you ignore this distinction. You have appeared to me to be using the reliability and general acceptance of the standard grammars to give an aura of credibility to a far-reaching inference about genre type. Obviously I do not agree with that. I think I do understand the argument you are making, and I addressed it, but I am not seeing a response about the quality of the inference you are making. Was there something else involved here?

Well, ok, it was sloppy, but quite frankly, it was a minor mistake, and I ran through my post and noticed this error within 20 minutes of posting it, promptly correcting it to modus ponens, so I think you might want to withdraw this statement. Within 20 minutes seems pretty good for making such a correction, but this is a matter of opinion I guess. I guess you made use of the unedited original, which is fine, but I fail to see what the mistake or the correction does to change the situation. Modus ponens is as incorrect a description of your argument as modus tollens, so I can’t understand why you would think that this could help your cause. Anyway, minor point, and I think it was probably just an honest error in your part since you perhaps did not really see your argument as a probability argument for some reason. You seem to want to see it as “fuzzy logic” or something like that instead of understanding that it clearly takes on the character of an illegitimate probability inference. You simply didn’t address these key arguments, triumphantly zeroing in on typos instead;-).

I have hardly accused McCabe of anything. I just think he fails to support his cause, and the best he does is to shed some doubt on some of the stylistic and structural observations that have often been made about Genesis. His waw-consecutive argument, as I remember it, added nothing to your own, and fails on exactly the same grounds. Obviously if he stated it too strongly (which the old timer quote suggests) then in that place, if not elsewhere, he was guilty of affirming the consequent as accused, even if he proves that he knows better elsewhere. He is quite blatant in some places “These (waw-consecutive) statistics indicate two issues related to Genesis. First, Genesis is historical narrative…” He doesn’t say, “might be”, he doesn’t say “is likely to be”, he says “is”, and such a sure result can only be the outcome of affirming the consequent or of an inexplicable overstating of the probabilistic inference. Either way, it is something this is totally unacceptable in any serious work and it should have been removed at the editorial stage if he didn’t mean it as you seem to suggest.

This is an oddly inscrutable summary of what I am supposed to have said in the phrase you quoted. I can’t even see the supposed connection between the two statements. I keep rereading your phase, but I still have no idea how you came to it. Is it possible you didn’t follow my point here? Since I can’t remember making the odd claim that “people on this site oppose something is evidence that the grammarians didn’t say it”, I’m not particularly inclined to defend it. You can have it, I’m totally on your side on this one. Regardless, and as an aside, the fact that you haven’t offered a single quote from any standard grammar to inform us that this is a sure marker of a specific genre type (historical narrative) is hardly the responsibility of those who think it incorrect.

I can’t take that seriously. This is a direct quote I am making from your short paragraph. That short paragraph is a response to one of my discussions (quoted directly) concerning your faulty inference, and this was the single topic of discussion for that paragraph. Rereading it doesn’t seem to change the referent. If you had some other off-topic referent, then by all means, please clarify and I will try to address it more accurately.

This is becoming somewhat bewildering. What is there to “argue against the Hebrew here”? There is nothing wrong with the Hebrew. No one claims to disagree with the Hebrew while agreeing with the Hebrew support. That seems to include people who know and understand the Hebrew and people who do not. I do not understand what this paragraph means and it seems disconnected with the actual content of the above string. You seem to intend some kind of an accusation concerning motives here, which I understand (which sometimes strikes me as being a bit low, but hey, if you believe it, then you should air it…), but the way you get there is impossible to follow. Everyone seems to think that the Hebrew is fine and the references are fine and that all the same; you are making an unwarranted leap in suggestion that you can somehow pin down the genre on a minor grammatical technicality, regardless of which obvious or secret strategy you use to make the inference work.

A final emphasis: please address the argument about incorrect probabilistic inference! Your argument fails on exactly this point and you are not addressing it. I can understand why you made this mistaken inference from a certain point of view, but it is simply inadmissible. If you go back to softening your conclusion as you seemed to for a season, saying that it is a sign that it might be a historical narrative or something of the sort, then no one will quibble with this.

212

If that was the only piece of the argument, you would have something of a case. But it’s not the only piece, and I have never appealed to grammar to say more than it says, which is namely, that the waw consecutive puts a text in a general genre. It creates an expectation of what a text is. Other factors help to flesh out the full picture.

[quote=“bren, post:211, topic:4219”]
Well, ok, it was sloppy, but quite frankly, it was a minor mistake, and I ran through my post and noticed this error within 20 minutes of posting it, promptly correcting it to modus ponens,
[/quote]It wasn’t a minor mistake when people are making accusations about logical fallacies. And I didn’t know you had fixed it. I started the response based on the original post and it took me a while to finish the response. And it is a modus ponens argument with the qualification of “generally” or “typically” and the recognition that there are other factors. It is “If P, then generally Q. P, therefore most likely Q.” Logical argument illustrations are rarely comprehensive to the full issue such in a case like this. Again, if you read McCabe’s articles you will see that it is considerably more involved.

