5. Historical Character of the Record
The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch, etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning, which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible; so is plenary inspiration; Israel's history can rise to no higher levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides, the following facts of Israel's history are overlooked:
a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);
b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel's sacred records of the successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20; Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);
c) the accuracy of Israel's historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14; 20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);
d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);
e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32); f the utter impartiality displayed in recording the history of those who are the patriarchs and the fathers of tribes (12:10 fi; 20:1-18; 26:1-17; 30:1-43; chapter 34; chapter 38). Koenig's Commentary (p. 80 ff.) gives additional material on this score.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Eric, Kenneth Matthews, the Old Testament scholar wrote:
"If one is disinclined to surrender to God, one is inclined to read the text in the light of our own 'culture.' "
"Are we submitting the the picture of God in Scripture? Or are we putting ourselves over Scripture and rewriting it in terms of our own preferences." As quoted in Time 4.11.96, p79, 'Genesis reconsidered.'
I think Matthews comments adequately describe the actions of the Biblical compromisers within the SydAng community.
Interestingly on another site there in a man called Alan who takes a similar position to the SydAng compromisers. He is very easy to contradict, in comparison to the AngloNasties, as he has not had his fables polished to worldly perfection, unlike like some we have debated with here. Unlike the others he is not glib.
"If one is disinclined to surrender to God, one is inclined to read the text in the light of our own 'culture" Kenneth Matthews certainly had it right, So many do not sing the hymn in all honesty when they sing "Nothing in my hands I bring ..." In reality they carry baggage to the LORD, the baggage of the world.
Neil
Post a Comment