So, I found his post Theological vs. “Plain-Sense” Exegesis of Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5 with respect to the Marriage Covenant stimulating, especially since we only partly agree about some of the key issues. In the course of his argument John wrote:
This [monogamous] take on Genesis 2 is possible if and only if it is read against the grain of its proximate context - the book of Genesis, in which polygamy is taken for granted - and with the grain of its macro-context – inclusive of the New Testament, in which the ideal of monogamy is upheld by Jesus and Paul. This kind of exegesis is convincing if and only if one has a high view of scripture according to which, in classical terms, it is verbally inspired. On this view, each and every word of scripture is there for a reason that goes beyond what its human author could possibly have imagined.A fun argument, with stirring rhetoric, but is John right? Must I swallow the camel of verbal inspiration, imagining e.g. God putting on funny voices to "do" Jeremiah and Isaiah differently, if I want to read Gen 2 in the light of the rest of, and the trajectory of, Scripture as a whole. I do hope not, because a God with "mouth" squinched to make Mark sound different from John, though possessing a fine sense of humour can hardly be taken more seriously than one who assiduously plants fossil animals in order to confuse 19-20th century natural philosophers!
Surely the simple fact that Genesis 2 is found, read and used as part of a canon - a collection of literature that I perceive as related and (at least somewhat) coherent is sufficient to enable me to read Gen 2 in a way that is like the way Jesus does in the Gospels?
Fun rhetoric, but I submit no score!
Labels: bible, biblical.studies, canon
¶ 10:40 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
doesn't God's provision of Adam with a woman rather than many (e.g. one for each rib) argue for a monogomous reading? Surely providing Adam with numerous wives would have been a better way to jumpstart the human race (as well as affirm polygamny)? And does OT narrative ever portray polygamy as a good idea? isn't it usually a mistake, a sign of a lack of faith, and/or a source of strife? In the case of David and Solomon polygamy is the cause of many terrible outcomes. or is that me doing eisegesis?
By 
Jonathan Robinson, at
May 18, 2009 4:02 PM
Hi Tim,
Thanks for interacting with my post. So I take it the problem is "verbal inspiration." Have you read James Barr's defense of the concept of verbal inspiration? I read the defense a long time ago in some obscure place, but he repeated it in his famous book, "Fundamentalism." Basically, I remember him arguing that for scripture to be inspired in any meaningful sense, it has to be verbally inspired; that is, in terms of the words it contains, its linguistic reality. If instead inspiration is located in events or thoughts behind the text, the result is that speculation on our part is elevated to the status of God's word. That cure is worse than the supposed disease.
Verbal inspiration, of course, is attributed to scripture on the assumption that it is prophetic in its entirety, or in any case is to be read in that sense. The assumption underlies 1 Peter 1:10-12 and much Jewish and Christian exegesis (Qumran, NT, Talmud, Church Fathers, etc.).
What is interesting is that constitutional interpretation is premised on a similar assumption (see Jaroslav Pelikan's work I reference). That is, old words whose reference was circumscribed in ways appropriate to the time are interpreted all over again in the light of later developments. The interpretation is not arbitrary but proceeds in reference to a canon, a set of precedents, and an overarching meta-narrative.
The advantage of distinguishing between a historical-critical reading of a biblical passage or the Constitution, and a paradigmatic reading of the same in light of a larger whole is that eisegesis pure and simple is avoided.
Perhaps, however, I am misidentifying your beef with the concept of verbal inspiration. It could be that you equate it with the dictation theory of composition. Phenomenologically, poets and prophets sometimes receive their words by dictation in some sense. Even the dictation theory is not completely off base. But verbal inspiration is a claim about the strength of God's providence, not about the means by which God made sure that the words we have in Scripture, and no others, are found there.
By John Hobbins, at
May 19, 2009 1:53 PM
John, I am afraid I am not going to get time to look at Barr any time soon :( nor even time to put my thoughts together with the care your response deserves :( so I'll settle for a brief comment...
I guess at bottom my beef with both "verbal inspiration" (which, yes, does sound to me like dictation) and with "inerrancy" language about Scripture is that they seem to diminish the wonder of Scripture as at one and the same time human and divine, by making it merely a magic book. If the words are God's like some more complex version of the tablets of stone from Mt Sinai, then they are indeed perfect. But it seems to me then human freedom is diminished, and the wonderful variety of Scriptural expression merely suggests a god with a bad case of schizophrenia ;)
I'm expressing this badly, and lapsing into rhetorical flourishes :( but I hope I give you an idea of my concern...