[quote=“bren, post:211, topic:4219”]
the fact that you haven’t offered a single quote from any standard grammar to inform us that this is a sure marker of a specific genre type (historical narrative) is hardly the responsibility of those who think it incorrect.
[/quote]I don’t know of any grammar that would say that. I certainly haven’t said it and McCabe didn’t say it. So you will join us in wondering why a quote should be offered in support of something no one believes.

Here is the quote that spawned my response:

it is irresponsible to maintain that you have been defending the universal opinion of the grammarians in the face of constant opposition on this site.

People on this site are on opposition to what I have said and supported by the grammarians. Your response was that my maintaining this is irresponsible in light of opposition on this site. The question was why the opposition on this site negates what the grammarians say? I don’t think it does, and you don’t think it does. So why is it irresponsible to maintain that the grammarians say what they said about the use of the waw consecutive? Is it possible you are continuing to read my comments in light of an argument I never made?

[quote=“bren, post:211, topic:4219”]
This is a direct quote I am making from your short paragraph.
[/quote]You lifted the quote out of context and used it in a way it was not intended. Again, to summarize, my suggestion is simple that perhaps people are rejecting the argument (the use of the waw consecutive in genre determination) because they don’t like the outcome (YEC). They pretend that the grammarians don’t support the argument about the use of the waw consecutive when clearly the grammarians do support the use of the waw consecutive in this way. So they pretend that the support isn’t there (though it is). What they really reject is the outcome.

[quote=“bren, post:211, topic:4219”]
What is there to “argue against the Hebrew here”? There is nothing wrong with the Hebrew.
[/quote]This continues to be my question. Yet people continue to do it.

[quote=“bren, post:211, topic:4219”]
you are making an unwarranted leap in suggestion that you can somehow pin down the genre on a minor grammatical technicality
[/quote]You still haven’t grasped the argument.

[quote=“bren, post:211, topic:4219”]
please address the argument about incorrect probabilistic inference! Your argument fails on exactly this point and you are not addressing it
[/quote]IF you don’t mind, would clarify again your concern. I will be glad to try to address it, but this has been a long thread, and I am not inclined to go back and try to ferret it out through all these posts. I hope you will forgive me for that. If you can state your concern briefly, I will do my best to give my explanation of it.

213

Modus ponens is not presented in terms of “generally” or “typically”, and where the premise uses terms like “typically”, it automatically becomes a probability argument that must be assessed in such terms. Please call it what you’d like, but let’s treat it like the probability argument that it is and see if it is a good one. It is not ambiguous; since most of set “A” are X, then individual “b” is probably also X. It fails on the ground that “b” cannot be clearly defined as representative of set “A” due to a number of outlier features and correspondences with other sets (other genres), so the probabilistic inference is illegitimate. If you find that this is not a good representation of your argument, then fine, but it then becomes the case that you have simply not stated your argument and it is impossible to see how you made this inference. I did not make this point at some obscure comment earlier in this string; it was in my most recent posts.

Great, that’s good news, so we agree that we have a narrative here.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So you see a number of other factors that are unique to historical genre and that trump all of the features that are hardly represented by this genre. This is a useful step forward. I have seen no presentation of these features, but I’m curious; what are they and how do they change it from an unwarranted inference to something I would bet my house (or at least 20$) on?

First sentence makes sense, and I agree that you have not presented any grammars that do this, nor should they, as we both agree. For the second sentence, you are right, such a quote is not likely to exist and should not be offered. Now we are getting somewhere. So from the grammars that permit no such inference (all are in agreement) to the global genre inference is the last step that needs to be explained. How do we make it? This is what I’m trying to pin down here. Of course I realize that you are not claiming that the grammars say this, but I found it exceedingly odd is that every time you were asked to explain how you make this genre inference, you would focus in on the grammars and what they say. Strange, no? If they have nothing to say about it, and the whole world is singing the same tune on this, then why do they keep coming up and why is it relevant that they are reliable and unassailable, especially when there is no hint that they are being attacked? It is this that I don’t get.

This confusion is why I keep distinguishing two steps in your argument. Even your first sentence here is a hybrid of the two. “People on this site are on opposition to what I have said”. Stop the tape. Yes they are, but they are not in opposition to the grammatical component; everyone agrees that the waw-consecutive does just what they say it does. Play tape. “…and supported by the grammarians.” Stop. You totally fail to distinguish here, that the only part of your argument that is supported by the grammarians seems to be agreed upon by everyone (the idea that waw-consecutive is a narrative or logical sequence marker), the other part, as you have agreed, is not supported by them. So in spite of your contention, no one appears to be opposed to the grammars. This murky language and confusion of your two steps is becoming a misunderstanding-generating factory and until you start treating each step separately, you will be caught up in a funhouse of debates that don’t advance the question. I am only interested in the next step, how you make the inference to specific genre type. The rest is fluff, everyone agrees on the general conclusions allowed by your references and the only reason it is still being discussed is because of this constant muddling of the two steps involved in arriving at your conclusion.

