Pages

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Anything but that


I'm going to make a few comments about the framework hypothesis. I'm going to discuss this from a sociological standpoint.

I think the popularity of the framework hypothesis in Reformed circles is obviously parochial and even chauvinistic. It's popular in Reformed circles because it was popularized by an influential Reformed OT prof. If the framework hypothesis had been devised by, say, a Lutheran seminary prof., I seriously doubt it would have the same cachet in Reformed circles. In that respect, the appeal of the framework hypothesis is somewhat provincial and cliquish. A sectarian in-house affair.

Now, some of you might say it's unfair to judge the framework hypothesis on that basis. I agree. I think we ought to judge the framework hypothesis on the merits. However, we also need to be on the alert to our motives. There's a natural tendency, to which we're all prone, to favor our own kind. We need to guard against that. 

For the record, I believe that Meredith Kline introduced the framework hypothesis into Reformed discussion when he was teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary while E. J. Young was on sabbatical. Kline took over Young's course load. After Young returned, he was displeased with the framework hypothesis, and wrote an article in the Westminster Theological Journal critiquing it, which was later republished in Studies in Genesis One, chap. 3. BTW, if you want to evaluate the framework hypothesis on the merits, Young's critique is a good place to start.

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting there was anything devious about Kline seizing the opportunity to plug his own interpretation while Young was away. I'm just giving a bit of historical background which some folks might find interesting. 

Kline taught about three generations of Reformed seminarians, converting some of them to his position, including some who became seminary profs. in their own right. It remains to be seen how much staying power the framework hypothesis will have after Kline retired, died, and his proteges retire. If I were a betting man, I'm guessing that the cosmic temple interpretation will overtake and displace the framework hypothesis as the "literary" interpretation of choice. 

There are elders in Reformed denominations who think the calendar-day interpretation of Gen 1 is scientifically indefensible. As such, they are on the look-out for an alternative interpretation. In a sense, it doesn't matter what the alternative is. Anything but the calendar-day interpretation. E. J. Young was a day-age proponent.

More recently, the anological-day theory is gaining some traction in Reformed circles. Once again, I think this is popular in large part because it is promoted by a Reformed seminary prof. 

I expect the framework hypothesis will begin to lose ground in part because it's old hat by now. I also think it will begin to lose ground because the generation that sponsored it is on the way out.

The popularity of the cosmic temple interpretation is due in part to the fact that it's a newer approach that hasn't been exhausted. It's happy hunting ground for many scholarly monographs. 

I think the temple interpretation illuminates some features in Gen 1-2. But like any interpretive paradigm, it has limited explanatory power. It's a mistake to treat the cosmic temple interpretation as a master key to unlock the "hidden secrets" of Gen 1-2. I don't think the significance of Gen 1-2 is reducible to a single interpretive principle.

Let's take a comparison: Some scholars interpret Gen 1 as a polemic against pagan creation stories. An oft-cited example is the refusal of the narrator to name the sun, moon, and stars on the Fourth Day. That's because their names were names of pagan solar and lunar deities. By contrast, the narrator is demoting the celestial luminaries to mere inanimate creatures.

And I think that explanation is valid as far as it goes. But surely that's not the only reason or primary reason that Gen 1 describes the creation of celestial luminaries. Rather, the text describes their creation because this is a global creation account. The purpose is to inform the reader about how certain natural phenomena that are fundamental and familiar to the humans came into being. There's a corrective aspect to that exercise, but it's not purely reactionary. 

8 comments:

  1. Thanks for clarifying Steve, I thought these comments were helpful,

    A couple of thoughts, if I may

    "I think the popularity of the framework hypothesis in Reformed circles is obviously parochial and even chauvinistic"

    I don't think that can be said to be the case, in fact, it seems to be more welcoming to the unbelieving scientific community, than say a stringent view (not to say all YECers match that category). Now notice I'm not saying that we should give an inch to unbelieving scientists who force their unbelieving presuppositional commitments, however, we shouldn't draw unnecessary lines in the sand where Scripture doesn't draw them. Perhaps the chauvinistic and parochial feel comes from Framework advocates who sense a sort of alienation from those who disagree in terms of accusing them as denying inerrancy. But I think you are correct, and two wrongs don't make a right

