WAR_ON_ERROR said...
“What do you think of the verses in Enoch 32:1-4 that seem to indicate that Enoch literally went to the extreme edge of the world (where the heavens stop) and saw the gates where the stars are allowed to come out? That seems to be the kind of disconfirmation you were looking for. Or no?”
Well, that’s an interesting test-case. I’ve already quoted two scholars who say the Enuma Elish was motivated by power politics. The same thing can be said for Enoch. It represents the “church politics” of the day.
As scholars like Roger Beckwith (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian) and David Jackson (Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars) have documented, Enochian literature is pious fiction intended to backdate and thereby legitimate the Essene calendar-–over against rival religious calendars in mainstream Judaism.
So this is polemical literature designed to usurp the status quo. Although the authors of this propaganda might well be banking on a gullible audience to treat their “instant” cosmography as a realistic version of events, the authors themselves were consciously contriving a fictitious backstory to justify their sectarian calendar after the fact.
That’s another reason why I don’t assume that ANE/Hellenistic cosmogonies and/or cosmographies were ever meant to be realistic. Rather, this type of literature is written as the need arises to further a political agenda.
And, of course, I don’t put the Bible in the same category (for reasons I’ve given elsewhere).
As such, I don’t think ancient writers like this were being naïve. Rather, I think modern writers like Peter Enns are being naïve when they fail to factor in the political function of the genre in question.
But even as political fiction, it still shows that there is a clear possible picture that derives from the imagery that the ancients weren't completely unaware of. It is a type of disconfirmation even if it is not the most ideal example, correct?
ReplyDeleteSince the cosmographical details are invented to suit the immediate needs of the polemic, that hardly suggests ontological commitment to the reality of the fictitious details.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't hard to grasp.
You begin with an Essene calendar, then you devise a corresponding cosmography to underwrite the preexisting liturgical practice.
I get that the author may not have believed in it himself. But then again, maybe he did. Just because he made up a story, doesn't mean it didn't reflect his/her actual beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThat part doesn't even matter. My point is that someone believed it because it was *believable* from their standpoint. You originally wanted to suppose (if I'm not mistaken) that none of the ancients ever thought about cosmology that way and that modern people are imposing it on their innocent rhetoric. So, it isn't hard to grasp that Enoch is disconfirmation of that. I'm not saying this wins the entire argument, but it does address a specific point of yours to an extent.
WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:
ReplyDelete"I get that the author may not have believed in it himself. But then again, maybe he did. Just because he made up a story, doesn't mean it didn't reflect his/her actual beliefs."
He believes in the Essene calendar. He then invents a universe to back up the calendar.
"That part doesn't even matter. My point is that someone believed it because it was *believable* from their standpoint. You originally wanted to suppose (if I'm not mistaken) that none of the ancients ever thought about cosmology that way and that modern people are imposing it on their innocent rhetoric. So, it isn't hard to grasp that Enoch is disconfirmation of that. I'm not saying this wins the entire argument, but it does address a specific point of yours to an extent."
That wasn't the argument. The argument is whether Bible writers believed in a flat-earth/triple-decker cosmography on analogy with works like 1 Enoch.
You fail to distinguish between the viewpoint of an author and the potential viewpoint of his target-audience.
Indeed, a work like 1 Enoch is deceptive by design. That's the point of pseudepigraphy and pseudonymity.
Believing in the Essene calendar or writing a book that is deceptive by design is not mutually exclusive with believing in the basic mythic geography. Maybe you know something I don't. And whether it's the author or audience, the point is the views were compatible with someone's sensibilities. It's proof of concept (regardless of the other factors going on politically with Enoch) that the ancient Hebrews could easily take their cosmological rhetoric very literally. Doesn't mean they all did. Who knows, maybe Enoch is a total fluke. Or maybe there are other extremely explicit examples. I'm not familiar enough with all the pagan literature or the Talmud and whatnot to know for sure. I just don't understand how you can totally blow it off as you do.
ReplyDeleteBen
WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:
ReplyDelete"Believing in the Essene calendar or writing a book that is deceptive by design is not mutually exclusive with believing in the basic mythic geography."
If one invents specific cosmographical details ex post facto to correspond to a preexisting calendar, then that's imaginary, and consciously so.
And it's useless for you to speculate about how they *may* believe in the "basic mythic geography.
What's your evidence? You cited 1 Enoch. But if what the author understood by his own writing is now the very thing in dispute, you can't cite that as independent evidence for your thesis.
"Maybe you know something I don't. And whether it's the author or audience, the point is the views were compatible with someone's sensibilities. It's proof of concept (regardless of the other factors going on politically with Enoch) that the ancient Hebrews could easily take their cosmological rhetoric very literally."
Now you're not staying true to your own argument. You attempted an argument from analogy. If the author(s) of 1 Enoch believed in this fanciful cosmography, then Bible writers would also believe in mythic cosmographies.