Again, an egregious confusion of the two steps in your argument. People are rejecting the argument because there is no obvious way to get from the conclusion that we are dealing with a general narrative in Genesis to the conclusion that it is a historical narrative. That is, they are rejecting the argument because they have not observed you in the act of actually making the argument, no one knows how you get from step one to step two. Then your second sentence imperceptibly shifts to only talking about the first step; “…when clearly the grammarians do support the use of the waw consecutive in this way.” Stop there. “…in this way”. In what way, we ask? Are we talking about step one or two or both? If only one, then no, this is false, no one has disagreed with the grammars. If they are saying that the grammars don’t support the two steps of your argument, then obviously your critics are right. You just finished agreeing to that very thing most emphatically. We were both harmoniously and vigorously agreeing that the grammarians aren’t interested in pinning down exact genre type. Again, a near total confusion between your two steps leading to all sorts of misunderstandings (and from what I can see, will probably continue to do so unless you start distinguishing far more carefully).

Strange, I haven’t seen the slightest disagreement with the Hebrew, so I don’t know where this comes from. Another point of confusion, as above? Tough to say.

Could be, but it rather looks like you haven’t made the argument yet if it is other than the one that I treated. Is it the modus ponens that you don’t seem to want to call a probability argument? I addressed this. Is it something else? You have hinted at “other factors”. Intriguing, I really want to know what they are and how they legitimize and bolster you inference.

No ferreting required. As I said, it was my discussion of probability and stats issues over a few posts (quite recently really) and it has already been repeated. Genesis is perhaps sui generis and perhaps not, but it certainly contains many seriously doubtful outlier factors if you elect to call it a historical narrative (it would be highly atypical to say the least and I would be fascinated to hear what other historical narrative it is comparable to), and it certainly contains factors that link it to other narrative types from outside of the OT canon (cosmogonies etc), rendering any probabilistic inferences stemming from a survey of OT usage of the waw-consecutive entirely illegitimate from any stats/probability standpoint. Really, I don’t care that much about the other misunderstandings above. I think they all resolve into a certain degree of carelessness between the two steps of your argument, and a large number of misunderstandings about which step people are actually arguing against or which you or the grammarians are arguing for. The whole thing becomes absurd and if you aren’t interested in distinguishing between the two, all sorts of miscommunications will add another 100 comments to this blog. I am really only interested in the unwarranted inference, since I think that this only is the locus where the argument fails. If you want to skip the rest then go ahead, it is a waste of time disentangling misunderstandings when they are beside the point and when they continue to be generated by uncontrolled shifts between referents.

214

I will only add that a conversation becomes less fruitful when it becomes a matter of disentangling layered misunderstandings (inevitable over time), but that I also see great value in running down an argument all the way and this is why I tend to persist. It is only in this way that any key argument can be explored fully and that I can get a full grasp of whether I have missed something critical that makes the argument more serious than I first thought or that makes the argument less legitimate than it first appears. This conversation is helping me to elucidate the key points, potential fallacies and potential misunderstandings related to this and to similar arguments, making it useful from my point of view, you are perceptive, well-studied and generally very clear, so this makes the dialogue valuable in spite of misunderstandings. Thanks

215

It most certainly is a type of that argument. As you know, you can’t pin linguistics so firmly as to a “always vs. never” case. That is why the qualifier is necessary. I think the argument has been clear. The point is that OldTimer reversed the condition and thus changed the argument.

[quote=“bren, post:213, topic:4219”]
So you see a number of other factors that are unique to historical genre and that trump all of the features that are hardly represented by this genre.
[/quote]No one has said that any one factor is decisive. It is a combination of factors that make up the argument. If you would actually read the articles, you could examine it for yourself. I am not going to reproduce dozens of pages here for that. The argument needs to be evaluated on its own merit, not prejudged because of its author, his employment, his education, or his submission for peer review. If someone here thinks it should be peer reviewed, then review it. With all the comments about the article, no one here has actually engaged on the substance of it.

[quote=“bren, post:213, topic:4219”]
So from the grammars that permit no such inference (all are in agreement) to the global genre inference is the last step that needs to be explained.
[/quote]Here, I think you have changed things. It’s not the grammars don’t permit it. They do permit it. That’s the point. The grammars are consistent that the grammar of Genesis 1 is entirely consistent with historical narrative. If Genesis 1 is historical narrative, the grammar of Genesis 1 is what we generally expect to see. It if was poetry, you would most likely (thought not definitely) see something else. The grammars do not require it to be historical narrative. That is where you are misunderstanding the argument. And the argument does not rest solely on the waw consecutive. The grammars indicate that the grammar of Gen 1 is consistent with and expected in historical narrative. Now, let’s look at other factors that may strengthen or call into question that claim.

[quote=“bren, post:213, topic:4219”]
I found it exceedingly odd is that every time you were asked to explain how you make this genre inference, you would focus in on the grammars and what they say. Strange, no?
[/quote]Not strange at all. The point was consistently made that the waw consecutive didn’t do what McCabe said it does. So I pointed to the fact that every grammar agrees with McCabe that the waw consecutive does exactly what McCabe says it does. The grammars also say that the waw consecutive does other things, which McCabe points out as well.