    "Now, some of you might say it's unfair to judge the framework hypothesis on that basis. I agree. I think we ought to judge the framework hypothesis on the merits. However, we also need to be on the alert to our motives. There's a natural tendency, to which we're all prone, to favor our own kind. We need to guard against that. "

    I think that is a fair statement. However, I suppose it depends on the reasoning as to which there is a guarding. There are legitimate reasons and illegitimate reasons. I don't think that every time someone defends a fellow necessarily entails an illegitimate party spirit. And in Christ, we are to love our neighbor (which is all inclusive) but *especially* those of faith. That seems to be a favoritism, but it isn't a bad one. Now this isn't analogous to people who are Framework vs those who aren't. But simply to make the point that it's not all illegitimate. There is more of an obligation to take in a Christian brother.

    Thanks for pointing out the article by Young.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Resequitur7/09/2013 6:11 PM
      

"I don't think that can be said to be the case, in fact, it seems to be more welcoming to the unbelieving scientific community, than say a stringent view (not to say all YECers match that category)."

      That wouldn't explain why the framework hypothesis is overrepresented in Reformed circles, compared to other groups. You keep filtering everything through your anti-YEC agenda.

      "Perhaps the chauvinistic and parochial feel comes from Framework advocates who sense a sort of alienation from those who disagree in terms of accusing them as denying inerrancy."

      Once again, that fails to explain why the framework hypothesis is overrepresented in Reformed circles. You keep reinterpreting everything to make your own experience with YEC the frame of reference. You're like an ex-smoker who crusades against cigarettes, constantly nagging his friends and family about the dangers of smoking. Even if your newly-adopted position is correct, that doesn't make it a valid prism through which to view every issue. Everyone doesn't share your motives. Stop projecting.

      "I don't think that every time someone defends a fellow necessarily entails an illegitimate party spirit."

      Once more, that's irrelevant to what I said. My post said nothing about defending a fellow, or even defending a position–but rather, what makes a position popular in some theological subcultures. You keep redirecting every statement into something about your personal experience. You're not the frame of reference. All roads don't lead to you.

      Delete
    2. "That wouldn't explain why the framework hypothesis is overrepresented in Reformed circles, compared to other groups. You keep filtering everything through your anti-YEC agenda. "

      I don't have an anti-YEC agenda. Why is it when I respond to what I find to be bad reasoning in Young earth circles, that I'm automatically labeled "anti". Besides, I specifically labeled a popular group. Not sure why you want to incite a party war with the "anti" rhetoric. You swing a rhetorical axe and then wonder why there is so much representation. Are you too busy hearing yourself blog to understand what's happening?

      "Once again, that fails to explain why the framework hypothesis is overrepresented in Reformed circles.

      Once again, you don't explain how.

      "You keep reinterpreting everything to make your own experience with YEC the frame of reference."

      You have a horrible habit of psychologizing people you disagree with. Not to mention, your response isn't even saying anything interesting. For instance, it could be simply turned around that you interpret everything to make your own experience with YEC the frame of reference"

      "You're like an ex-smoker who crusades against cigarettes, constantly nagging his friends and family about the dangers of smoking."

      That's hilarious Steve. But you should really try responding to what I said, instead of coming up with inaccurate analogies for comedic effect. That would make conversing with you a lot easier.

      "Even if your newly-adopted position is correct, that doesn't make it a valid prism through which to view every issue. Everyone doesn't share your motives. Stop projecting. "

      But your motives are a valid prism in this case? Again, another rhetorical alleyway without dealing with anything I said.

      You basically said "You failed to explain yourself" and sprinkled it with psychoanalytic rhetorical handwaving. At this point I'm under the impression that you're just saying "shoo fly"

      You said:

      "There's a natural tendency, to which we're all prone, to favor our own kind. We need to guard against that. "

      I said: "I don't think that every time someone defends a fellow necessarily entails an illegitimate party spirit."

      and you respond by saying "Once more, that's irrelevant to what I said"

      I'm confused as to what you mean about "natural tendency, to which we're all prone, to *favor* our own kind". So are you or are you not addressing favoritism?

