why isn't the resurrection also myth 'in the form of history'?

[a mere housewife]

The 'dying God', the suffering saviour (even bearing the wrath of god, as Prometheus), the God reborn, the world reborn -- are just as rife in the myths of nations and religions (before and after Christ) as the creation. Often the same symbols that Scripture uses to speak of Christ are employed. For instance, this is at least first dynasty Egyptian, many years BC (cited in E. A. Wallis Budge The Gods of the Egyptians), in the mouth of Osiris, "I am Yesterday, and I am Today, and I have the power to be born a second time." (the Book of the Dead)

If it is legitimate to take the historical form (which everyone seems to admit) of the early chapters of Genesis as a non-historical myth because of its resemblances to other myths, why would the same reasons not lead us to take the suffering, death, resurrection and 'conquering saviour' to be myth in the 'form' of history? Why, despite the same symbols cropping up in many different literatures, do we not attempt to dichotomize theology and fact in these narratives?

(Please note that this is not for the sake of an argument: I am not well informed about this, and would genuinely like to understand where and how my brothers in Christ who are arguing that Genesis is a myth because of the genre, draw the line between creation and other teachings of Scripture that are anticipated/recurring themes in literature.)

 

[Wannabee]

Me too.

It's amazing how many can fail to see God's sovereignty in things like this. Some claim that God reacted by using local customs, traditions and social norms by writing Scripture as a sort of deterrent or evidence against what was currently present. What is neglected is the fact that all of these were present BECAUSE God is sovereign, not in spite of it. He set the stage. He worked in all these men to will and to do, according to His own good pleasure. Why was the Abrahamic covenant presented as it was? Because God had established it as a norm already. Why are there similar creation accounts? Why are there similar flood accounts? First of all, because it really happened. Second of all, because it helps men to discern the truth from the lie. All accounts other than the biblical record point to man or some not-god. Only Scripture reveals the true character of the Creator in all accounts, even when His name is not mentioned.
This same goes for the suffering servant. The idea was not new. Prophets had filled the role time and time again. Isaiah pointed to the coming Christ and the salvation He would bring. The truth of God's promise to Eve became perverted in many cultures over a period of time, as did the creation, flood and other truths found in Scripture. Satan's lies counterfeit God's truth time and time again. But God's Word stood true. In it we find the only infallible source of truth. And to question this on any level is to rip the foundation of the sacrifice of God's only Son and worship on the altar of vain philosophies and pseudosciences, thus trampling the blood of Jesus Christ under foot.

 

[Ravens]

My first thought is that, despite superficial and obscured commonalities with other "dying"/"rising" gods (and they are often superficial and obscured), that the Gospels purport to be history. So, if we want to be consistent in how we treat both Genesis and the Resurrection, it seems as if one must interpret Genesis, not in light of preexisting or contemporaneous mythologies, but in light of what the text itself purports to be. In that respect, commonalities with any other culture are ultimately irrelevant, and we must take the holy writ as it presents itself. So the complicated "cosmogonic" questions would seem to boil down to the rather old-school, "What is the "genre" of Genesis 1?" debate.

 

[raekwon]

The 'dying God', the suffering saviour (even bearing the wrath of god, as Prometheus), the God reborn, the world reborn -- are just as rife in the myths of nations and religions (before and after Christ) as the creation. Often the same symbols that Scripture uses to speak of Christ are employed. For instance, this is at least first dynasty Egyptian, many years BC (cited in E. Wallace Budge The Gods of the Egyptians), in the mouth of Osiris, "I am Yesterday, and I am Today, and I have the power to be born a second time." (the Book of the Dead)

If it is legitimate to take the historical form (which everyone seems to admit) of the early chapters of Genesis as a non-historical myth because of its resemblances to other myths, why would the same reasons not lead us to take the suffering, death, resurrection and 'conquering saviour' to be myth in the 'form' of history? Why, despite the same symbols cropping up in many different literatures, do we not attempt to dichotomize theology and fact in these narratives?

(Please note that this is not for the sake of an argument: I am not well informed about this, and would genuinely like to understand where and how my brothers in Christ who are arguing that Genesis is a myth because of the genre draw the line between creation and other teachings of Scripture that are anticipated/recurring themes in other literature.)

Interesting. It seems to me that these folks are confusing exactly where "myth" and "history" figure in the creation account. I would not call it "myth in the form of history", but I think that it's accurate to say that the Genesis creation account is "history in the form of myth", insofar as "myth" is a literary genre, and "history" indicates that the story as presented is, in fact, true.

Saying that it's "myth in the form of history" is just incorrect, in a myriad of ways.

 

[Ravens]

This is a bit of a tangent, but there was a thread from 2 - 3 years back dealing with creation and the Framework hypothesis. I remember Fred Greco, R. Scott Clark, et al. participating on it; the one where, I believe, Dr. Clark was arguing that six day creation was not a good "boundary marker" for Reformed orthodoxy, and where Rev. Greco said that he was surprised and encouraged by the number of 6-Day Creationists on the forum. That's somewhat irrelevant, but I thought it might help a moderator find the archived thread (I tried, but couldn't).