[quote=“bren, post:213, topic:4219”]
the other part, as you have agreed, is not supported by them.
[/quote]Here I am not sure what the “other part” is. The grammars say that the waw consecutive is the way historical narrative is consistently communicated. It doesn’t limit the waw consecutive to historical narrative. I agree with the grammars. I am not sure what I am saying that the grammars don’t support. So far as I know, there is only one step here with respect to the grammar. If your second step is the conclusive proof that the grammar alone shows this to be historical narrative, then I can’t make that argument because I don’t believe it.

[quote=“bren, post:213, topic:4219”]
People are rejecting the argument because there is no obvious way to get from the conclusion that we are dealing with a general narrative in Genesis to the conclusion that it is a historical narrative. That is, they are rejecting the argument because they have not observed you in the act of actually making the argument, no one knows how you get from step one to step two.
[/quote]How would people know if it is obvious until they have actually read the articles and considered the support for it? I still don’t know if you have read the articles and examined the support. I don’t recall whether you say you did or not. But I think people are at a disadvantage until they know what the argument is.

And why must it be “obvious”? Why cannot an argument be sustained that might not be obvious at first glance? Isn’t that the basis of the whole evolutionary reading of Genesis 1, that the framework, the day-age, the days of divine fiat, or whatever is not the most obvious reading, but it is the one we should accept for reasons A, B, C …

I think the articles do a good job of outlining an argument. And that argument still has not been interacted with yet.

[quote=“bren, post:213, topic:4219”]
I am really only interested in the unwarranted inference, since I think that this only is the locus where the argument fails.
[/quote]I am not sure what the unwarranted inference is.

You talk about probability arguments. Let’s use your terminology.

When you examine waw-consecutives in the Hebrew OT, you will see that they usually indicate narrative sequence. In other words, it is probable that the section is intending to communicate a sequence of some sort. Waltke/O’Connor list some other uses or nuances as well on pp. 547-554 (which I know because McCabe listed these in his article, which indicates that the claim that McCabe said the waw consecutive is always historical narrative is patently false). If something is “usually” used in a particular way, we are justified in beginning our examination of a text with that understanding. We may find reasons to move away from that understanding as we examine the text. But no one comes to a text totally devoid of presuppositions about how the grammar operates.

To use an example (which always have limitations): Consider the text “I am going to store.” You would be justified in assuming that is a statement of intent for the present moment. And you wouldn’t be surprised to see me get up and walk out to go the store.

If you then examine the text and see, "Yesterday my wife said, “I am going to store,” now you have reason to reconsider whether the original understanding was correct. It was a present statement, but it was yesterday, which means it is now past. We know that because of the grammar of both parts, and the context of the saying as a whole.

Again that is simplistic, but it provides an example of how actual examination of the text clarifies whether or not the standard presuppositions about grammatical forms is justified in a particular instance.

So in Genesis 1 there are several questions related to this (and more that I won’t list here).

  1. Does Gen 1 use the waw consecutive? Yes. That would point us toward initially understanding the passage as some sort of narrative sequence (i.e., this, then that, then that, then that). That’s not ironclad, but is a reasonable place to start.
  2. In examining Gen 1 are the textual reasons to steer away from a sequential understanding of the text? I don’t believe there are and have not been convinced by those who say there are.
  3. Given 1 and 2, is the text of Gen 1 actual history or is it some sort of poetry/framework/metaphor/etc.? That, for me, is a more difficult question. McCabe clearly and firmly believes it is actual history. I am not as firm as he is on that question. I think there are good reasons to consider it actual history and I think there are reasons to question whether it is actual history. I think there are virtually indisputable reasons to believe that the author Genesis intended it to be understood as a sequence of successive normal days. It may have been a metaphor or an accommodation or making a larger theological point.

Much has been made of McCabe’s employment and his freedom to reach another conlusion. People have said that it hasn’t been peer reviewed, but we don’t know why. But here’s the question: Is anyone at SBL for instance, or at BioLogos even open to the idea that it might be actual historical narrative? Could they be convinced or are their positions too firmly held to be swayed by the evidence? Have they adopted a conclusion and now are forced to develop the evidence for it? IMO, I don’t think some in SBL or BioLogos are in a different position than McCabe with regards to their openness. They have decided their position and nothing will persuade them.

I agree that it is less fruitful when we are disentangling layers of misunderstandings (from whatever side those come). And I do think it is valuable to try to chase down an argument. I think a lot of the misunderstanding here has come because it was assumed I was making an argument I was not making and my efforts to clarify have been fruitless. I may in fact have been less clear than I should have been and could have been. But nonetheless, I have appreciated the exchange. I am going to try to bow out here with you. Hopefully we have reached some level of understanding of the misunderstandings.

Thanks for the exchange.