By Tim, at
May 23, 2009 10:49 AM
Jonathan,
I think there are better ways than counting ribs to see Gen 2 as fitting with the overall thrust of Scripture (which I take to be towards marriage that unites one woman and one man). I'd notice the corresponding to him in 2:18 and the conclusion of the chapter in v.24 to say that whatever its historical context this text does teach monogamy - in the context of Scripture.
By Tim, at
May 23, 2009 10:52 AM
Hi Tim,
I getcha now a bit better.
But if the options are:
(1) that the Bible is God's word and its teaching perfect and infallible, just what God intended,
or
(2) the Bible is imperfect and fallible - except for the parts we like based on some external criterion,
I will go with (1) every time.
But it's not that simple, at least for those who consider Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana
- a treatise on the scriptural interpretation - to be of fundamental importance.
In De Doctrina, Augustine first deals with "discerning the subject-matter of Scripture, defining it as the love of God, expounding it in terms of the rule of faith, Trinity and incarnation" (Frances Young, p 473 in the volume she edited, Early Christian Literature (CUP), which I recommend).
From an Augustinian perspective (see further blogger Cynthia Nielsen, whom I interviewed this month for biblioblogs.com), "in the context of Scripture" within a hermeneutic of love allows for the possibility of reading an individual passage against its own grain, as Jesus did when he relativized Moses' teaching on divorce, in light of the whole counsel of God contained in Scripture more generally.
Augustine goes on to discuss language, tropes, and allegory, the need for grammatical analysis and inference, the difficulties of reading a text in translation, and so on.
But the really important thing is that Augustine sees Scripture as norma normans (a norm that norms all other norms) which nevertheless gives rise to norma normata (norms normed by it and derived from it) which in turn serve to focus and provide criteria for the interpretation of the norm.
Is the traditional way of reading scripture a virtuous or a vicious circle of interpretation? With exceptions, I would say that the circle has been virtuous.
It's also possible to enrich the traditional circle by allowing, if only provisorily, an external criterion to stand in judgment of scripture: that might be Marxism, feminism, post-colonialism, queer theory, etc. I believe in this kind of enrichment, so long as Scripture is also allowed to stand in judgment of these external criteria, and have the last word.
If it is not given the last word, then its authority has been evacuated. Which is fine for a non-believer. But I don't see how a believer can make this move - though it happens all the time, empirically - without compromising his or her faith in the one who died and rose according to the scriptures.
By John Hobbins, at
May 24, 2009 4:47 AM
Once again, John, a less thorough and complete reply than you deserve :(
Is it true that "the options are:
(1) that the Bible is God's word and its teaching perfect and infallible, just what God intended,
or
(2) the Bible is imperfect and fallible - except for the parts we like based on some external criterion,Can't the Bible be imperfect and fallible, a human document that like human lives bears the marks of Sin, yet at the same time we can say of it something like Joseph's conclusion on his life experience "but God intended it for good and for the salvation of many".
As a Baptist, I trust that God is at work, revealing the divine purposes, in and through our "church meetings" - which are not (despite the claims of some Baptists) democratic gatherings (or ought not to be!) - so that out of the human debate, discussion and prayer God's will is understood. In a similar way out of the discussion, debate and poetry and (often tendentious) history etc. of Scripture God's saving purposes are known.
Scripture as a whole is perspicuous and sufficient, while its parts are falible and human! But only if and when God is at work in, through and under the frailty and even sin of Scripture's humanity.
So it seems to me we are very close to agreement, but that we each have "shibboleths" that the other cannot speak ;)
By Tim, at
May 24, 2009 4:01 PM
PS and if I am honest also, there are those who loudly claim your shibboleths not only as standards of communal belonging, but also at the same time afirm them about all the parts of the Bible and not (as I think you do) only of Scripture as a whole.
I see a greater need to deny the truthfulness of proof-texting fundamentalists, than I do to protect the soveriegn grace of God (in Scripture)!
By Tim, at
May 24, 2009 4:07 PM
Tim,
We are very close on the substance. Nor am I surprised.
