You're moving your horsey wrong

[pelagius]

There has been a fair amount of discussion of the Old Testament recently. Much of it expressing frustration with the church's curriculum, approach to the Old Testament or with other members of gospel doctrine's approach and comments. While some of the comments have been insightful I must of admit that my median reaction has been that CUF is the guy that while playing chess yells at his opponent for moving his horsey incorrectly and then moves his pawn backwards.

For example, CUF has collectively had a good time poking holes in "literalism" as it applies to the first twelve chapters of Genesis. Certainly an easy target, maybe cathartic, and yes, the typical literalist is probably moving his horsey wrong. Often though, I think the suggested alternatives aren't much better. For example, many have suggested viewing the creation story or the flood story as allegory. fine, but an allegory of what? You have infinite flexibility with an allegory so how is methodological discipline imposed? How is one allegory privileged above another? Is allegory preferred simply because it avoids a confrontation with science? Can't the allegory also be wrong or even silly?

My advice is to go back to the beginning. That will help impose some methodological discipline and clarify the important issues. An important starting point for interpreting scripture is decide two things:

1. The Genre. And I mean this in the most general sense.
   
   
2. The social context of the writing and other general information that contextualizes the setting and place in time (sitz im leben).

Until you tell decide the genre and "setting in life" of Genesis you can't possibly think about how to interpret the book.

I suspect what is going on, at least in some small measure, in some (or maybe many) people are at least intuitively uncomfortable with what they perceive as the genre and social context. Specifically, I suspect that the some would view Genesis as largely or least is some part mythic in character (in the academic sense) and a pre-modern, pre-scientific description of creation. This is unsettling to many because scriptures "shouldn't" be those things. I flatly disagree. This seems to make some unwarranted assumptions about God and scripture. Genesis can be mythic, but still the word of God (i.e., true). I agree with Peter Enns, "we must resist the notion that for God to inculturate himself is somehow beneath him. This is precisely how he shows his love for the World." To borrow once again from Enns, scripture, like Jesus, is both fully divine and fully human.

It doesn't matter to me that Noah couldn't fit all the animals in the ark. I will still read and interpret the story as if he did. The genre and "setting in life" of Genesis make it a non-issue for me that he couldn't.

I suspect that most will make more progress with how to interpret Genesis if they start at, well, the starting point. This makes it much easier to think about potential conflicts between modernity and faith. Furthermore, thinking about genre and social context will impose some discipline on interpretive methodology.

[Jarid in Cedar]

There has been a fair amount of discussion of the Old Testament recently. Much of it expressing frustration with the church's curriculum, approach to the Old Testament or with other members of gospel doctrine's approach and comments. While some of the comments have been insightful I must of admit that my median reaction has been that CUF is the guy that while playing chess yells at his opponent for moving his horsey incorrectly and then moves his pawn backwards.

For example, CUF has collectively had a good time poking holes in "literalism" as it applies to the first twelve chapters of Genesis. Certainly an easy target, maybe cathartic, and yes, the typical literalist is probably moving his horsey wrong. Often though, I think the suggested alternatives aren't much better. For example, many have suggested viewing the creation story or the flood story as allegory. fine, but an allegory of what? You have infinite flexibility with an allegory so how is methodological discipline imposed? How is one allegory privileged above another? Is allegory preferred simply because it avoids a confrontation with science? Can't the allegory also be wrong or even silly?

My advice is to go back to the beginning. That will help impose some methodological discipline and clarify the important issues. An important starting point for interpreting scripture is decide two things:

1. The Genre. And I mean this in the most general sense.
   
   
2. The social context of the writing and other general information that contextualizes the setting and place in time (sitz im leben).

Until you tell decide the genre and "setting in life" of Genesis you can't possibly think about how to interpret the book.

I suspect what is going on, at least in some small measure, is some (or maybe many) people are at least intuitively uncomfortable with what they perceive as the genre and social context. Specifically, I suspect that the some would view Genesis as largely or least is some part mythic in character (in the academic sense) and a pre-modern, pre-scientific description of creation. This is unsettling to many because scriptures "shouldn't" be those things. I flatly disagree. This seems to make some unwarranted assumptions about God and scripture. Genesis can be mythic, but still the word of God (i.e., true). I agree with Peter Enns, "we must resist the notion that for God to inculturate himself is somehow beneath him. This is precisely how he shows his love for the World." To borrow once again form Enns, scripture, like Jesus, is both fully divine and fully human.