2 Likes
216

Thanks for your clarifications. I’ll try to make these wrap up points on a more positive note and will avoid quoting you in order to make the comments more general and less picky, even if this leaves a couple of misunderstandings unresolved;-). I will clarify my global position here as well as a couple of your more specific questions about where I stand (or where I don’t).

Yes, I have gone through the McCabe article, and in one comment, I dealt with some salient points (you only slightly engaged with that particular comment as I recall, so this may be why you don’t remember). Only scanned the other reference since it seems to be less of a topic of debate. I did not find that McCabe offered many relevant factors outside of the waw-consecutive that point to historicity (every factor he mentions points to the generally uncontested view that this is a narrative of some kind), and he seemed to be primarily focused on discrediting the framework hypothesis. In other papers that I looked through, he seems intent on downgrading Gen 1 from poetry to stylized narrative, a point to which I was largely indifferent but that I found somewhat interesting all the same. I did not think that he managed to really address the argument that theology or polemics with ANE cosmogony is the likely purpose of the text, but I also think that this becomes a matter of personal impression rather than the outcome of impartial analysis, so it is pointless to argue further. If you had a more compelling collection of factors that would together uniquely mark the chapter as historical instead of marking it as ANE cosmogony intended to give a theological underpinning to the rest of the Pentateuch, I would have found this interesting, but I didn’t see any such argument in McCabe. What I think he does do is to successfully argue against the conclusion that the days were intended as long periods of time, something that I didn’t agree with in the first place. There is more to interact with in these papers, but nothing that helps us to deal with the main question from what I can see.

I’m not particularly interested in dismissing McCabe only on the grounds that he is an outsider in academic genre and language debates, but neither do I think that this is a point that can be safely ignored in any field of study (usually, but not always, there is a reason why a point, argument or paper is dismissed by mainstream scholarship, whether we can quickly identify the reason or not; we can call this a probabilistic argument rather than a sure one;-). It is always possible that he is ignored only because he is considered to have an identifiable bias that is not favorably seen in academic circles. That said, I know of a number of confessedly Christian NT scholars who are taken very seriously in hostile NT scholarship circles for the simple reason that they are careful and stringent in their analyses, constantly offering very sober conclusions, rarely overreaching, and generally granting relevant counterarguments. These scholars do well even though their bias is recognized, so I’m not so sure that this can be given as the only reason why McCabe is ignored.

Like you, I agree that the particular feature we are all so worried about is consistent with historical narrative, and I take this for what it is worth. Another clarification is that I do not see any conclusive reasons why it might not have been intended as historical narrative by the author/editor, but I do see factors, like chiastic structure, apparent symbolism, stylistic repetitions etc that render the question very doubtful. I simply leave it open, drawing freely from the strong theological points in this chapter (I take the Bible as a credible and theologically vital set of documents for reasons that do not depend on the historicity of the Genesis account), but not putting too much weight in any historical conclusions since I have trouble gauging authorial intent on this issue. I don’t see that there is sufficient reason to compel serious efforts at harmonization between science and the first few chapters of Genesis. As I previously mentioned, I don’t think that the openness of this question would change if I had a very different view on the science, but the reality is that I view the scientific question as being so conclusive that I think that the universe could only look like this with the YECs being correct if God were a dishonest craftsman, which I obviously don’t think is the case. I believe that my conclusion that Gen 1 doesn’t read like any standard historical narrative is independent of this, but I am open to a different view if it appears compelling and my faith is not dependent on the outcome of these debates. Right now, I view not being sure, and not needing to be sure as the most compelling position, and I think that Genesis is exactly the sort of document we should expect in an ANE context where the common view on cosmology and cosmogony is being passed through a very new theological filter that is, in my view, brought into being through revelation. I’m not sure I can go much beyond that.

Your summary of the probability issue, your going to the store example and your third numbered point all seem to be fairly close to my own position, although you seem to take the position that the context does not render the conclusion as ambiguous as I think. That said, I think there is more agreement at this point, so this leaves the discussion on a good footing.

Thanks for a positive and interesting exchange.

217

Here’s my two cents: “Narrative” is a technical term used in linguistics to describe a text type that is [+contingent succession] and [+agent orientation]. (Distinct from behavioral, expository, and procedural texts, according to Longacre, who has done a lot of work in cross-linguistic textual discourse analysis) The “historical narrative” distinction as it is being used in this thread doesn’t seem to me to be a technical linguistic distinction, but a value judgment about the narrative’s degree of correspondence with the real world. I would be interested if anyone could point to a a resource that cites linguistic criteria for differentiating The Hobbit, The Odyssey, and the accounts in Genesis in terms of whether or not they qualify as historical narratives. I would think they would all, in terms of structure and language, be labelled “historical narratives.” Linguistics doesn’t tell you whether a text describes a historical event or not.

2 Likes
218

After very carefully reviewing the posts in questions as well as the journal articles, plus reading with great interest what Brens explained, which fit beautifully into Professor Oldtimer’s presentation, I find the arguments by LT_15 impassioned but not persuasive. They also hit me very much pick-and-choose and evading the smoking gun evidence of the interesting paragraph from Dr. Mccabe.