Since I serve in a denomination in which proof-texting fundamentalists are hard to find, but admirers of John Shelby Spong abound, my priorities and rhetorical strategies, however, are a little different.
Thanks for the conversation.
By John Hobbins, at
May 24, 2009 4:16 PM
Duane asks:A writing is canonical if and only if passages from it can be appealed to for the purpose of establishing a point of doctrine.
and like all good teachers, he answers his own question
Sociologically it is a good answer, but I think there is a little more to tease out here. A canon is a closed list of varied works - I realise that a canon need not be varied, though the Christian and Jewish ones John is discussing are, and need not be closed as indeed, at least for many centuries the Jewish canon was not (though I suspect that at any time it "felt" closed). As such a list a canon, as authority, allows an interesting mix of stability and flexibility.
Stability is useful to counteract the natural tendency for humans to "go off the rails" - at least with a canon there is some standard (the "rails") to call the human leader(s), or even whole communities, back to. (I can't think of any easy and simple way to avoid that sentence ending with a preposition ;-) Thus having a written authority over against human authority can be a "good thing". Both the reformers and the anabaptists are examples of such a calling back process that used Scripture as their primary tool.
Yet a canon is also flexible, the variety in the writings allows a greater degree, perhaps even a greater kind, of interpretation and thus allows for significant change. Think of the example of slavery, to some extent the battle for the Western mind over slavery was a battle over the interpretation of canon. A canon (of the sorts that Christians and Jews have) is both a tool for stability and for change.
Bob expresses this sort of idea vividly on a personal scale (I'll quote just a few lines here, but there is so much else in his post related to our question of the psychology of canon):
In his "Second Update" John also explores some of this, with a particular focus on Christian praxis in its relation with canon and doctrine (personally doctrine is a good word, but I am not so happy with "dogma", John) in this he is responding to a post by Doug (which I have not managed to mention above, but should have).
[12 June: Quote corrected to mirror author's correction]
[to Del.icio.us]
Why would you want to avoid ending sentences with prepositions? The English language (as it is actually used) has had no prohibition on this for many centuries. Check out http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004454.html for commentary.
<><
P.S. Interesting post, by the way. It relates to something I was reading today in one of those old-fashioned physical book things.
By 
, at
June 11, 2007 5:17 PM
Well... the parenthetical remark was intended to be somewhat facetious (hence the smiley), however - despite the entertaining discussion you point towards, and while I'm actually not at all averse to ending a clause or even sentence with a preposition when I have to (as I think I did twice there ;-) - I do think that often this is stylistic feature better avoided. Simply because, often, it makes the sentence or clause less easy to process. (Of course there are also times when the reverse is true as in Churchill's clever "up with which I will not put" example! See http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html for an entertaining discussion of this reputed saying.)
By Tim, at
June 11, 2007 5:44 PM
Fair enough. By the way, the same site has some commentary on how Churchill's (or whoever else's) example is really cheating. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001702.html
Sorry, we're straying remarkably off-topic here, aren't we?
<><
By , at
June 11, 2007 9:47 PM
Off topic is fine! Though maybe so as not to confuse people, or the Great Google, I should post about dangling prepositions and we could do it properly ;-)
By Tim, at
June 12, 2007 7:43 AM
John at Ancient Hebrew Poetry mused on questions of Canon, Inspiration, and Authority in probably the most thought-provoking biblical post this month. His superb Electronic Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew series was mainly last month... but I'm still hoping to respond to that... one day!
Of course there was the Class Attendance debate, since in the Tyndale Carey Graduate School I'm living at the intersection of two systems:
- one that says if students don't attend that's their loss - and potentially failure
- the other says less than 80% on the register (yes people they take a register!) and you cannot pass the course
Oh, yes, and they found the tomb of some guy called Herod, who appears in the other third of the Bible.
[to Del.icio.us]
Hey Tim... thanks for the link. I agree with you, and I have tended to be very hands off with attendance, I still wonder if some policy (like your 80% attendance) would help encourage students to attend. Note that I don't think I have an attendance problem in my classes. I am generally happy with attendance, though every once and a while there are quite a few missing (usually related to other assignments, etc.)
I trust you also submitted the nominated posts to the BSC email address? :-)
