Sunday, August 28, 2011

Rubber rulers


randal says:
Friday, August 26, 2011 at 1:22pm

A person can interpret the narrative of the fall as a myth not meaning that it is false but rather that it communicates a universal truth: we are all Adam because we all rebel. In an evolutionary context one can take the view that through evolutionary history we developed certain impulses such as selfishness instead of altruism, cowardice instead of courage. That is our fallen nature, and when we act on those impulses as the highly evolved homo sapiens sapiens that we are, we are “in Adam” and in need of redemption.
That story is consistent with all the big doctrines of Christianity: Trinity, creation, incarnation, redemption, consummation.


i) You can interpret the story of the fall as the myth of Everyman provided that this is what the narrator intended.

ii) Is there any reason to think Gen 2-3 is an allegory for the experience of every man, woman, and child? Genesis specifically depicts Adam as the progenitor of the human race (Gen 4-5,11). Can we all be Adam if we all come from Adam? No.

Does everybody recapitulate Gen 3? What’s the analogy, exactly? Let’s take a Pentateuchal example: does the narrator think a child born in Sodom was born into an Edenic habitation? Is every Sodomite child born with access to immortality (i.e. the tree of life)? Does every Sodomite child later lose his access to immortality? Is every Sodomite child expelled from paradise?

Is the alleged correspondence between Adam and everybody internal to the Pentateuch? Is that a fixture of the narrative strategy? If so, where is Rauser’s exegesis?

Or is this a purely extraneous match-up which Rauser superimposes on the text? Is so, why even bother with Gen 2-3? If Rauser doesn’t think the text is true on its own terms, then why go through the motions of artificially reinterpreting the text?

Rauser says the Bible is “uniquely authoritative for the community of faith.” But if the community of faith can unilaterally reassign an alien significance to the text, then the Bible has no authority over the church; rather, the church has total authority over the Bible.

A rubber ruler can’t be a standard of comparison. If we can stretch it so that everything long or short, tall or small, measures up, then the exercise is just a charade. 

If the text has no fixed meaning, then it has no inherent authority. It means whatever we say it means. What it means tomorrow may differ from what it meant to us today, or yesterday.

So why does Rauser even pretend to cite the Bible as a frame of reference for the church? Given his presuppositions, would it not make more sense for Rauser to admit that Scripture is obsolete, and treat it no differently than world literature, or movies, or music videos?

They tell stories, too. We can often find ourselves in those stories. 

10 comments:

  1. So why does Rauser even pretend to cite the Bible as a frame of reference for the church? Given his presuppositions, would it not make more sense for Rauser to admit that Scripture is obsolete, and treat it no differently than world literature, or movies, or music videos?

    Easiest question of the day!

    Job Security.

    Paid religious teaching jobs are pretty plum gigs if you can get the work.

    Nice perqs.

    And when you do it "right" you can get the respect of the world in addition to your underlings and peers.

    If hirelings like Rauser and his ilk actually told the truth and dispensed with the charade they'd be in the same boat as John Loftus; desperately trying to scrape out an existence and jockeying for position among the myriad of voices outside the camp.

    But it's much warmer and nicer inside the camp; especially when you can help yourself to the moneybag!

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's a question I have.

    If I were to interpret the fall of Adam as a real historical fall - but viewed the fall as having happened to a group of humans rather than just one - am I making Adam into a myth?

    What if I interpret the fall as the fall of a man and a woman, but who weren't the singular parents of humanity - say, there was some breeding with those they were interfertile with (or perhaps their offspring did)? Myth?

    Mind you, I imagine someone could argue that both of these interpretations are wrong. But would they be full-blown myth if they affirm that what Genesis describes is a real fall?

    ReplyDelete
  3. We need to interpret Gen 3 on its own terms, as that would best be understood by the narrator and the implied reader.

    We can't present a hybrid interpretation, for at that point we're really not *interpreting* the text. Rather, we're just projecting some extraneous gloss onto the text.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    Alright. But I still want to know - even if you think my interpretation is incorrect, is it still an interpretation that renders this part of Genesis as myth?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Crude, you wrote:
    What if I interpret the fall as the fall of a man and a woman, but who weren't the singular parents of humanity - say, there was some breeding with those they were interfertile with (or perhaps their offspring did)? Myth?

    Can you clarify what you mean by 'breeding with those they were infertile with'?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve Drake,

    Interfertile, not infertile. In this case, breeding with people who may have been biologically human, but as far as having a rational soul goes, or being 'truly human', no.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Crude,
    Thanks. Sorry for the faux pas. Personally, I think any theistic evolutionary position you take is fraught with theological difficulties. Scripture nowhere indicates a group of people, living and interbreeding before the fiat ex nihilo creation of Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side. To assume otherwise is to take extra-biblical considerations and place them unjustifiably on the biblical text.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve Drake,

    No problem. And like I said, I'm not defending that interpretation of Genesis right now - consider it false outright if you want.

    But does it make the Fall, and/or Adam & Eve, into a myth?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Crude,
    The Genesis narrative clearly presents Adam as a singular individual who acts, speaks, marries, reproduces, and is listed even in the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38). Hebrew vocabulary offers no escape hatch from an historical single person. To claim that he arose from a group of people brings hidden assumptions and presuppositions into the picture that need to be analyzed in light of the Biblical text itself. There is simply no room in the Biblical text for that assumption however. So, where does it come from?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve Drake,

    The problem I'm having here is that I'm trying like mad to avoid getting into a discussion that I think is a distraction. I've already said, consider the sort of accounts I offered completely wrong if you like. Consider them undefensible. I'm not advocating their truth or even their defensibility here.

    But I don't think I need to in order to ask whether someone who took such views - however implausible they were in light of Genesis - would be relegating Adam and the Fall to myth.

    I'll offer this up: For my own part I think it's clear that no, Adam and the Fall would not be a myth on such views. I also don't think that maintaining Adam and the Fall as real lets you say "Okay, then that's a plausible reading!" I agree, that gets into an argument about Genesis, what that text clearly expresses, what the text strongly implies, etc.

    So, there you go.

    ReplyDelete