Notice that LT_15 conveniently left out the 3rd citation Professor OldTimer provided. Prof O. had clearly stated that Mccabe published TWO articles under THREE citations. As Prof. O. showed in the #2 bibliographic entry, the second article was published in two parts in the journal, each about a year apart, part 1 and part 2. Both went into great detail explaining Mccabe’s arguments about vav-consecutive. I also very easily found on-line that third reference which LT_15 did not supply:

http://archive.dbts.edu/journals/2006/McCabe.pdf

Anyone who were to actually read part 1 of the journal article would be very aware that that was not the end of the Dr. Mccabe article. LT_15 has repeatedly stated that those who disagreed with his position never read the Dr. Mccabe articles. Now I realize that that accusation sounds at least ironic.

Secondly, LT_15 totally ignored the citation given for Professor Mccabe’s summary of his vav-consecutive arguments as stated in an interview with Jonathan Sarfati. It fit exactly with what Professor Oldtimer had quoted. One can deny that Professor Mccabe thinks it a rule but he identifies the vav-consecutive as a MARKER of historical narrative in Genesis 1 and therefore says that believers have an OBLIGATION to read the chapter as literal history. That sure sounds pretty strong to me, going even further than just a rule!

It sure seemed to me that LT_15 was implying suspicion about the source of the paragraph which Professor Oldtimer attributed to Mccabe, just like a good defense attorney impugning the evidence from the other side. That can be an extremely powerful debate tactic, especially since it can also easily be denied. (One can imagine a courtroom exchange where the other attorney shouts “Objection, Your Honor.” followed by the other attorney: “Withdrawn.”, knowing that the jury nevertheless heard the insinuation.) Whatever the motivation, I can certainly understand why a defender of Mccabe’s position would be anxious to dissociate that paragraph from Mccabe’s authorship. It verifies in not so many words as the long journal article the many errors and gaps in Mccabe’s position which Professor Oldtimer had identified.

Of course, I can’t claim to know for sure why LT_15 left out the third citation which Prof O gave and which I was also able to find very easily on-line. But I acknowledge that LT_15 is an outstanding debater. Well done.

Thirdly, it is worth saying again: I read the Dr. Mccabe journal articles (all THREE citations, not just the TWO) in their entirety and saw exactly what Professor OldTimer was talking about. The Mccabe paragraph represented accurately, in summary form, what Mccabe had said in the journal article! It is easy to imagine why defenders of Dr. Mccabe’s arguments would totally avoid dealing with that paragraph. The entirety of Dr. Mccabe’s journal articles are too much for the average reader to tackle, but Mccabe’s single paragraph summary at Creation.com is not. (Creation.com even included photos of Dr. Mccabe and his wife and spoke of the longevity of their marriage. Good strategy to emphasize his credibility and integrity for a like-minded audience.) No wonder no defender discussed that pithy paragraph sentence by sentence as Professor Oldtimer had.

I can’t help but notice that so much was posted in avoidance of what Prof. Oldtimer’s presentation very clearly explained as coming from Dr. Mccabe himself. Plus, he made very clear that either way that P or Q are defined, Dr. Mccabe made both types of “If P, then Q” arguments and committed the fallacies described. The modus ponens argument was an irrelevant tangent because it did nothing to remedy the failure of Mccabe’s argument from frequency, and made no headway in resolving his convenient confusion of “narrative” and “historical narrative.” Dr. Mccabe went to much work to show the historical narrative has lots of vaw-consecutives and that the sequencing of events was clear. But he failed to emphasize to the reader that ALL SORTS of narrative works that way, including instructive fables, so when he played his “decisive” Genesis 1 “has lots of vav-consecutive card” and concluded that we can be confident that it is historical narrative and must be understood as literal history, casual readers were bound to overlook the sleight of hand.

If I previously sounded at all skeptical of Professor Oldtimer’s claims, I want to apologize to him for that. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Professor, I was very impressed by the clarity and patience of your presentation. I thank you for explaining the logic step by step and for using the bold and italics fonts to emphasize the important points. I printed out the entire presentation for future use.

This exercise has been very instructive for me. I want to thank Biologos for providing the setting. Comparing the arguments side by side is something one doesn’t find on young earth creationism websites. I found the contrasts and transparency startling.

@Bren, I’ve enjoyed your comments. You made many of the same points that Prof Oldtimer had made but seeing them worded in a different way was excellent reinforcement which helped assure me that I was understanding the arguments properly. You explained them very very well. Thank you for posting. Your comments have been so helpful.

@LT_15, if I ever needed a defense attorney, I would want your stalwart persistence on my side! Your sheer force of will is impressive and commendable. I sincerely mean that.

I thank everyone who posted. Having the opposing arguments appear on a single webpage is a great convenience. From what I’ve seen so far, this is one of the most interesting and useful debates on this website forum.