It doesn't matter to me that Noah couldn't fit all the animals in the ark. I will still read and interpret the story as if he did. The genre and "setting in life" of Genesis make it a non-issue for me that he couldn't.

I suspect that most will make more progress with how to interpret Genesis if they start at, well, the starting point. This makes it much easier to think about potential conflicts between modernity and faith. Furthermore, thinking about genre and social context will impose some discipline on interpretive methodology.

I highlighted the 2 statements that resonate with me. I think that some people are definitely tired/afraid of conflict. That conflict can be within ones self, with family/friends or society in general. to that end we set personal rules on how to avoid the conflicts. We set a paradigm that resonates well within our own beliefs and feelings. While this helps, we have too many emotionally intimate interactions with others who have a differing paradigm. Balancing those interactions are the key to keeping harmony within ourselves.

[il Padrino Ute]

Great post, Pelagius.

When it came to the flood, my dad taught us kids that when Noah talked about the Earth being covered by water, it wasn't the entire Earth, but as Noah looked at it, there was water everywhere. IOW, when Noah looked to the horizon, all he saw was water.

My understanding is that from a height of 300 feet the horizon is about 25 miles away. If you were on the ark, unless my limited math skills are wrong, that would be a diameter of 50 miles. It would sure look like the entire Earth was covered, especially if you were in a relatively flat area as Noah was.

It wasn't until I was on my mission when I started to think about the Flood as an allegory. On of the other Elders in the office with me asked our MP his thoughts about the Flood and the MP told us to think about it allegorically rather than literally.

As for me, I go back and forth between it being an allegory and it being a regional flood. But to be perfectly honest, I don't necessarily look at Genesis as being literal or allegorical because it really has no bearing on my salvation - if salvation is literal.

[I.J. Reilly]

There has been a fair amount of discussion of the Old Testament recently. Much of it expressing frustration with the church's curriculum, approach to the Old Testament or with other members of gospel doctrine's approach and comments. While some of the comments have been insightful I must of admit that my median reaction has been that CUF is the guy that while playing chess yells at his opponent for moving his horsey incorrectly and then moves his pawn backwards.

For example, CUF has collectively had a good time poking holes in "literalism" as it applies to the first twelve chapters of Genesis. Certainly an easy target, maybe cathartic, and yes, the typical literalist is probably moving his horsey wrong. Often though, I think the suggested alternatives aren't much better. For example, many have suggested viewing the creation story or the flood story as allegory. fine, but an allegory of what? You have infinite flexibility with an allegory so how is methodological discipline imposed? How is one allegory privileged above another? Is allegory preferred simply because it avoids a confrontation with science? Can't the allegory also be wrong or even silly?

My advice is to go back to the beginning. That will help impose some methodological discipline and clarify the important issues. An important starting point for interpreting scripture is decide two things:

1. The Genre. And I mean this in the most general sense.
   
   
2. The social context of the writing and other general information that contextualizes the setting and place in time (sitz im leben).

Until you tell decide the genre and "setting in life" of Genesis you can't possibly think about how to interpret the book.

I suspect what is going on, at least in some small measure, in some (or maybe many) people are at least intuitively uncomfortable with what they perceive as the genre and social context. Specifically, I suspect that the some would view Genesis as largely or least is some part mythic in character (in the academic sense) and a pre-modern, pre-scientific description of creation. This is unsettling to many because scriptures "shouldn't" be those things. I flatly disagree. This seems to make some unwarranted assumptions about God and scripture. Genesis can be mythic, but still the word of God (i.e., true). I agree with Peter Enns, "we must resist the notion that for God to inculturate himself is somehow beneath him. This is precisely how he shows his love for the World." To borrow once again from Enns, scripture, like Jesus, is both fully divine and fully human.

It doesn't matter to me that Noah couldn't fit all the animals in the ark. I will still read and interpret the story as if he did. The genre and "setting in life" of Genesis make it a non-issue for me that he couldn't.

I suspect that most will make more progress with how to interpret Genesis if they start at, well, the starting point. This makes it much easier to think about potential conflicts between modernity and faith. Furthermore, thinking about genre and social context will impose some discipline on interpretive methodology.

pelagius, I appreciate these thoughts, but I'm a little confused (and I'll freely admit to not being the brightest crayon in the box, so it's probably just me).