      "You keep redirecting every statement into something about your personal experience. You're not the frame of reference. All roads don't lead to you."

      I apologize for implying that they did. But I'm sure I would have been criticized for being too objective. My whole point for taking the route I did, is that if one is not lead exegetically to the conclusions of Framework theory, then that is fine. But going as far as saying "you deny inerrancy" or "you focus too much on extra-biblical material" et al. (which is a common objection by people in general) then people are going to respond to that.

      Delete
    3. >>But going as far as saying "you deny inerrancy" ...

      I don't think Steve said that Framework Hypothesis *per se* denies inerrancy. You're conflating Steve's post on Evans with his remarks here. Steve gave reasons for his charge there. You didnt do much to rebut them..

      Delete
    4. "You've repeatedly used your anti-YEC agenda to reframe the issue. Sorry if you're blind to your own modus operandi."

      you've repeatedly used your anti-OEC agenda to frame the issue. Sorry if you're blind to your own Modus Operandi

      "Because you keep dragging that into posts that are not about YEC, per se. I haven't been making a case for YEC or OEC. "

      Do you believe you can put yourself into some viewpoint abstracted from YEC or OEC, as to not be informed by whichever side you are on? That's a naive way of thinking.

      "If you're alluding to your obsession with YEC, that's not overrepresented in Reformed circles, so the comparison is inapt. You might say it's popular in contemporary "fundamentalism," yet that would just be another example to illustrate my point, not yours."

      Okay, point granted.





      "Anyway, I didn't "wonder." I don't think it's mysterious. That's why I offered a sociological explanation. Follow the bouncing ball. "

      You are speaking from your experience, which is the very nature of a sociological observation.

      "Since I'm not the one who keeps interjecting extraneous debates about YEC into the discussion, your attempted comparison flops."

      I would have thought that the position that one holds to will in way paint the way they discuss it. Not to mention the thing started over a post responding to Evans responding to Mohler who is a YECer, I wouldn't say it's irrelevant.

      "You're not a constructive conversation partner. "

      I apologize.

      "Another failed comparison inasmuch as I'm not the one who keeps making the issue about me and my experience."

      You had me fooled, for instance, the pronouns and verbs that paint your post had me thinking otherwise;

      "I'm going..." "I'm going to discuss..." "I think the popularity... " " I seriously doubt it" "I agree." "I think we ought...." "I believe that...." "*If I *were a betting man, *I'm guessing*...." etc.

      "What's happening" alludes to what?"

      It alludes to what you're doing in this conversation, which is ignoring me, and cleverly writing me off.

      "No, I pointed out why your alternative explanations don't fly."

      You put on a comedic act, and tried to be funny. I admit to laughing, but at some point I would have liked to get serious.

      "Yes, you're confused. Adopting a position because it's emanates from our theological clique isn't the same thing as defending a person. "

      I see the difference, and I'm not sure how helpful it is to describe it as a "clique". Let's grant that. So how do we agree with a theological position on exegetical grounds without being in a clique? I'm not in Evan's clique, from what I've read, I disagree with Walton's main thesis, though I don't think he's completely right, and Kline isn't even alive. For instance, Evans made a remark about animal death before the fall, and if I'm not mistaken Walton takes that position. I disagree wit that entirely. However I would be very very slow to ascribe malicious intent.

      "And I substantiated my charge."

      I don't think your "substantiation" leveled out the weight of your charge.

      "People who, for some reason, identify with other people and take vicarious umbrage at the allegation, even though the charge wasn't directed at them personally, and even though the charge was just, with supporting arguments to document and validate the charge."

      I don't identify with Evans, I've simply benefited from him in the past, and on the subject of inerrancy. Which is why I found your charge to be a strange one.

      Anyways, you have the last word on this one Steve, If I'm not benefiting you in this conversation, then I should bow out. Sorry for wasting your time.

      Delete
  2. "Kline taught about three generations of Reformed seminarians, converting some of them to his position, including some who became seminary profs. in their own right. It remains to be seen how much staying power the framework hypothesis will have after Kline retired, died, and his proteges retire. If I were a betting man, I'm guessing that the cosmic temple interpretation will overtake and displace the framework hypothesis as the "literary" interpretation of choice."