Anyhow, Rev. Buchanan had a short, pithy, poignant post about how the different accounts of the resurrection (with his tongue in his cheek) might imply a "Framework View" of the event, wherein the most important point was the theological truth that was taught, and not the four apparently contradictory accounts.

If someone finds it, they should copy and paste that post in this thread.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This is a bit of a tangent, but there was a thread from 2 - 3 years back dealing with creation and the Framework hypothesis. I remember Fred Greco, R. Scott Clark, et al. participating on it; the one where, I believe, Dr. Clark was arguing that six day creation was not a good "boundary marker" for Reformed orthodoxy, and where Rev. Greco said that he was surprised and encouraged by the number of 6-Day Creationists on the forum. That's somewhat irrelevant, but I thought it might help a moderator find the archived thread (I tried, but couldn't).

Anyhow, Rev. Buchanan had a short, pithy, poignant post about how the different accounts of the resurrection (with his tongue in his cheek) might imply a "Framework View" of the event, wherein the most important point was the theological truth that was taught, and not the four apparently contradictory accounts.

If someone finds it, they should copy and paste that post in this thread.

Joshua -- Here you go:

Originally posted by Contra Mundum on 2-25-06

I appreciate Dr. Clark's post, even if we disagree on interpreting the pasage.

May I add a word to the thread concerning my main objection to the "non-historic-narrative genre" interpretation?

I am not aware (another way of saying "I am ignorant") of a post-Reformation radical reworking of basic hermeneutical categories in order to accommodate a non-geocentric world view. Was their's not an admission that standard "secular" categories such as poetry, that the language of observation versus "modern" technical precision, etc., must all be taken into account? Didn't this move bring biblical hermeneutics even more closely in line with the Renaissance humanists ad fontes principles, and the recovery of old learning? I challenge the notion that this further move was especially prompted (in Reformation nations) by the rise of autonomous Enlightenment rationalistic humanism. Wheat and tares grew close together in those days.

I realize that something similar is being postulated in our age, namely that new data (a constant stream) re. the physical universe, and that of other disciplines, demand the continual integration of our theological enterprise into the whole university. But quite frankly, it seems to me as though the older exegesis is cast out wholesale by conservatives as untenable in the "modern age" (did the fathers get nothing right regarding the intent of the author in explaining the origin of the world?). If God wanted us to believe for all time the historic position of Reformed Orthodoxy prior to the Darwinian revolution, based on a historic-narrative reading of the text (with all the recognizable "marks" of that genre), how much clearer could he have made it?

A fair question, I think. Still unanswered in any form.

And in its place we are offered a completely new genre, conveniently tailored for a throughly accomodated understanding of Genesis 1. Or is it Genesis 1-2? Or is it Genesis 1-3? Or is it Genesis 1-11? Why is Abraham the first truly "historic" figure in Scripture, according to some conservative scholars? They claim they are simply applying the same hermeneutic conservatives first advanced to explain away the historic-narrative (pretend!) of Genesis 1. Why not extend the mythic history perception all the way to Genesis 50? After all, there is no canon to tell us where "exalted prose" stops and "narrative history" is in effect.

Dr. Clark would balk, I'm sure, at such extremes, but there are other college and seminary professors teaching in conservative institutions who will not, and do not. How shall we object to them, having already accomodated in this fashion, without justly being accused of arbitrariness?

Why not include Exodus? What about the 10 plagues? Real? Or just a story about Jehovah defeating all the pagan gods of the ancients? We can find a "poetic structure" there, a framework. And if structure is the determining factor, along with there being no hard evidence from science that there ever was an Israelite slavery, or plagues, or the departure of millions of the population, why not apply the new hermeneutic? Is there a reliable biblical-theological canon that consistently informs us when we are in danger of rejecting a vital truth, when we mistakenly seek to apply the "exalted prose" rule? If there is one, I await its explanation. If "exalted prose" is a new category of interpretation, I need to know how to 1) identify it consistently, and 2) apply it to my exegesis, and bless the flock thereby.

Maybe another doctrine, one a little closer to the religious core, seems utterly out of place in the present era. Don't like the Virgin birth? Don't like Atonement? That's fine, just create a new hermeneutic that removes the incongruity between then and now. Where will it end?

I'm not arguing for a static, inflexible, ossified state of hermeneutical affairs. I'm not suggesting that we have arrived at a state where Semper Reformanda is no longer a legitimate battle cry. Someone just answer the question, "How exactly did the earlier exegetes err? What were the PROBLEMS? What did they have correct?" Don't blithely dismiss them as "inadequate for today, no explanation needed," and then offer an alternative interpretation, a "solid gold" paradigm-shift, that (supposedly) solves all the old problems.

There are thousands of people who are still wondering what those "problems" are, and why so many of the people who first spotted them were so hostile to the faith (and not neutral truth-seekers).


