Eve and the Snake....

[Mike McKee]

I have watched a movie recently called Religulous with Bill Maher.
It is a "documentary" which pretty much ridicules Christianity. But one thing that he keeps saying is stuff about the "talking snake"..
He keeps saying it is extremely silly, and people shouldn't believe in talking snakes. And compares it to fairy tales. I would like to hear somebody respond because this tactic is hard to respond to. Was it really just a talking Snake?

[Rey Reynoso]

Char, it's all parables: why decide otherwise? If we can proudly in our post-enlightenment thinking look down the tunnels of time and decide Culture, Culture, Culture there's no reason to ever stop on Goose besides the divine fiat of our personal intuition.

You see, if there's a parallel in ANE culture then it must mean that the same culture that wound up having similar elements must have (of necessity) copied it. That's why the Jews in a Grecian world could also believe in a resurrection: let's not forget Heroditus and Zalmoxis, the resurrected Man. Or the mythos of Romulus or Osiris (and no one mention Adonis!)

Talking snakes are small potatoes. Too bad Maher hasn't bothered researching other myths; he'd kick our Modernity Influences Arses.

[Harry]

Why is it that modern man thinks that he has all the answers and that the Apostles were mindless dwits?

[Marv]

In Re: ANE lit crit. The Penteteuch is the Torah, the Law. It is the constitution of Israel, the basic law of the land, the coventant. ANE vassal treaties begin with the following two elements:

1. Preamble, introducing the sovereign. (This would be Gen 1)

2. Historical prologue outlining previous relations of the parties. (This would be Gen 2-3). This is exactly the point where we expect history. Overall the genre is legal, here a subgenre includes historical information. This sets up the whole narrative of the Scriptures, for crying out loud.


Ref.: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_covenant_lucas.html

[Aaron Rathburn]

Char--
"So then Balaam's Ass=not a parable but a miracle? How do we decide which is which?"

Same answer as before-- literary criticism. cf. above. Also textual criticism, etc.

Rey--
"Char, it's all parables: why decide otherwise?"

I couldn't find anything in this post that contributed to the discussion.

Harry--
"Why is it that modern man thinks that he has all the answers and that the Apostles were mindless dwits?"

Uh.... whuh?

Marv--

What you outline (fractionally) is the structure for suzerainty treaties. Meredith Kline is the one who introduced a lot of the scholarship on this, but it doesn't apply in any what whatsoever as you have outlined above. If there are any parallels at all (which is contested), it would be in Deuteronomy and perhaps Exodus 20, with the Law.

Genesis 1-3 is not even close to an ancient Near Eastern suzerain treaty, and even as you outlined here, you only mention the first two components of a longer series that follows.

******************

Here's another example that Genesis 1-3 may be parable, and not history. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both "creation" stories. And going one step further, they even "contradict" one another. In Genesis 1, the sexes are made simultaneously and after vegetation. In Genesis 2, the sexes are made independently, and before any vegetation.

Now, a person COULD say that the two different stories about the sexes are "complementary." In the first story, it's a general "big-picture" story. In the second story, it's the more specific details of the nitty-gritty.

But in the first story, the vegetation comes first, then humans. In the second story, the humans come before the vegetation.

[Char]

So in other words, we figure this out by looking at the text and background and making educated guesses of what we think is factual, what is parable, etc. How does this avoid me being the judge and arbiter of all things (or a group of us as the case may be)?

[Aaron Rathburn]

"How does this avoid me being the judge and arbiter of all things (or a group of us as the case may be)?"

What's ironic about this situation is that this is already exactly how it is in Protestantism. Even if three different Protestants all believe in the same Bible, some say homosexuality is wrong, some say it is okay, and some say that scripture sets a "trajectory," where it was wrong back then, but it's okay now.

Interpreting the Bible is not a flimsy thing, it involves hard science: archaeology, linguistics of deceased languages, sociology, anthropology, history, culture, theology, literature, textual criticism, and more. All we are doing right now is making "educated guesses" (even though this is obviously an overly simplistic and pejoritive way of describing it).

Just like any science, interpreting the Bible involves science. And whenever science is involved, not all interpretations are created equal.

ADD:
And as terrific as Protestantism is, the one pitfall is that everyone becomes their own interpreter, becoming the "judge and arbiter of all things." If a theologian says that one way is the correct way, a person can simply go join a different denomination that teaches what their itching ears want to hear.

[Damian]

Aaron,

You're not alone, I lean towards the same understanding of Genesis 1-11 as you do. I also respect the views of the young earth crowd, and I use to hold to it.

I had a professor of New Testament studies at Boston College who I challenged on his "mythological stance" on Gen 1-11 as not being compatible with Pauline theology, especially in reference to Romans 5. He was very irenic (I can't say that I was at the time ;-) and he mounted a very sound hermeneutic argument for Pauline theology to be understood as a logical argument rather than a sequential one.

Peace,

Damian

[John J Travers III]

The thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that the serpent didn't slither around on the ground prior to the fall. It was part of the punishment or curse that was placed on the serpent.

It is also of no shock or surprise to Eve that the serpent talks. Oh and one more thing I see a couple of times that it has been said that "Christians" are the ones who called it a snake, it has been a serpent since Moses wrote the book of Genesis. There is only one reptile that can be called a serpent.

[Aaron Rathburn]

Damian--
I also used to be a young earth creationist, until ScottL came along and converted me ;-). But yes, I still respect my brothers and sisters in this crowd, because God can certainly make the earth in the blink of an eye if he wanted to, and make it look as aged as he wants. I just don't personally think this takes into account God's "general revelation" in creation, in addition to his "special revelation" in scripture.

What's ironic is that this is the historical, true, orthodox position of historic. It is only after the advent of Protestantism (including Anglicanism) that Christians have strayed down this path of literalism with Genesis. I am not being unorthodox here.

In America, the dominant eschatology is dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is radically unorthodox according to church history and tradition ("orthodoxy"). But in America, if you are not a Dispensationalist, you are "unorthodox."

This parabolic reading of Genesis is more orthodox than a literal reading.

[Marv]

I am aware that Kline does not (at least to my knowledge) apply the suzerainty treaty to include Genesis, and yet this fits beautifully in that understanding. It is precisely detailing the prior relationship between the parties that gives the rationale for the whole covenant of redemption. My point is that far from stringing together a few fables and folktales that happen to relate to "the beginning," what we have in the early part of Genesis is a specifically crafted prologue of primeval history that is vital to understanding the nature of the covenant and the role of the nation of Israel as well as the coming Messiah/seed of woman/seed of Abraham/etc.

What you outline (fractionally) is the structure for suzerainty treaties. Meredith Kline is the one who introduced a lot of the scholarship on this, but it doesn't apply in any what whatsoever as you have outlined above. If there are any parallels at all (which is contested), it would be in Deuteronomy and perhaps Exodus 20, with the Law.

Genesis 1-3 is not even close to an ancient Near Eastern suzerain treaty, and even as you outlined here, you only mention the first two components of a longer series that follows.

[Marv]

Ah, once again Paul's words ring true: "But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ." ScottL, watch out, you may be condemned to crawl on your belly and eat dust. No more freites. ;-D

I also used to be a young earth creationist, until ScottL came along and converted me ;-).

[Aaron Rathburn]

Marv, here's the irony:

You are invoking parallels between the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature (suzerain treaties), to try and argue against me pointing out parallels between the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature (parables).