 |
| Dubai-Facebook |
A former Pastor of mine asked me if I had studied Genesis much. I do not claim to be a scholar of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament, but was required to do some study on Genesis for my PhD thesis.
This was quite educational although admittedly limited as the focus was theodicy and the problem of evil related, for which I do have expertise.
I still very much hold to that neither Genesis nor any part of Scripture is myth, but as with Revelation, for example, was impressed upon, even by evangelical, conservative writers that the type of language used is crucial.
Note, as with all my PhD writing, but in particular work of a controversial nature such as Genesis, I, as a moderate conservative of the Reformed tradition was forced to if I wished to pass, acknowledge many of the academic traditions of liberal Christianity.
To not do so would be to be labelled an uneducated fundamentalist. This in my case is obviously false. An issue I came across with my first appointment at Manchester. I eventually earned my degrees at Wales.
Technical acknowledgment and stating something is plausible and possible does not mean I hold to that view.
Cheers,
Russ
Contrary to the Reformed theological position taken in my PhD thesis, many secular and Biblical scholars from mainline denominations, view the Biblical story of the fall as likely fiction. Many liberal Christian apologists do not believe in a literal fall of humanity. Adam and Eve have been relegated to the realm of mythology.
Terence E. Fretheim (1994) of Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, is not dogmatic[1] but appears to favour the idea that the fall is metaphorical in Genesis 3.[2] He does not think a traditional, conservative view of a single human fall into sin is supported by the Genesis text[3] which is filled with metaphorical, symbolic language.[4] He does, however, believe the Genesis text is providing a general, but not specifically literal, idea of how sin and evil became part of the cosmos.[5] Fretheim raises a very important point in whether or not a scholar looks at the fall story in Genesis as fiction, or non-fiction, the metaphorical and symbolic use of words and concepts used within should not be ignored.[6]
William Sanford La Sor, David Allan Hubbard, and Fredric William Bush (1987) from what I deduced was a moderate conservative, evangelical position, reason the author of Genesis is writing as an artist and storyteller who uses literary device.[7] They point out it is imperative to distinguish which literary device is being used within the text of Genesis.[8]
I would deduce that since Genesis 3 describes this event, it is plausible a literal Adam and Eve were initially morally perfect without sin and eventually fell in corruption. It is also possible that the somewhat metaphorical language of Genesis[9] allows for the Adam and Eve story to be describing a fall from God’s plan for humanity in general, and not specifically two initial persons.[10] Not my view, but possible in the context of British, secular academia within a broad concept of cultural Christianity.
I accept that when in Genesis 1:26, God is said to have created humanity in his image and likeness,[11] that this was part of their original nature.[12] H.L. Ellison (1986) explains that in the beginning human beings were made in God’s image and likeness[13] in order that they could have dominion over animal creation and have communion with God.[14] If a literal explanation of Genesis 1:26 is accepted[15] then it seems plausible that both the image and likeness of God were given to humanity from the start, and I lean towards this understanding.[16]
Since scholars such as Fretheim, La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush explain that Genesis is written with the use of metaphorical language in parts, an interpretation such as John Hick’s with Soul making and building, that is not literal in regard to the image and likeness of God, is an intellectual possibility.[17]
But not my Reformed position.
Erickson thinks that Irenaeus views the image of God as being human resemblance to the creator with reason and will,[18] and the likeness of God was the moral qualities of their maker.[19] This is a reasonable understanding of Irenaeus’ view,[20] but even if this separation between image and likeness is accepted, it is plausible that the image and likeness occur in persons simultaneously.[21] I would therefore theorize that original human spiritual immaturity was not due to humanity lacking a likeness to God.[22] Rather, original people could have been created morally perfect within what Hick calls an Augustinian model.[23] I subscribe to a Reformed, Calvinistic sovereignty model, and I have explained throughout my PhD thesis that Augustinian and Calvinistic models and traditions are similar but not identical. These persons lacked the experience to properly understand and comprehend the results of disobeying God and the sort of life that would occur because of that rebellion. The first human beings may have had little understanding of the idea that their very nature would change if they disobeyed God. Within an Augustinian or Calvinistic perspective it seems plausible humanity’s likeness to God was insufficient after, but not before, the fall as they were no longer in perfect moral communion with their God.[24]
Victor P. Hamilton in Handbook on the Pentateuch notes three possible reasons for the writer of Genesis using these terms together: (1) The terms image and likeness may be interchangeable, in other words synonyms for each other. (2) The word likeness may modify the word image. This is done to avoid the idea that man is an exact copy of God. (3) The term likeness amplifies the term image as human beings are not simply representative of God, but representational. Hamilton (1988: 26-27).
AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.
AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.
HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[1] Fretheim (1994: 152).
[2] Fretheim (1994: 152).
[3] Fretheim (1994: 152).
[4] Fretheim (1994: 153).
[5] Fretheim (1994: 153).
[6] Fretheim (1994: 153).
[7] La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush
(1987: 72).
[8] La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush
(1987: 72).
[9] Fretheim (1994: 152).
[10] Fretheim (1994: 153).
[11] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[12] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[13] Ellison (1986:
115). Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[14] Ellison (1986:
115).
[15] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[16] Ellison (1986:
115). Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[17] Fretheim (1994:
153). La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).
[18] Erickson (1994:
500-501).
[19] Erickson (1994:
500-501).
[20] Erickson (1994:
500-501).
[21] Erickson (1994:
500-501).
[22] Hamilton (1982:
26-27). Ellison (1986: 115).
[23] Hick (1970: 121-131).
[24] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8). Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 2, 7). Calvin (1543)(1996: 69).