    You seem to be placing a wall between Cosmic temple and the Framework theory. Obviously as you've shown with Walton there seems to be disjunction, as Walton seems to take it another route. However, you see the cosmic temple language in Kline as well, the pointing out of the parallels, however, relying more on exegesis. But perhaps you've seen something I haven't.

    "There are elders in Reformed denominations who think the calendar-day interpretation of Gen 1 is scientifically indefensible."

    Well, I think folks like Dr. Lisle have shown that scientific data can go both ways. Hopefully they wouldn't make an argument along those lines.

    "More recently, the anological-day theory is gaining some traction in Reformed circles. Once again, I think this is popular in large part because it is promoted by a Reformed seminary prof. "

    I think it's that and the fact that the unbelieving population have introduced questions along scientific lines that need to be addressed. Which produces some good answers as well as some bad answers. As well as a clash with lines drawn in the sand on both sides.

    "I think the temple interpretation illuminates some features in Gen 1-2. But like any interpretive paradigm, it has limited explanatory power. It's a mistake to treat the cosmic temple interpretation as a master key to unlock the "hidden secrets" of Gen 1-2. I don't think the significance of Gen 1-2 is reducible to a single interpretive principle."

    I don't think it has a master key, but at the same time, you miss a good chunk of context if you miss that aspect. Not to mention that some think the YEC interpretation is the master key to getting it right. I think it's good to understand the context on which all of this is being understood. It gives us light on how we understand how this impression is being made.

    Not to mention, that the cosmic temple language isn't "hidden", nor do I think we need to think of it that way. I think it's rather that we've ignored it because we have other priorities that we take into reading the text. Little walls we build, such as the notion, "you're just taking the world's view of science in thinking the bible is teaching anything that might give the impression of an old earth view". So bible scholars (old and new) start pitching numbers such as 10,000 and 6,000 and using that as a measure of orthodoxy. It's hard to exegete around those numbers.

    "Let's take a comparison: Some scholars interpret Gen 1 as a polemic against pagan creation stories. An oft-cited example is the refusal of the narrator to name the sun, moon, and stars on the Fourth Day. That's because their names were names of pagan solar and lunar deities. By contrast, the narrator is demoting the celestial luminaries to mere inanimate creatures.

    And I think that explanation is valid as far as it goes. But surely that's not the only reason or primary reason that Gen 1 describes the creation of celestial luminaries. Rather, the text describes their creation because this is a global creation account. The purpose is to inform the reader about how certain natural phenomena that are fundamental and familiar to the humans came into being. There's a corrective aspect to that exercise, but it's not purely reactionary. "

    I strongly agree, it was correctional, not simply reactionary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Resequitur

"You seem to be placing a wall between Cosmic temple and the Framework theory. Obviously as you've shown with Walton there seems to be disjunction, as Walton seems to take it another route. However, you see the cosmic temple language in Kline as well, the pointing out of the parallels, however, relying more on exegesis. But perhaps you've seen something I haven't."

      It's possible to combine the two. But that's arguably overkill, and leads to a cluttered interpretation.

      "Well, I think folks like Dr. Lisle have shown that scientific data can go both ways. Hopefully they wouldn't make an argument along those lines."

      Actually, Meredith Kline admitted that he was motivated by scientific anxieties. So does William B. Evans. So that's hardly hypothetical.

      "Not to mention, that the cosmic temple language isn't 'hidden', nor do I think we need to think of it that way."

      That's how John Walton thinks of it. He thinks the true meaning of Gen 1 was lost until archeology began to unearth comparative ANE literature.

      "I strongly agree, it was correctional, not simply reactionary."

      I didn't suggest it was merely correctional, which would be equivalent to simply reactionary. Rather, I said it wasn't merely correctional.

      Delete
    2. "Actually, Meredith Kline admitted that he was motivated by scientific anxieties. So does William B. Evans. So that's hardly hypothetical."

      Where in Kline? In his earlier works? Or later works? Where in Evans?


      Delete