As I see it, you've set yourself up a person who, uncomfortable with the implications of literalism in the scripture, decides that an allegorical understanding is for her. Then this person uses a modern lens to interpret the story and comes up with whatever allegory she want to see (essentially making the story more a reflection of herself, more than anything else). This, in turn, is how you view the ordinary CUF member's view on the Old Testament. Your conclusion is that in the end, this view is not really any improvement over literalism.

Your remedy, then, is two-fold. (1)Decide your own take on the "genre" of the scripture (possibly as broad as fiction/non-fiction, or maybe a little more narrow, i.e. epic, tragedy, comedy) and (2)Understand the context of when Genesis is written.

You then come to the conclusion that some or many (a possible reference to the previously created straw man above, which represents the ordinary CUF member) have decided on a non-literal viewpoint because they are uncomfortable with their perception of the genre and social context (suggesting a misunderstanding of the genre/social context). Furthermore, this ordinary CUFfer seems to reject a divine component to scripture because they can't square their mythic understanding of a pre-modern, pre-scientific document with their idea of God or what God should be.

You then flatly reject the bloated straw man you have created and state your belief that it is not beneath God to use the culture of those to whom he is speaking to get his point across. In turn, this leads you to a literalist reading of the text because the genre and "setting in life" make it a non-issue that some of the events of Genesis seem impossible.

If my reading of what you have written is correct, then I have a couple of thoughts. I would be interested in your take on the genre and setting in life of the Old Testament in general and Genesis in particular that leads to a literalist reading of the stories. If your argument is that "it doesn't matter if these events were real or not, only that those who wrote them believed that they were real" then I think you are maybe just talking past those that take issue with a literalist reading (as it's my belief that those that are bothered by a literalist reading aren't so much annoyed at someone thinking that the events actually happened, rather, the bother stems from how they use that to inform the rest of their life).

Also, if you are saying that it only matters whether the original authors thought that the events were real, then I would suggest that you aren't arriving at a place very far from those who want to interpret it allegorically. That is, both of you are looking for something that is beyond what is actually written down, whereas the literalist is stuck inside the box of the text.

Finally, if I may, I would suggest that perhaps your guide to scriptural interpretation is backwards. If the "setting in life" does, in fact, matter to the interpretation of the scriptures, then perhaps that should be your starting point. If you are concerned with the setting in life of the author(s) of the book, then why wouldn't you be concerned with the genre in which they conceived it?

Anyways, like I said, I could be totally off base with my interpretation of what you said. If that's the case, please inform my ignorance, as I appreciate very much what you have to say on scriptural matters and would like to hear more.

One last thing, your Enns quote got me thinking, What if God were to reveal a whole new creation story to man? If it is truly not beneath him to adapt to the culture of those to whom he is speaking, why not update it? I think something like that is very much possible in the LDS church (which is part of the reason why the idea of a living prophet is so radical) and would be pretty cool too.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Nice response, IJR. This has the potential to be a great thread.

Pelagius, looking at the first and last parts of your post you seem to be making a distinction between allegory and myth. If so, can you explain the difference to me?

[Solon]

While I think there are some interesting (and very valid) points in here, I find the "horsey" comment quite condescending.

One could quite easily tender the same criticism of your simplistic treatment of "the author of Genesis" and the presentist reading of a modern chastity message into Judah/Joseph. (http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...06&postcount=1)

[pelagius]

Your remedy, then, is two-fold. (1)Decide your own take on the "genre" of the scripture (possibly as broad as fiction/non-fiction, or maybe a little more narrow, i.e. epic, tragedy, comedy) and (2)Understand the context of when Genesis is written.

To be clear, though, you are already doing this ... You've decided both whenever you interpret anything. I'm suggesting there is value in being more explicit about the assumptions you are bringing to the text particularly in the form of those two things.

Furthermore, this ordinary CUFfer seems to reject a divine component to scripture because they can't square their mythic understanding of a pre-modern, pre-scientific document with their idea of God or what God should be.

I certainly didn't mean to imply this ... An allegory clearly doesn't reject the divine. However, discomfort with the nature of Genesis often, in my view, has people turn to quickly to allegory as the only intellectually respectable option that preserves Genesis as scripture.

