The Bible and Culture
A One-Stop Shop for All Things Biblical and Christian
Follow Patheos Evangelical:
He says more about what he’s not saying than about what he’s saying.
Bingo, Mike. He spends half the clip explaining an anthropologist’s approach to Scripture. Is that the proper starting point for Christians, though? It would be nice if Wright talked about how the Bible treats its own historicity as the basis of our understanding of who God is and what we’re supposed to do about it. Wright has no problems defending the details of the resurrection of Jesus as historical, while simultaneously having huge metaphysical implications. Why not apply the same approach to Genesis?
Of course there are good reasons why he should be cautious. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus we have eyewitness accounts in the NT from people who saw the risen Jesus. We have no such things especially in the primordial history part of Genesis which is as much poetry as it is prose to start with. Moses lived in about 1300 B.C. Even Abraham was over a thousand years before then, never mind Adam and Eve. Those traditions were passed down for centuries before they were ever written down. Not so the Gospels or Acts or Paul. So from a historian’s point of view it is not possible to treat the early Genesis narratives in the exact same way you treat NT information. BW3
For the uninitiated like myself, there is now a great laymen’s book on Genesis 1 research.
“In the Beginning we Misunderstood”. It’s easier to follow than John Walton’s Genesis book with the same basic results, the cosmology is not science and not meant to be science.
Having said that, Adam is not part of that and if he is a myth or not the first human that sinned, then Paul messed up on some theology(as Peter Enns believes) and Jesus departed from the past practice of OT Yahweh when pronouncing judgments by using myth(Abel’s murder) as a cause celeb for a real historic judgment instead of reality based accusations.
I for one don’t buy either case. I do hold out the view we may not have fully grasped the beginnings.
For example, there are other people right there when Cain is being dealt with by God. The explanation they have to be Adam’s kids isn’t reasonable to me. I see them as infected inevitably with sin by association with Cain’s sin, not genetics via Adam which still means Adam brought sin into the world.
That is not an unreasonable assumption to make and if it is valid, we have Adam in Paul’s theology properly and we have a reality based murder of Abel that Jesus was then alluding to as He did as Yahweh in the OT judgment logic, reality and not myth.
Patrick I think I basically agree with you, and not Peter Enns on the historicity of Adam and his kin. BW3
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved.