[quote=“Christy, post:227, topic:4219”]
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?
[/quote]Because of inspiration, we accept that when the Bible presents something as historically true (e.g., the Exodus, Jericho, the miracles, etc.), it is an actual historical event. We do not read the Hobbit that way or the Odyssey. There are those who want to put the Bible, or at least parts of the Bible, in the same category of the Hobbit as merely well-written fanciful stories from an ancient time that are unconnected to reality.
To add a couple of points. The Odyssey was written for Hellenics and it encompassed their culture, beliefs and nationhood. This brings intent to the story, and one that the readers would have assumed when reading it in their language, and when discussing it (oral communication), and copying and editing. I would be very surprised, for example, if Egyptians were to have understood it in the same way, no matter how scholarly they were.
So I would commence with a similar view of Genesis, in that it is concerned with the culture, beliefs and nationhood of the Hebrews, and central to this is the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is so distinctive from other nations, that anyone else reading it would not be able to “make sense”. The inspiration from God cements the faith content, and also focusses all intent and meaning within the need by Israel to believe in God - a task that proved very difficult for many of them. So I see any historical content (in the sense secular scholars use the term) as brought in for the primary purpose of the Bible. I found it instructive to read Josephus as a historian and a Jew. I would think the Hellenics may have found such accounts mildly interesting, and would try to “fit” Biblical passages within their outlook, no matter how scholarly and clever they became.
So I would finish this comment with this: I read the Bible with the understanding that it is meant to strengthen faith and reason - this is a Christian intent - scholarly work is useful if it adds or clarifies such endeavours.
1 Like
But how do we know when the “historical truth” has been embellished, modified, editorialized, moralized or otherwise subjected to literary conventions in its presentation? Or do you think that because the Bible is inspired, it means the accounts are always 100% objective and straightforward? Why would we assume that is the case, especially if we can show convincingly through comparative literature studies that it was not how the authors God inspired were culturally predisposed to frame their histories?
For example, I’ve read convincing arguments that the numbers used to represent the ages of the patriarchs were symbolic conventions of the day whose significance is somewhat lost on us. So to read them as straight-forward records of how many years old a person was is to misinterpret the historical information. Even in the Synoptics, which I think are written to be read as objective history, each use some different literary conventions to present their information, and leave questions about the exact objective chronology of certain events.
At this point, you apparently firmly agree that using the waw-consecutive alone, we can do no more than affirm that Gen 1 is a narrative, and most of your current efforts seem to be devoted to convincing others that McCabe actually takes roughly the same position as you. This strikes me as swimming against the current without advancing the conversation by an inch, but if it’s important to you and you think you can make the case while finding convincing reasons for dismissing any McCabe quotes that seem far too unconditional, then by all means.
Left at that, regardless of whether or not McCabe is cleared of all charges, everyone would agree that we simply cannot know what was intended for this chapter, and we can all walk away none-the-wiser and with no shift whatsoever in our personal view of the topic. You have reached the point where all we are getting is hints that if only we knew the other stuff (safely tucked away in McCabe’s articles), we would be hard pressed to not agree with your point of view. You’ve had ample opportunity and every motivation in the world to bring forward at least some of the other stylistic or grammatical points that would presumably clinch the deal, especially given that the few of us who claim to have read McCabe also claim to have not seen anything that would help to narrow down genre type. All we need is a point format summary and in order to ensure that we don’t miss the full import of these factors, we can go back to the sections in his articles to see if they carry more weight than we suspected during our first reading.
My point is, aside from a number of not-so-useful spats about who said what and who is accusing who of which unforgivable fallacy, the ball is very clearly in your court. The waw-consecutive has died a quiet death, with a number of arguments being firmly advanced against it doing anything greater than being used in Hebrew (and Tolkien) narratives in general. Even you have advanced these arguments, so perhaps we can move on from a universally agreed upon point, regardless of McCabe’s secret or public opinions. To repeat, since a few of us have read the McCabe articles and simply do not see what you see, it is no longer enough to lament that no one is getting the full weight of the case as found in his writings; you would simply need to tell us what you find so convincing or be reconciled to not convincing people. This is more work for you, and I’m sorry about that, but if the force of these other points is so weighty, it just might pay off and I think there are a number of us who are very willing to take a serious argument seriously.
Both Eddie and myself (and perhaps others) have gone on record as saying that while grammatical or stylistic points are unlikely to allow us to distinguish between historical and non-historical accounts (as Tolkien would have us believe), structural features, or anything intrinsic to the content of the narrative instead of the manner in which it is told, may be much more convincing, so that may be a place to start. So please; just what are these other features that we’ve failed to identify when reading McCabe? It strikes me that such a list would be a very useful move for advancing the dialogue.
Thanks!
Inspiration and its surrounding topics are difficult ones that I am not prepared to enter a long discussion here about. I have already spent too much time on this. I agree that there are challenges on some issues, though I don’t think they are as challenging as others think.
Historiography is a discipline, and it is clear that biblical authors do shape history according to their truth intention. All writers do that–they include the things that are important to them and their point, and the omission of other things is not considered to be lying or misleading. Chronology is typically considered not to be a factor in this. Many places in the Bible are not chronologically ordered.
