Is Dual Authorship Coherent?

This sounds like a helpful middle ground.

Very helpful @deuteroKJ. Thank you for giving your time and expertise to us generously. I’ve been learning a lot from you. And I know that the others have benefited too.

1 Like

If the Two Powers view is correct, it could easily be within the purview of the human author. This includes the theophanies. Though they didn’t know fully who Jesus was, they knew of a visible YHWH, so the two horizons are organically related (see my recent post about this). I suggest our interpretation should be done at two (or multiple) levels: the one is the “original” and the other, the fuller (even Christological or Christotelic) (i’d add other layers between…again, see my other post that involves editors).

Here’s an example. The satan (accuser) figure in Job is not full-blown Satan (i.e., devil) in its original context. But the NT clearly speaks differently. So as I read Job, I want to read it in its original setting ans well as with “Christian eyes” (i.e., in the end, I should read it different than a Jew). The teaching/truths become somewhat polyvalent, but I’m OK with that. I’m still wrestling how to put this together.

However, none of this causes me to see “the adam” in Gen 1:27 as Christ, or scientific concordism in Gen 1.

2 Likes

Okay, very helpful. So this may get us to the right question for @anon46279830.

Let us for a moment take the Two Powers view as correct. Would it be possible that “the adam” in Genesis 1:27 is one of the Two Powers? Perhaps this is the “creation” of the “form” that The Angel of YHWH would inhabit? If “no”, that might be the end of it for @anon46279830’s idea. If maybe “yes”, that might be his way forward.

Also, how common is this among OT exegetes? You are the first one at a university I know of that has talked this way. There seems to be a tribal resistance to engaging the NT, almost as if this is eisegesis. Did I get a bad sample, or are you an outlier?

1 Like

I’d say no.

Most would agree with my first claim, i.e., that Job’s satan is not the NT Satan. As for the second, it’s more mixed and depends on priorities. I’m not an outlier, but it comes down to one’s larger hermeneutical principles. The problem is that many exegetes can’t get beyond the details. As you say, there is a tribal thing for some about not taking the NT seriously in final theological analysis (in Europe, it’s common to have Bible and Theology as separate schools). The subdiscipline of OT/biblical theology is more willing to go beyond the philology and minute exegesis to engage the larger picture. While I appreciate Walton (.e.g.) on a lot of things, I think he falls into the tribal mentality you mention (he’s not really a theologian in this sense). But there are others (Waltke and Collins, e.g.) that go beyond this. I’m not satisfied to simply say, “well that’s a NT problem” or “they were inspired, I am not.”

1 Like

Yes, he is in that category.

I’ve heard him say that several times.

I’m curious who the other ones are. Collins is probably a good example. I wonder if that is because he is PCA Presbyterian? Don’t much about Waltke. Are there others?

Sure, plenty. Anyone who fits to OT/Biblical Theology label, especially among evangelicals (but even some non, like Brevard Childs). Goldingay, Dempster, Block, Longman, Sailhamer, Dumbrell, House, Moberly. etc., etc.

Interesting. So it really was a bad sample. Interesting…

Not to be controversial, but I was always puzzled at BioLogos by the emphasis on Genesis, without nearly as much attention to the concerns raised from the NT. I’m not saying it was never addressed, but Scot McKnight might have been the first major NT theologian to do a large project with them? Of course, that was not received well. Yes, there was NT Wright, but he was more a disconnected scholar it seemed…

1 Like

While I’ve worked with BioLogos, some publicly and some behind the scenes, I’m not sure what’s going on. The move away from Pete Enns (and the exaltation of Deb Haarsma, among other moves) suggests something, but I don’t know what. Reading the tea leaves, it seems to me that BioLogos recognized the need to get a little closer to mainstream evangelical than what the perception had become. I could be wrong, of course. With the recent changes due to loss of grant backing, I wonder what’s now going on (e.g., total new formatting; letting go of Venema as a prominent voice). Other than being part of occasional email chains (with Walton, Longman, Middleton, and BL staff), I’m not connected much anymore.

I will say, that Jim, Brad, Kathryn, and the whole staff have been nothing but gracious to me. They know I’m not fully on board with everything, but they’ve sought out and coveted a voice like mine from more conservative evangelicalism. I know you and others (e.g., Jon Garvey and Eddie Robinson) have faced other issues, but my own experience has been wholly positive. I look forward to seeing some of them at ETS this year (they’ve shown up regularly in the past few years).

It seems Jack Collins has been able to maintain a cordial engagement with BL, despite some differences. It’s a bit weird to me that Tim Keller is more on the outs. I don’t know. I’m just looking mainly from the outside. I do look forward to seeing what the near future looks like for them.

3 Likes

You and me both :smile:.

@jack.collins and Keller both have cordial engagement with BioLogos, but both appear to feel the need to distance themselves from them. @jack.collins is might tell us what he is thinking, but at Dabar I said we were both “homeless” and he seemed to agree. For Keller, it seems pretty clear to me why he is keeping his distance, though I should probably just keep my mouth shut for now about that given what I’ve already said: In Defense of Tim Keller

I’m glad your experience has been good. Definitely enjoy your time with them at ETS. It was very positive for me too, till April 2017. Hopefully it will eventually get back to good in time.

There is a lot of good that has come out of this already. Because of all this, it became clear to many of us that there could be another way forward for more conservative parts of the Church. That is a big reason why Peaceful Science is even here. We are still figuring out what our future holds, but hopefully we could help rebalance the larger conversation.

By the way @deuteroKJ, how did you find out about Peaceful Science?

1 Like

Not sure, but probably through The Hump.

1 Like