Instead of saying the first two pericopes are sequential, Kaiser says they’re separate but “parallel” (in time? in theme? in…?). Jack Collins says they’re “complimentary.” I agree with these characterizations but don’t see how being “sequential” would negatively impact either of these. Kaiser goes into greater detail, by saying that Genesis 3, at least, must happen after the close of day six, before the “very good” is uttered by God.
@swamidass , didn’t you say that Dr. Richard Averbeck is plowing ground in this arena? Working on a manuscript himself?
This assumes it was actually reported somehow. It may have been, but it may not have been as well. I don’t see textual indications favoring one over the other. It all might be theological history in which the author uses some creativity and imagination (with some good, sanctified common sense) as he contemplates the past and seeks to teach specific truths.
For me, it’s largely a question of genre…but, alas, classifying the genre of those early chapters is so tough. This is why I’m open to chase several rabbits (i.e., models) and see where they lead. I’m more seeking the most sensible models, knowing I probably won’t be confident enough to adopt one as the truth.
1 Like
Establishing genre is based on a comparison with other, similar literature… hard to do among the first accounts of recorded history. No literary conventions had yet been established, which is why a discourse analysis is more helpful.
1 Like
Okay, here’s THE seminal observation: if Genesis 1 is NOT to the result of an historical report, where did the “imaginative” author get the quote from God in Genesis 1:26-27 ff.? It would have to have been “made up,” if not revealed directly by God --an offense punishable by death among the Hebrews. Seriously; mull that over.
If it’s just an “imaginative, creative, sanctified” fiction that humanity is created in God’s image, we’ve already lost the battle to the whims of whatever we replace that with. I’M NOT THE ONE MESSING WITH ORTHODOXY --this really, really, really matters.
Even if v. 26 (there is no quote in v. 27) was directly revealed by God, it doesn’t make the chapter an historical report. I don’t understand the logic of your penultimate sentence. Do you think all the Bible is “revealed directly by God”? Or do you think quoting God is somehow in a special class? I guess I don’t see it this way.
You’re misunderstanding me. I’m not claiming this is fiction. It is true that humanity is created in God’s image. How the author came to know that, I’m not sure. I’m happy with direct revelation on this point; I’m open to other ways of him coming to know this reality.
1 Like
We are not to make up quotes from God, so how would the author have received such information, if not by the report of the LORD Himself? I tend to think of Genesis 1 as a “Creation Hymn” taught by the Malek YHWH Himself to Adam, if not even to generations prior. That’s how so many pagan corruptions arose so quickly, as deficient versions of the original. The story is really that ancient.
From you, above:
“It all might be theological history in which the author uses some creativity and imagination (with some good, sanctified common sense) as he contemplates the past and seeks to teach specific truths.” This is the “professor, sitting in a study, making informed guesses” way of accounting for divine revelation --and it doesn’t work.
Ancient storytellers (including biblical authors) “make up” quotes all the time. Ancient expectations of citation are quite different than modern ones. The (inspired) Gospel writers all quote Jesus but use different words and sequences…sometimes making significant differences. The NT “quotes” the OT many times in ways that continue to baffle us.
As I said, I’m not opposed to direct revelation for Gen 1:26, but I don’t sense the necessity you do. What matters is that the illocution being made by the author is true.
1 Like
Apples and oranges. The sources consulted for the gospels did their best to quote accurately, having been intimately involved with His ministry for years, and possibly even working from notes.
The quote in Genesis 1:26 could not have had a human audience. It’s content depended upon revelation directly from God. This is not trivial. The human imagination cannot be represented as speaking with divine authority. The human memory can faithfully attempt to.
Human imagination inspired by God by definition speaks with divine authority.
Ah, yes, but there’s the rub. Go tell Benny Hinn he’s making it all up. We’re in dangerous territory, here.
I’d be glad to tell him just that. I’m using “inspired” in the technical sense of biblical inspiration. This is reserved for the biblical authors alone. Thus, I don’t see this as dangerous at all. I trust that what the biblical authors say in the text is true because I believe God inspired them to write what they did. But how they came to know those truths can vary, as well as the ways they present those truths. If you think a quote from God must mean direct revelation, then fine (I might even agree with you). But I’m open to other possibilities.
1 Like
I think you might be willing to see the importance of this point. Think of the price Moses paid for wandering off script. What lesson is that intended to teach us? What’s our high bar for claiming a level of inspiration on a par with the biblical writers? I ask because there are those who believe they are. There are those claiming to speak authentically to the church whose message is “the authors got it wrong, being limited to the understanding of their times. Now we know better.” How the writers came to know their truths was not just a matter of sheer “inspired” imagination, or they’re open to the charge made above.
I agree with your concern, given what some claim, either about their own “inspiration” (in the non-technical sense) or as a way to judge the biblical authors. Both iterations deserve our condemnation. If the biblical authors are “inspired” (in the technical sense), then it is an article of faith to receive what they say as true, ultimately from God himself. Perhaps we’re closer than it first appeared? (It seems my use of “imagination” didn’t help.)
Well, there are also other folks, like the “school of prophets,” and others who are harder to evaluate, even though my native “Conservative Baptist” leanings lead me to a natural skepticism. So, yeah, I do look for a better locus of authority than a “sanctified imagination” especially if someone’s going to invoke a “thus saith the LORD.”
1 Like
@Guy_Coe I have been champing at the bit for months now for a man of Kenneth’s expertise to dialog but I restrained myself from this sort of tension-dialogue today because his wife is out of town today and he is caring for five kids. And I left it in the same thread at your request. Are you gonna grill him to exhaustion man? Leave some for me please!
3 Likes
He seems more than capable… although, come to think of it, I did ask God to increase his tribe (manageably), so you may have a point there. He is in book research mode, so this may be somewhat welcome stimulation, overall. Proceed as you may!
1 Like