Anyway, there's my take.
Bewilderedly Yours,
(Still stuck in the Dark Ages),

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/old-earth-v-young-earth-12114/index2.html#post159960

Originally posted by Contra Mundum on 6-30-05

Kevin,
I think you are mistaken (as I was) on Mr Hernandez' epsoused position. The only clear advocate for "framework" (so far) is Robin.

Robin,
You're a dear brother. But In my humble opinion, Framework's attempt to "elevate" the debate, and so sidestep the hermeneutical issue (which will not go away), frankly enfeebles the church. What if we used the same tactic to dodge fights over justification? Or imputation? Or the Resurrection?

"Well folks, we have 4 "accounts" of the resurrection of Jesus. If we take just one of them as "normative" or "chronological" then clearly we have irreconcilable conflicts. So, since at least ONE of them must plainly be understood as containing more theology than history, its clear that the total message of "Resurrection" is not HOW it happened, but THAT it happened. Resurrection is theology, not history. The important thing is that the disciples understood that whatever Jesus meant by the "resurrection" he promised, they were convinced that he had accomplished it. And so are we! We'll let the "fundamentalists" fight with the liberals over the swamp of "bodily resurrections" of Christ or anybody else. They are all wrong. We're above that. Our purpose is to stand on the mountaintops of the "theology of Resurrection," and plant our flag. We oppose everyone who denies Resurrection! We are Pro-Resurrection!"

If you oppose that kind of thinking, interpreting, and theology with respect to the resurrection (and I should think that you would!), how do you combat it? Give me a biblical-theological rule, a justification for applying that approach when it comes to Genesis 1 & 2, but noplace else. What reliable technique governs the application of this rule? What about Gen. 3? Was there a Serpent, a talking snake that deceived a real woman named Eve? Were the trees tangible objects? How about their fruit? Could it be chewed and swallowed? (If I had already given up Gen 1 & 2 as history, Chapter 3 would already be looking mighty long-in-the-tooth right now as well--falling like dominoes.) Which chapter or verse division marks "real" history from then on? How do you tell the previous section, with all the "marks of narrative" from the subsequent section that has all the same marks?

These are not just rhetorical questions. I think Framework advocates owe the theological world a defense of the whole hermeneutic. Pipa's article demonstrates the weakness of Framework from the standpoint of the historical-grammatical school (read Reformation school) of hermeneutics. Framework advocates deny the validity of the criticisms by claiming they do not apply. And that is where they leave it. Again, I'll say it: JUSTIFY setting aside the old rules, the old hermeneutic.

http://www.puritanboard.com/96116-post25.html

 

[Me Died Blue]

This is a bit of a tangent, but there was a thread from 2 - 3 years back dealing with creation and the Framework hypothesis. I remember Fred Greco, R. Scott Clark, et al. participating on it; the one where, I believe, Dr. Clark was arguing that six day creation was not a good "boundary marker" for Reformed orthodoxy, and where Rev. Greco said that he was surprised and encouraged by the number of 6-Day Creationists on the forum. That's somewhat irrelevant, but I thought it might help a moderator find the archived thread (I tried, but couldn't).

Andrew found the thread Dr. Clark participated in, and in which Bruce made the contributions you mentioned. I think the post in the other thread you were possibly thinking of is here, in an older thread:

Originally posted by fredtgreco on 10-8-03

This is very interesting to me. It kind of surprised me (pleasantly) to see that the overwhelming majority of members here take a natural day view.

I'm curious, would either person who took a different view car to explain why?

Days of Creation

 

[Ravens]

Drinks on the house to both of you.



I guess I had redacted two different primary threads into one "canonical form" inside of my head.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Drinks on the house to both of you.

I want a Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA!

I guess I had redacted two different primary threads into one "canonical form" inside of my head.

And who ever said they had to be chronological?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Genesis, uh, I mean, Guinness for me!

 

[Grymir]

Since the Bible predates the myths, they stole from the Bible anyway. There is no religious thought or idea that was not stolen from the Bible first. The 'myth' stories in other cultures were taken from the Bible, not the other way around as so many say.

 

[a mere housewife]

Hi Mr. Johnson; I think the statement of that position might be unhelpful though -- not that I don't believe that Scripture contains the historical truth that all the myths are grasping after -- but the predating poses something of a problem because for instance, the quote from the book of the dead above would seem to predate the same expressions in Scripture by many years.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Hi Mr. Johnson; I think the statement of that position might be unhelpful though -- not that I don't believe that Scripture contains the historical truth that all the myths are grasping after -- but the predating poses something of a problem because for instance, the quote from the book of the dead above would seem to predate the same expressions in Scripture by many years.

Indeed. We shouldn't forget there was a lot of time for history and other cultures to pass before Moses wrote the Torah.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Hi Mr. Johnson; I think the statement of that position might be unhelpful though -- not that I don't believe that Scripture contains the historical truth that all the myths are grasping after -- but the predating poses something of a problem because for instance, the quote from the book of the dead above would seem to predate the same expressions in Scripture by many years.

Well it depends on if you believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch whole cloth or instead edited and compiled it all into a single document.

 

[a mere housewife]

Ct, even so -- I don't remember off the top of my head anything similar to the statement I quoted until the New Testament?