If your argument is that "it doesn't matter if these events were real or not, only that those who wrote them believed that they were real"

My suggestion is different: the distinction between history and mythology simply wasn't important to ancient writers. It's a modern notion.

.

Finally, if I may, I would suggest that perhaps your guide to scriptural interpretation is backwards. If the "setting in life" does, in fact, matter to the interpretation of the scriptures, then perhaps that should be your starting point. If you are concerned with the setting in life of the author(s) of the book, then why wouldn't you be concerned with the genre in which they conceived it?

I am concerned with genre in which it was conceived and I my suggestion was to read it in light of that genre.

[pelagius]

While I think there are some interesting (and very valid) points in here, I find the "horsey" comment quite condescending.

True, it was and it was unfair to many or most. I apologize. It was meant to express a sense of frustration for how the debate is framed. I missed the mark.

One could quite easily tender the same criticism of your simplistic treatment of "the author of Genesis" and the presentist reading of a modern chastity message into Judah/Joseph. (http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...06&postcount=1)

My lesson was probably simplistic (so no doubt guilty as charged there, not sure I am capable of something non-simplistic when it comes to biblical interpretation) ... but it was not actually about chastity at all. Certainly sexual restraint plays a role in those stories but it doesn't map into modern notions LDS notions of chastity (for example, I fully accept that Judah's consorting with a "prostitute' would have not been a sin in that time or place). Not sure what it was in my lesson notes that suggested I was making such a mapping?

[Solon]

True, it was and it was unfair to many or most.



My lesson was probably simplistic (so no doubt guilty as charged there, not sure I am capable of something non-simplistic when it comes to biblical interpretation) ... but it was not actually about chastity at all. Certainly sexual restraint plays a role in those stories but it doesn't map into modern notions LDS notions of chastity. Not sure what it was in my lesson notes that suggested I was making such a mapping?

My whole point is to avoid taking your lesson to task. People get out of the scriptures what they want to, what they need. While there are always potential criticisms of "interpretation" wrapped up in that, it's part of the beauty of scripture. I think most people read the scriptures for what they want to see (I'm no exception). And that's okay. That's all I was trying to say.


For the record, though, I was referring to this specifically:

# Are the differences between Jacob and Judah here important? Do we learn anything about each of them? Are the differences instructive for each of us? Is either reaction entirely appropriate?

# Judah is exposed because of his sexual impulsiveness and Joseph ultimately triumphs in part because of his sexual restraint. Seduction and failed seduction.

But that's not a bad or "wrong" way to deal with these stories, especially if someone wants to make a point about chastity and sexual restraint.

I think the discussion of the ancient and modern concepts of genres of history, biography, myth, allegory, legend, and folk-tale are all very appropriate for studying any form of writing from the ancient world.

[SeattleUte]

There has been a fair amount of discussion of the Old Testament recently. Much of it expressing frustration with the church's curriculum, approach to the Old Testament or with other members of gospel doctrine's approach and comments. While some of the comments have been insightful I must of admit that my median reaction has been that CUF is the guy that while playing chess yells at his opponent for moving his horsey incorrectly and then moves his pawn backwards.

For example, CUF has collectively had a good time poking holes in "literalism" as it applies to the first twelve chapters of Genesis. Certainly an easy target, maybe cathartic, and yes, the typical literalist is probably moving his horsey wrong. Often though, I think the suggested alternatives aren't much better. For example, many have suggested viewing the creation story or the flood story as allegory. fine, but an allegory of what? You have infinite flexibility with an allegory so how is methodological discipline imposed? How is one allegory privileged above another? Is allegory preferred simply because it avoids a confrontation with science? Can't the allegory also be wrong or even silly?

My advice is to go back to the beginning. That will help impose some methodological discipline and clarify the important issues. An important starting point for interpreting scripture is decide two things:

1. The Genre. And I mean this in the most general sense.
   
   
2. The social context of the writing and other general information that contextualizes the setting and place in time (sitz im leben).

Until you tell decide the genre and "setting in life" of Genesis you can't possibly think about how to interpret the book.