2 Likes
220

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:218, topic:4219”]
Notice that LT_15 conveniently left out the 3rd citation Professor OldTimer provided. Prof O. had clearly stated that Mccabe published TWO articles under THREE citations.
[/quote]It wasn’t “convenient.” I was well aware of part 2 of the article. I didn’t link to it originally because the part that addressed the topic of this thread ("The “Meaning of the Word ‘Day’ in Genesis 1”) was in part 1 (and the 2000 article). The second part of the article deals mainly with Genesis 2 as I recall, which is not the topic of this thread.

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:218, topic:4219”]
LT_15 has repeatedly stated that those who disagreed with his position never read the Dr. Mccabe articles.
[/quote]I think I said I wondered if they did or it appeared that they didn’t read it because it doesn’t appear that they had. OldTimer accuses McCabe of things that McCabe explicitly denies. So either he didn’t read it (perhaps read it closely) or he is lying or perhaps just forgetful. Which is it? I don’t know.

Others seem to have no idea that McCabe’s argument is far more than simply the waw consecutives (WC from here on). And they take the same road of questioning things McCabe answers or accusing him of things he didn’t say. It is hard to reconcile that with someone having read the articles. Furthermore, the impugn the scholarship of the article likewise seems to indicate one didn’t read them. Disagree with McCabe’s conclusion, but the sheer weight of the information and the citations shows a good grasp of the data involves and the analysis is scholarly, whether or not it has been peer reviewed. No one is interacting with the actual data and the arguments aside from misidentifying it as a logical fallacy (which has already been shown to be incorrect). Again, people should just read the articles. They are heavy to be sure, but the data is there.

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:218, topic:4219”]
It sure seemed to me that LT_15 was implying suspicion about the source of the paragraph which Professor Oldtimer attributed to Mccabe,
[/quote]Not at all impugning it. I wanted to know where it came from so I could read the context of it. OldTimer did not reference it but he did refer to another conversation at a blog he had with McCabe and I thought perhaps that was where it was from. I have not seen that discussion. Turns out it is from Safarti’s short article and turns out that OldTimer doesn’t interact with it very well (as I show below).

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:218, topic:4219”]
Of course, I can’t claim to know for sure why LT_15 left out the third citation which Prof O gave and which I was also able to find very easily on-line.
[/quote]As I explained, it was not the topic of this thread. Nothing nefarious. Just trying to stay on topic, at least at the beginning.

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:218, topic:4219”]
No wonder no defender discussed that pithy paragraph sentence by sentence as Professor Oldtimer had.
[/quote]Let’s examine the paragraph now that I have read it in context. McCabe is in bold; my comments are in bracketed italics:

Yet Genesis 1:1–2:3 is nothing like this [The “this” is a poetic section regarding creation from Psalm 104 that uses poetic parallelism. McCabe is pointing that out Genesis 1 is missing a main feature of poetry but has a main feature of narrative.].

Instead, it consistently uses a grammatical device that characterizes historical literature, the waw (or vav) consecutive [This is indisputable on both counts (that Gen 1 uses the WC and that it characterizes historical literature). OldTimer’s comment that it characterizes narrative in general is true. It is cited by McCabe, again suggesting that OldTimer didn’t read the articles, else he would have known that McCabe knew that. That the WC does other things does not mean that it does not characterize historical literature. It obviously does.].

This device, which usually moves the narrative forward in sequence (i.e. consecutively) occurs some 2,107 times in Genesis, averaging out to 42 times per chapter [Again, indisputable. The WC usually moves the narrative forward. No one actually disagrees with that. I didn’t check the numbers so I am not saying those are indisputable.].

In Genesis 1:1–2:3, while there is an absence of poetic parallelism, there are 55 waw consecutives, starting with וַיֹּאמֶר wayyo’mer (“and … said”), וַיְהִי wayehi (“and there was”), וַיַּרְא wayyar’ (“and … saw”). [Again, indisputable. One can read the chapter and see the absence of poetic parallelism and see the constant usage of the waw consecutive.]1

Whatever else may be said about the creation account, this grammatical device marks it as historical narrative, just as it does in the remainder of Genesis. Thus, it is our obligation to interpret the creation account as literal history just like we do the other historical narrative in the Bible.” [These last two sentences are the disputable part. It is a conclusion that McCabe has drawn from his study of the text. He holds it firmly (more firmly than I do). The irony is that OldTimer rejects it with equal firmness, but absent an argument for rejecting it that deals with the data of the text.]

So as can be easily seen, the bulk of McCabe’s paragraph is not disputable. It is standard grammar found in every Hebrew grammar. The dispute is about the conclusion that the evidence leads us to. OldTimer gives us no reason why the data doesn’t take us there. The bulk of his argument is that the WC doesn’t always do that (though he admits that sometimes it does). And he ignores the other pieces of the argument.

The order of the P and Q is no small matter. I have seen no place where McCabe makes the argument as OldTimer accuses him of doing (and OldTimer hasn’t shown any place that I recall). McCabe has made the argument that if it is historical narrative, we would expect to see WCs. But P is still the WC and Q is still the narrative in that argument.

