12/3/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 36 of 38)

0128 Kenton Sparks adds one more actor responsible for putting the Pentateuch into final form.  The editor does not care whether the diverse genres mesh together smoothly.  Why?  The jumble of genres is intrinsic to the authentic unfolding of God’s covenant.

Sparks calls this editor, “an Ethnic Anthologist”.

0129 Does that make the genre of the Pentateuch an ethnic anthology?

If so, then we have an answer to why Paul calls Jesus, “the New Adam”.

0130 Paul funnels the entire Jewish tradition back through David, Moses, Abraham and Noah.  Paul goes all the way back to Adam.

He does not know that Adam associates to the first singularity.

He does not know that the first singularity defines our current Lebenswelt.

Yet, he intuitively knows that Adam connects the Jewish witness to all humanity.

12/2/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 37 of 38)

0131 The book concludes with a short chapter titled, “We Disagree. Now What?

0132 What is the nature of Gen 1-11?

In this examination, I suggest that genres may correspond to cycles of history.

For example, the last four hundred years of the Latin Age discusses the world in the genre of Aristotle (and Aquinas).  The four hundred years of the Age of Ideas works in the genre of empirio-schematics.  The upcoming Age of Triadic Relationswill discourse using diagrams of triadic relations, such as signs, category-based nested forms, judgments and so on.

Roughly, a genre and a cycle lasts for four hundred years, consisting in four turnings of four generations.

0133 Nine cycles pass between the start of the Ubaid (associated with Adam) and the end of Ur III (associated to Abraham).

Gen 1-11 does not neatly designate nine genres.  But, it offers an image of spiraling developments, culminating in two great disasters: Noah’s flood and the confounding of the language with the Tower of Babel.   The first associates to the Uruk period.  The latter associates to the end of Ur III, when Sumerian becomes a dead language.

0134 Professor James Hoffmeier sees Gen 1-11 as history and theology.

Gordon Wenham views Gen 1-11 as protohistory.

Kenton Sparks envisions Gen 1-11 as ancient historiography, which electrically jumps to a humorous sound-alike, histriography.

0135 All these conclusions are drawn without awareness of a scientific hypothesis that changes the grounds of inquiry: the first singularity.

12/1/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 38 of 38)

0136 The historicity of Gen 1-11 is hotly contested, despite that fact that the literature of the ancient Near East offers similar narratives.

Gen 1-11 is a special example of the literature of the ancient Near East.

Why?

It survives within a living tradition.

0137 Today, in the twilight of the Age of Ideasthe hypothesis of the first singularity adds a new wrinkle to the proceedings.

Okay, it pulls the rug out from under the contest.

Why?

Gen 1-11 offers an insider’s view to the start of our current Lebenswelt, our simultaneously uplifting and falling world of unconstrained social complexity.

0138 God’s Word2athe stuff of grace, percolates upwards, through the sensible classification of genre2b, and enters into the stuff of nature, a scientific hypothesis concerning the evolutionarily-recent potentiation of unconstrained social complexity2c.

0139 This hypothesis touches base with Saint Paul’s intuition.  Adam connects to the entire civilized worldour current Lebenswelt, the world of unconstrained social complexity and the world of speech-alone talk.  Today, no culture is untouched by the wealth and power of civilizations.

0140 Perhaps, the North American Plains Indians and the Australian Aborigines are the last viable cultures to lose the hand component of their hand-speech talk.

Is it a coincidence that the first singularity completes at the same time that our awareness of the first singularity begins?

Our theodrama begins with Adam.

11/30/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 1 of 38)

0001 Biblical scholars James Hoffmeier, Gordon Wenham and Kenton Sparks contribute to a little book, titled Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither?, edited by Charles Halton and published by Counterpoint Press (affiliated with Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan).

0002 The format is straightforward.  Each contributor offers an essay and responds to the other two essays.

0003 These essays and responses are written shortly after the e-publication of An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, which dramatizes a scientific hypothesis about the potentiation of civilization (and how the Genesis stories can be re-imagined in light of the hypothesis).

Why is this significant?

The contributors to Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither?: Three Views on The Bible’s Earliest Chapters, are not aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity.

Their arguments may be examined a point of view that is aware of the hypothesis.

Finally, their innocence of the hypothesis may illuminate the origins of our current Lebenswelt, from within.

0004 What is the first singularity?

The series, Crystallizations of the Fall, at the smashwords website, offers a succinct introduction.  This series contains two works.

The First Singularity and its Fairy Tale Trace offers a brief scientific account for the potentiation of unconstrained social complexity.