Here’s the overriding concern: Scripture is breathed out by the God for whom it is impossible to lie (2 Tim 3:16; 1 Peter 1:20-21; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:10).
I realize there is much that could be discussed and I would love to, but I hope you will pardon me from not pursuing this discussion at this time due to time constraints and the need to manage the life I lead outside the internet.
I have appreciated the conversation. Thanks.
@bren,I said I was trying to stop here and I am. I just can’t help myself sometimes.
[quote=“bren, post:233, topic:4219”]
You have reached the point where all we are getting is hints that if only we knew the other stuff (safely tucked away in McCabe’s articles), we would be hard pressed to not agree with your point of view.
[/quote]They are not really hints. I am just encouraging people to engage the argument first hand. And at the risk of sounding arrogant, if one can’t engage the article first hand, then one probably shouldn’t be so dogmatic about it.
I don’t necessarily think one who read the articles carefully would be hardpressed to disagree. I think they wouldn’t say some of the things that have been said.
But I am left wondering why it is up to me to reproduce the whole argument of the WCs, the meaning of “day,” the significance of the numbering, the comparison passages, etc. Have we reached the point in discussion that people are allowed to form opinions without having read the research and evaluated it? Can we really do justice to about one hundred pages of scholarly writing by making a list of bullet points? I don’t think so. I think that is why people are accusing McCabe of some things. They don’t want to be bothered with actually reading the research and noting the nuances of the argument, or forget nuances, noting the broad outlines of the argument. It’s easier to attack a straw man, particularly when there are not blog police that are going to call foul on it. When that kind of stuff is allowed, it continues.
Anything I would say at this point would be a restatement of what McCabe said (and I have already said I am not as dogmatic as he is; but I think it is an important argument that needs to be considered). So if you have read it and disagree with it, why not tell us which part of the argument (other than the WC) is suspect and why it is suspect? Address the meaning of “day” and tell us why he is wrong. Address the idea of the numbered sequence and the significance of that for seeing them as consecutive days. Addres the comparison passages. Give us the ones he missed. So far, there’s no real argument against McCabe. It’s just “He’s not right.”
Again, I need to withdraw. I have so much to do and I have greatly enjoyed the conversation with you @bren and with @Christy.
I understand that. I wasn’t accusing her of that at all. I was merely making a broad statement about the significance of the issue.
[quote=“Eddie, post:235, topic:4219”]
If God has not insisted on a young earth, for example, it would not be right to burden the religious conscience of believers with that view. Or if God has not insisted on a global Flood in 2340 B.C., it would not be wise to make such a belief a requirement for church membership, or for holding a pastoral or Sunday school teaching position, or for holding a position on faculty at a Christian college, etc. It seems to me that if any college or church has such requirements, the onus is on that institution to provide sound and detailed exegetical arguments to justify them
[/quote]But if he has said this, and intended this to be historical, how would we know it? I think that is a major question that the other side typically punts on without sound reasoning, IMO. It is no more noble to insist on allowance for something than it is to insist on adherence to something.
Thanks again.
1 Like
Yes, I understand the “I just can’t let it go” feeling, especially when so much effort has been invested in a debate;-). My answer was already contained in my previous comment. “…especially given that the few of us who claim to have read McCabe also claim to have not seen anything that would help to narrow down genre type.” That is to say, the other points McCabe makes are fine, but they frankly do just as much as the waw-consecutive to narrow down the genre type, basically taking us no further than “narrative”, which is generally considered to not be very helpful. These other textual features are entirely redundant in that very sense and fail to help us make the leap from narrative to historical narrative for precisely the same reasons that you agreed to for the WC. So no, it is not your responsibility to summarize hundreds of pages, but if you want to convince, at least point to one factor that arguably narrows the genre to a greater extent than the WC. If there was something that you thought capable of pulling off this extra trick, you’d think we would have spent 200 comments discussing it instead instead of zeroing in on the WC that you never thought capable of getting us there in the first place!
As to your last response to Eddie’s point. While sounding good and making the ever popular appeal to fairness, it is impossible to justify the view that the onus should be on the one claiming that they aren’t sure what the intention of the author was rather than on the one who is convinced that they have the basic intention of the author figured out! If I ask someone what they think a particular article or book is trying to say, or whether they think it is supposed to be based on an actual event, and their answer is; “I’m not sure”, I don’t respond with “Oh yah? Prove it!” It is not being claimed that this definitely wasn’t intended as a text that corresponds to actual events, it is being claimed that we have no way of knowing either way. Put this way, I hope you can see why this effort to shift the burden of proof is somewhat absurd in the context of the preceding discussion…
1 Like
I think I can safely say that this has been the best discussion in the history of the Forum (at least, since I’ve been reading them). Well done, everybody! 
We’ve hit the point here where everything that can be said has been said (very well) a number of times. Let’s end the discussion here. But I strongly encourage everyone to continue the discussion in new threads, following up on interesting sub-topics within this conversation. The topic of whether inspiration means that historical narratives must be completely historically true, for instance, gets to the heart of the conversation. But I’ll let you all decide what direction things will go.
In meantime, this topic is closed.
We here at BioLogos strongly encourage people to prioritize their spouses, children, work, and ministry responsibilities over their forum conversations. Especially near Valentine’s Day. 
Have a lovely weekend.
2 Likes