Re: Concordist sequence

Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 20:01:57 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Nicene Creed"

    In a message dated 6/18/03 3:33:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

    > I prefer a symbolic interpretation of the days as categories of creation,
    > without chronological significance, but a concordist approach need not entail
    > all of the difficulties that have been mentioned.
    > Ironically, this ties into the issue of credal statements. Is Genesis 1
    > primarily about God or about science?

    IMHO there are two recognizable traditions in the creation stories in
    genesis. One is of the landed agricultural states in the mesopotamian basin, whose
    civilizations were tripartite and based on agriculture and the other tradition
    is pastoralist and peripatetic. The symbolic interpretation of the days and
    creation of the world is taken from the traditions of those landed agricultural
    states whose own earlier creation accounts suggest the same.

    The descriptions of human behavior beginning genesis 2:5 titled 'the
    beginnings of history' are brilliant but purely pastoral observations regarding the
    nature of man and all other living things. So is the story of Abraham and the
    story of Jacob and Esau - all these human stories are comprised of simple
    observations pastoralists, not kings or priests, necessarily come to intuit as part
    of their livelihood: not competing with your affinals, for example, or having
    a big flock and a choice flock. So, genesis is religion and science and
    history, it's like a patchwork that's been put together to maintain an ancient
    pastoralist tradition that once established as a nation became a tripartite temple
    sacrificial system.

    genesis 1 is about the power of God, established immediately. The pastoralist
    parts (most) of genesis are about the power of man in the face of God's Laws.

    The pastoralist tradition in genesis is the religious tradition. You can say
    some significant things about human nature by studying the pastoralist
    tradition psychologically and anthropologically.

    The creation account in genesis 1 might be studied as history to find out how
    and by which route it was appropriated from earlier accounts.

    It's a much more demanding task to analyze the Bible from the view that it's
    a patchwork, which I believe genesis is - the seeming interpolation at
    genesis 14:18-21 would read perfectly if it were missing suggesting a later redactor
    wished to justify the temple sacrificial system at Jerusalem (Ur Salem). You
    can't treat it all as science, but you must treat some of it as science,
    because it is.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 20:02:14 EDT