Translating my thoughts into words.
“Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature.”
— David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part 1, para. 91.
It seems to me one of the things that the Jesus Seminar so frequently forgets is that the Gospel writers understood miracles just as did Hume. They were describing something outside of the normal course of nature, that is, something miraculous.
Duane of Abnormal Interests offers This Isn’t Kindergarten in response to James’ ”Essential Languages for New Testament Study” which was, in turn, a follow up to Larry’s discussion of what languages are essential to NT studies. Duane ups the ante quite a bit. Any serious student of the first two centuries CE
needs to know not only Hellenistic Greek, but more than a smattering of Aramaic, Hebrew (including Rabbinic Hebrew), Syriac, Coptic and Latin.
And if you are interested in Hebrew Bible, well let’s just say you better put your linguistic cap on.
A serious student will know Hebrew, Aramaic, Hellenistic Greek, Akkadian including peripheral Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Egyptian, and Classical Greek. I think they also need know Hittite.
All of this glossolalia got me thinking about the fact that none of the authors of the NT or the HB knew all or likely even more than three of these languages. Most likely only knew a couple, which is still more than most people today, I will grant you that. But does Duane or any of us really think that the author of Ruth, for example, Akkadian or Ugaritic or Phoenician? Do we really think they knew historical grammar and the development of Northwest Semitic languages? Of course not.
I understand that for us as literary scholars, historians, theologians, archaeologists and the like we need to know a far greater breadth and depth than the author’s whose works we study. Often they are influenced in ways they were unaware of and that is often grist for our scholarly mill. Each scholar takes a different tack based upon our interests and training, some linguistic and others theological, and to investigate those niches we need specialized tools.
But it might just be worthwhile sometimes to remember the original context and the limitations and expectations of the author and his/her audience.
Frankly, these debates exhaust me and I have little use or time for wading through the morass of words generated by all combatants. This was a very nice article, however, from Michael Ruse on the Chronicle of Higher Education, an atheist against the New Atheists. A snippet:
Most of all I detest the New Atheism because I think it is playing into the hands of the Religious Right. The way fundamentalism—scientific creationism, creation science, intelligent-design theory—has been kept out of the biology classes of the nation is by drawing a line between science and religion and arguing that it is a violation of the First Amendment to allow religion (scientific creationism, etc.) into the classrooms. If you blur the science-religion distinction, specifically if you mesh evolution and atheism, then I just don’t see how you can continue that strategy. The fundamentalists argue that since the evolutionists’ position has religious implications, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Either you don’t talk about origins at all or—and they prefer this alternative—you allow talk about everyone’s views on origins.
Do they have a point? Well, I’m inclined to think that they do. There is no question but that any reasonable reading of New Atheist material totally meshes evolution and atheism. Look at the best blog of them all—University of Chicago biology professor Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. It intersperses quite brilliant discussions of evolutionary topics with diatribes against religion, and makes it very clear that these two are connected. If you are for evolution, you cannot legitimately be for or even tolerant of religion. Accomodationism, as he and others refer to the position I take—that you can keep the two separate—is just not a viable option.
Read it all if this is the sort of thing you like: New Atheism Redux – Brainstorm – The Chronicle of Higher Education.
You think I need more focus? You mean you don't like rambling posts, comics, and iOS tips?
Well, my site may not be as popular as our reigning #1 Biblioblogger, but I think I have figured out why I fare so poorly in the Alexa rankings. It isn’t that I am blogging far less frequently or that people aren’t interested in what I have to say (well, that could be it, but I resolutely refused to accept it; I reject your reality and substitute my own). Rather it is that Alexa ranks my home domain http://targuman.org rather than the blog URL. See, if they would measure my blog’s actual hits rather than the home page (which is very nice looking, by the way, you really should stop by) then I am sure my ranking would be right up there. Easily up to #48. I am sure of it. Absolutely.
My prior post about Gen. 3 and how (and why) Eve and Adam realize that they are naked has generated a lot of excellent comments. Please do be sure to read them all. A number of comments are addressing the origin of evil and I wanted to remind folks of my earlier post from two weeks ago on this topic. I realize that my somewhat unorthodox reading may have been lost within the post since it is a sermon (short homily really) so I have re-presenting the cogent bits here.
… In presenting Adam and Eve with the opportunity to demonstrate their love and obedience to him, God also created the opportunity for sin. Sin did not exist in the Garden prior to this moment but the potential did.
Gen. 3.1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; 5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.
We all know the story well, but consider two key points: the serpent does not (strictly speaking) lie and yet God seems to do so. The serpent craftily uses words to persuade Eve (and Adam “who was with her”) that when God said that they would die in the day that they ate the fruit that they would not, but rather they would “be like God, knowing good and evil.” After God discovers their transgression and curses the serpent, the woman, and the man, notice what he says.
Gen. 3.22 Then the LORD God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.
God confirms what the serpent said, they have indeed become like God, knowing good and evil,” but the man and the woman don’t die on that day! Clearly God is a liar!
Now many will justify God saying, “They do die ‘in that day’ because they may no longer eat of the tree of life and live forever.” But I think this misses the real point, the momentous event that occurred. In the moment that Eve and Adam ate of that fruit the potential for disobedience became the reality of sin. And in response the justice of God was meted out and so too was his mercy.
Just as the actions of the man and the woman brought about the reality of suffering and death into the world it also brought about God’s mercy and grace. So long as they were obedient, they could do anything in the Garden they liked! just not eat of that one tree, so long as they were obedient, God did not need to show mercy and grace. When tested we humans succumbed to temptation and when tested God responded with mercy.