You can't then treat the author and the audience as interchangeable, especially if the author's viewpoint is intentionally at variance with the belief which he is trying to foster in his target audience (as is the case with pseudepigrapha like 1 Enoch).
"If one invents specific cosmographical details ex post facto to correspond to a preexisting calendar, then that's imaginary, and consciously so."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't prove the author invented it wholesale any more than C. S. Lewis had to invent every fantasy element of his Narnia Chronicles to cater it to his Christian motifs.
"...it's useless for you to speculate about how they *may* believe in the "basic mythic geography."
Why? Is that really a fantastic claim that the writer of Enoch or his audience may actually have believed in the basic mythic geography underlying the story?
"If the author(s) of 1 Enoch believed in this fanciful cosmography, then Bible writers would also believe in mythic cosmographies."
That's not my argument and hence part of our misunderstanding, apparently. My argument is that at least some of the ancients were willing to conceptualize it as we might expect them to. It doesn't matter if it is author or the audience.
This is only meant to support the idea that the ancient Hebrew thinking was thought-compatible with that conception contrary to what I thought your earlier claims were. Obviously every single Biblical author could disagree with the writer of Enoch or the audience that bought the tale and still never show any signs that was the case. It's just highly unlikely.
Ben
WAR_ON_ERROR said...
ReplyDelete"That doesn't prove the author invented it wholesale any more than C. S. Lewis had to invent every fantasy element of his Narnia Chronicles to cater it to his Christian motifs."
That's a counterproductive example. Lewis felt free to manipulate pagan mythology to service his theological agenda because he didn't regard pagan mythology as literally true.
"Why? Is that really a fantastic claim that the writer of Enoch or his audience may actually have believed in the basic mythic geography underlying the story?"
You keep conflating the viewpoint of the author with the viewpoint of the audience. I've corrected you on that. Do you think that if you keep trying to slip that past me I won't catch you?
"That's not my argument and hence part of our misunderstanding, apparently. My argument is that at least some of the ancients were willing to conceptualize it as we might expect them to. It doesn't matter if it is author or the audience."
Your dissimulation is unconvincing. It makes the world of difference to you. The fallibility of the audience is irrelevant to the inspiration of Scripture. By contrast, if the Bible writers are demonstrably fallible, then that invalidates the inspiration of Scripture. And that's what you're really gunning for.
"Obviously every single Biblical author could disagree with the writer of Enoch or the audience that bought the tale and still never show any signs that was the case. It's just highly unlikely."
I've discussed the signs, which you conveniently overlook.
"Your dissimulation is unconvincing. It makes the world of difference to you.
ReplyDeleteDo you have to blow everything out of proportion? It is really important to me to get the nuances of any argument right if I actually care about the conclusion. That's a general methodological virtue. Why are you ripping on that? Do you not care about the important nuances in the hundreds of debates you've been involved in?
"The fallibility of the audience is irrelevant to the inspiration of Scripture."
Yeah, and that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what I'm saying.
"By contrast, if the Bible writers are demonstrably fallible, then that invalidates the inspiration of Scripture. And that's what you're really gunning for."
Eventually! Baby steps, dude. I have like this whole other 27 page post I'm preparing on the topic. I'm not trying to clean house with every single point I make. So if you think so, you are misinterpreting my sensibilities. Now...maybe you don't give a hoot about that, but given that I'm me, and I'm going to attempt to have a coherent conversation with you, it is at least somewhat important that you understand where I'm actually coming from. I'm assuming that someday when you do manage to prove me wrong, it will be because you actually knew what my error was in the first place. Till then...not holding my breath.
"You keep conflating the viewpoint of the author with the viewpoint of the audience. I've corrected you on that. Do you think that if you keep trying to slip that past me I won't catch you?"
Yes, Steve. It's a conspiracy. Or...an alternative hypothesis is that if you looked at what my actual argument has been all along there would be none of this trying to sneak something by you talk. It would just be like, "Oh, Ben's point never depended on who exactly believed in Enoch's mythical cosmology."
But whatever. I guess you are just being you.
Ben
"... it is at least somewhat important that you understand where I'm actually coming from."
ReplyDeleteWhere you're coming from is that you're a thankless God-hater who feels the compulsive need to rationalize his petulant, childish ingratitude.
"Where you're coming from is that you're a thankless God-hater who feels the compulsive need to rationalize his petulant, childish ingratitude."
ReplyDeleteSince I don't think you are psychic, and I don't think you know me well enough for me to be properly insulted, and since I know you yanked that right from the Bible and skipped the whole giving a crap about reality part, I'm going to let this go.
Ben
WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:
ReplyDelete"Since I don't think you are psychic, and I don't think you know me well enough for me to be properly insulted..."
I don't have to know you. God knows you. And the word of God frequently discusses the motives of unbelievers.
I'd also add that in my experience, unbelievers fit the profile to a t.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you'll meet a nice unbeliever someday.
Ben