PTET SAID:
“So you cannot name one working, credible Biblical scholar who thinks that Moses wrote the Penteteuch…”
Oswald Allis, Gleason Archer, John Currid, Duane Garrett, Richard Hess, Walter Kaiser, Alec Motyer, John Oswalt, Vern Poythress, Allan Ross, John Sailhamer, Douglas Stuart, E. J. Young, to name a few.
“…or who thinks the ‘Flood account’ is actual history.”
T. D. Alexander, John Currid, John J. Davis, James Hoffmeier, Gordon Hugenberger, Kenneth Kitchen, David Livingston, Jeffrey Niehaus, Vern Poythress, Allen Ross, Ronald Youngblood, to name a few.
I hold to a local flood myself. As for Moses writing the first five books, I haven't really studied the issue. I've always been told that was the case.
ReplyDeleteI mention both local and global interpreters in my response.
ReplyDeleteHere's some starters for you...
ReplyDelete"Apparently Triablogue is now so ideologically committed that they cannot realize that [John] Currid is refuting their notion that the Moses story preceded similar Near Eastern legends. What Currid says, however, is that the Egyptian legends are more important than the Mesopotamian legends. Currid says that the author of the Moses story was using some common “motifs” found in other birth stories. But motifs imply literary, not necessarily historical, features."
Allen Ross: "While we may not be dealing with a genre of story-telling here, it is possible that Exodus 2 might have drawn on some of the motifs and forms of the other account to describe the actual event in the sparing of Moses--if they knew of it. If so it would show that Moses was cast in the form of the greats of the past."
Some more...
Kenneth Kitchen: "Among those who believe that all the numbers of Genesis 5, including Methuselah's age, have no meaning at all, Kenneth Kitchen calls them "pure myth",[16] Yigal Levin believes they are intended simply to speed the reader from Adam to Noah,[17] and Claus Westermann believes they are intended to create the impression of a distant past.[18]"
Vern Poythress: "Poythress’ Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach is not a credible work on understanding either the Bible or science. He dismisses the 24-hour day view with no serious discussion, and he reinterprets the Flood as local in a way that cannot be accepted by people who take the Bible seriously. All in all, this is a disappointment to any readers who were looking for a hermeneutical guide to the early chapters of Genesis."
With guys like Youngblood & Poythress saying that the Flood story was based on local events, what does that leave you? That means Noah didn't father the human race. It means that Genesis is not an accurate history - but rather a mash of folklore, myth and legend.
You misrepresent their position:
ReplyDelete1) To begin with, there's nothing new in the suggestion that Scripture contains a polemical element which self-consciously alludes to certain pagan mythological motifs to trump those motifs.
2) Bible scholars who favor the local interpretation of the flood regard that as the correct interpretation. You are construing the account in terms they reject, then acting as if they deny the historical accuracy of the account. But that simply imputes your own interpretation of the account to them.
Acquire some reading comprehension before you go on your next tirade. Learn how to distinguish your interpretation from the interpretation of the author.
PTET,
ReplyDeleteCurrid doesn't deny the historicity of Exod 2. Rather, his position is that this was written to evoke certain associations with Horus, in order to debunk Horus.
Since you're too lazy and too dishonest to actually read the books by the authors you presume to mischaracterize, you're not allowed to keep leaving irresponsible comments. I'm not here to clean up after your little.
Steve
ReplyDeleteMy apologies. I have made a very great mistake.
I had assumed that John Currid thought that elements of the Old Testament was mythological. This is not correct.
Dr John Currid has been on the faculty of the Reformed Theological Seminary for over 15 years. That organizations's Statement of Belief says: "Since the Bible is absolutely and finally authoritative as the inerrant Word of God, it is the basis for the total curriculum."
I now completely accept that Dr Currid holds that no part of the Bible is mythological.
My mistake. I apologise unreservedly.
P