I suspect what is going on, at least in some small measure, in some (or maybe many) people are at least intuitively uncomfortable with what they perceive as the genre and social context. Specifically, I suspect that the some would view Genesis as largely or least is some part mythic in character (in the academic sense) and a pre-modern, pre-scientific description of creation. This is unsettling to many because scriptures "shouldn't" be those things. I flatly disagree. This seems to make some unwarranted assumptions about God and scripture. Genesis can be mythic, but still the word of God (i.e., true). I agree with Peter Enns, "we must resist the notion that for God to inculturate himself is somehow beneath him. This is precisely how he shows his love for the World." To borrow once again from Enns, scripture, like Jesus, is both fully divine and fully human.

It doesn't matter to me that Noah couldn't fit all the animals in the ark. I will still read and interpret the story as if he did. The genre and "setting in life" of Genesis make it a non-issue for me that he couldn't.

I suspect that most will make more progress with how to interpret Genesis if they start at, well, the starting point. This makes it much easier to think about potential conflicts between modernity and faith. Furthermore, thinking about genre and social context will impose some discipline on interpretive methodology.

In other words, the only reliable truth in the Genesis stories is allegorical truth.

[I.J. Reilly]

My suggestion is different: the distinction between history and mythology simply wasn't important to ancient writers. It's a modern notion.

I am concerned with genre in which it was conceived and I my suggestion was to read it in light of that genre.

Overall, then, you're suggestion is to be more aware of our modes of interpretation when we read the OT?

If that's the case, then this is a good suggestion, but I don't see the need for the straw man that you set up, as the suggestion would seem to apply to anyone who reads scripture (or really reads, for that matter) and would apply equally to both the literalist and non-literalist.

[pelagius]

My whole point is to avoid taking your lesson to task. People get out of the scriptures what they want to, what they need. While there are always potential criticisms of "interpretation" wrapped up in that, it's part of the beauty of scripture. I think most people read the scriptures for what they want to see (I'm no exception). And that's okay. That's all I was trying to say.

I don't disagree with this ... and I am glad when people find meaning in scripture no matter the reading. I do, however, prefer certain approaches and certain readings.

For the record, though, I was referring to this specifically:

# Are the differences between Jacob and Judah here important? Do we learn anything about each of them? Are the differences instructive for each of us? Is either reaction entirely appropriate?

# Judah is exposed because of his sexual impulsiveness and Joseph ultimately triumphs in part because of his sexual restraint. Seduction and failed seduction.

But that's not a bad or "wrong" way to deal with these stories, especially if someone wants to make a point about chastity and sexual restraint.

I understand you not trying to be critical of my notes but let me defend them anyways because you are suggesting I am not following my own advice in this thread. At the very least I am trying to and I don't think I am guilty of the presentism I was accused of.

The first bullet point has nothing even to do with the question of chastity. It's contrasting Jacob and Judah's grieving.

The second point may be presentist in some sense but it is not a point about modern notions of chastity (I think you might be inferring too much in terms of my use of language such as "expose"). I don't think Judah sinned by having sex with Tamar. On the other hand, Tamar's deception does not work if Judah isn't sexually impulsive.

Also, note the lesson is 8 full pages and the sexual component is only used to mark a parallel.

[pelagius]

In other words, the only reliable truth in the Genesis stories is allegorical truth.

I don't believe I am implying this but maybe I just using allegorical different than you.

[Babs]

so what do you do about sections like the opening of Genesis, where you have two different creation stories? Even if the text had been intended as allegorical or figurative, why would we have two different versions?

[pelagius]

Overall, then, you're suggestion is to be more aware of our modes of interpretation when we read the OT?

I'm not sure it is my overall suggestion but it does strike me as a good suggestion.

If that's the case, then this is a good suggestion, but I don't see the need for the straw man that you set up, as the suggestion would seem to apply to anyone who reads scripture (or really reads, for that matter) and would apply equally to both the literalist and non-literalist.

Sure, I agree that taking issues of context and genre seriously is an important issue for all. On the other hand, my more general point is to think about what can or can't be scripture in terms of writing. Can a joke be scripture? Can satire be scripture? My answer is yes. That's the point of my "straw man." my sense is that some people have pre-conceived notions of what scripture can or can't be in terms of genre and that causes unnecessary tension. Maybe people don't ... In as much as that's not actually a real tension then my overall point reduces in large part to what you're suggesting is the overall point (or it becomes a point for an entirely different audience).