Here’s the explicit statement from p. 34 of the first part of the article:

In addition to the omission of linear parallelism, Genesis 1:1–2:3 is permeated with a grammatical device that sets it apart as an unambiguous narrative account: the waw consecutive.

Notice, the grammatical device (P) sets it apart of an unambiguous narrative account (Q). If it has the grammatical device (P), then it is a narrative account (Q). (And notice he didn’t say historical narrative. Perhaps there is a reason for that–namely, that the WC is not always historical, but it is narrative sequence.) McCabe then argues that Gen 1 has P, therefore we should read it as Q.

On the other side, I don’t see any place that McCabe said since Gen 1 is historical narrative, it has WC. I would be interested to see it.

It continues to seem to me that someone just didn’t read the article with an intent to understand it.

[quote=“Dr.Ex-YEC, post:218, topic:4219”]
If I previously sounded at all skeptical of Professor Oldtimer’s claims
[/quote]Knowing some Hebrew and some logic and the issues involved, I can’t take OldTimer’s comments as serious in any manner whatsoever. If I was sitting in a class with him, I would be asking a lot of questions because there are a lot of holes in what he has said. With no offense intended, I can’t imagine his arguments are convincing to anyone but a very entry level knowledge of the discussion.

Consider this:

this grammatical device marks it as historical narrative, [DING! DING! DING! McCabe just committed the Affirming the Consequent fallacy!]

Now, think about the fallacy: If P then Q; Q therefore P. Notice that in the quotation, only half of the thing is there. Half of it is missing.

Furthermore that is precisely what McCabe did not say. McCabe never gave the first part If/then. He “There are 55 WCs” (p); affirming the P (grammatical device) then Q (historical narrative). How can this so-called expert and professor not see the mistake he made in this. OldTimer is convincing, IMO, only because people don’t read closely what he said or don’t know much about the topic and the argument. He reminds me of the old saying about preaching, “When your point gets weak just shout a little louder.” OldTimer has “shouted a little louder” by being very forceful and appealing to logical fallacies, and all sorts of stuff. But I don’t think it would be convincing to people who actually know what McCabe says, what the arguments about the matter are, and has an elementary grasp of logic.

So in the end, IMO, OldTimer should not be taken seriously. His comments are not factual or well-argued. They misrepresent the opponent (me and McCabe though we don’t completely agree).

221

[quote=“Christy, post:217, topic:4219”]
Linguistics doesn’t tell you whether a text describes a historical event or not.
[/quote]True. In discussing the Bible, we also bring in the issue of inspiration. So there is another level of the discussion.

222

This is exactly what I would like to see discussed. First, let’s get past the idea that the WC proves the point. The argument is bigger than that as the articles show.

Second, once we analyze the whole argument, what is the flaw?

223

But it’s more than just a matter of inspiration, it’s a matter of interpretation. We agree parables are narratives that share most features with those narratives that are intended to be interpreted as historical, even though parables are clearly not intended to be interpreted as historical. Biblical parables and biblical historical accounts are equally inspired. A fictionalized or mythologized historical account in the Bible would still be inspired. On the continuum of “correspondence to reality,” I would put much of the OT somewhere inbetween the fictional parables of the New Testament and the historical accounts of the crucifixion, or the accounts of Paul’s journeys in Acts (which are intended to be historical accounts more in line with our modern expectations).

People throughout history have had different conventions for telling their history and objective correspondence to reality was not always given the priority we give it today. I have never seen anyone argue convincingly that every narrative in the Bible has to be either 100% fiction or 100% non-fiction because it is inspired. On what basis does someone make that claim? I have heard people say, well if it isn’t clear that an author is saying something fictional, then it has to be interpreted as totally historically accurate, because God is not a liar. But this seems to me like an unhelpful conflation of truth and history and non-fiction. Fiction is not by definition “a lie” intended to deceive. It’s just something that is not intended to correspond perfectly with the real world. Lots of truth (including even historical truth) can be communicated through stories that are to some degree fiction. Whether it deceives or not depends on how the author accommodates or manipulates the audience’s expectations. We can’t project our audience expectations on the ancient audience and pretend that God through that author is humoring the same concerns.

225

I agree with that. My only point was that we can’t treat the Bible like we would the Hobbit or Beowulf or something like that.

226

[quote=“Eddie, post:224, topic:4219”]
I was commenting only on the argument – which it was reported that someone had made – that the waw-consecutive indicates that the author of Genesis understood himself to be narrating actual events.
[/quote]Thanks for the clarification. I do not know of anyone who has made the argument that the waw consecutive alone indicates that.

1 Like
227

I agree we treat the Bible differently in terms of authority (What we are responsible to do with what it says after we figure out what it means). But I’m curious how you would say the process of interpreting the meaning of the Hobbit or the Odyssey differs from the process of interpreting Genesis? How are they the same and how are they different in terms of figuring out what they mean?

1 Like