Comments on Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12-19 offers a reading of Paul consistent with the consequences of the first singularity.

11/29/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 2 of 38)

0005 Charles Halton, editor, pens the introduction.

Galileo serves as an example of the religion versus science debate.

Galileo’s interpretation of the Bible clashes with long-held, cherished interpretations.  His reputation is sullied by name-calling and legal wrangling.  A century later, Galileo is honored as one of the pioneers of science.  Three centuries later, the Catholic Church apologizes.

0006 If one interprets according to genre, then I propose that Galileo works according to the genre of science, while the seventeenth century Church operates in the genre of Thomist (or Aristotelian) metaphysics.

The dispute also may be described in terms of genre.  Galileo says that the propositions of the Bible are addressed to common folk.  That is a genre.  The ecclesial establishment says that Biblical propositions are uttered by the Holy Ghost.  That is a genre, as well.

Both sides may be correct, but that does not dampen the controversy.

0007 Why?

Both parties agree on the same principle.  Nature and grace are distinctly different.  They are not the same.  So, mechanical inquiry into what is does not necessarily cohere to theological inquiry into what ought to be, and visa versa.

11/26/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 3 of 38)

0008 I now frame the controversy between Galileo and Catholic Church.

A judgment is a triadic relation with three elements: relationwhat is and what ought to be.  When each element is assigned to one of Peirce’s three categories, the judgment becomes actionable.

The three categories are thirdness, the triadic realm of normal contexts; secondness, the dyadic realm of actuality; and firstness, the monadic realm of possibilities.

Thirdness brings secondness, the dyadic realm of actuality, into relation with firstness, the monadic realm of possibilities.

0009 Here is a picture.

0010 This diagram of the triadic structure of judgment shows that a controversy can occur when both parties agree on a key relational principle.  Here, both parties agree that nature and grace are distinct and separate.

This agreement serves as the relation that brings together what is and what ought to be.

The relation belongs to the category of thirdness, the realm of normal contexts, mediations, signs and so on.

0011 In the next blog, I will consider category-assignments to what ought to be and what is.

11/25/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 4 of 38)

0012 Here is a picture of the infamous Galileo controversy.

0013 If the relation belongs to thirdness (the realm of normal contexts), then there are two configurations for assigning categories to the other elements of judgment.

If the Book of Nature belongs to secondness (the realm of actuality), then the Revealed Book of God belongs to firstness (the realm of possibility).  Nature is real and the Bible is fiction (that is, not real).

If the Revealed Book of God belongs to secondness (the realm of actuality), then the Book of Nature belongs to firstness (the realm of possibility).  The Bible is real and natural inquiry in not relevant.

0014 So, which is more real, nature or grace?

11/24/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 5 of 38)

0015 Both sides of the science versus religion debate agree that nature and grace are separate.

Because this relation belongs to thirdness in the triadic structure of judgment, what is (science) and what ought to be(Bible) end up assigned to either firstness or secondness.

Either/or?

0016 Either Genesis is history (secondness) and Anthropology is not relevant (firstness)…

…. or Anthropology describes our world (secondness) and Genesis is fiction (firstness).

0017 Here is a picture.

11/23/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 6 of 38)

0018 What if Genesis is neither history nor fiction?

The title of the book offers this option as well.

Charles Halton proposes that an alternate judgment arises after cuneiform-bearing clay tablets are unearthed from tells in the Near East.  They are found in ruins of royal libraries.  Clever scholars figure out how to translate them.

First the tablets are read.  Then, they are interpreted in light of the genres that they display.  The literature of the ancient Near East contains its own genres.

Reading yields what is.  Interpretation produces what ought to be.  Genre brings interpretation (what ought to be) into relation with reading (what is).

0019 Here is a picture of how extra-Biblical contemporaneous writing offers the neither option.

0020 This judgment clearly transcends the either/or dichotomy of the religion and science controversy.

Or does it?

In one genre, Gen 1-11 is read and interpreted as history.

In another genre, Gen 1-11 is read and interpreted as fiction.

Does the old either/or battle merely shift to the terrain of genre?

Yes, we may project modern genres onto the literature of the ancient Near East.

No, the literature of the ancient Near East is neither history nor fiction.

11/22/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 7 of 38)

0021 In the previous blog, the relationgenres of the ancient Near East, serves as a antithesis to the relation that both parties in the religion-science controversy are in agreementthe separation of nature and grace.

What does this imply?

The modern period begins, as Charles Halton recounts, with Galileo’s thesis as the antithesis of Aristotle’s framing of the reading and interpretation of the Bible.  The resulting controversy hinges on the dichotomy of nature and supernature.  They are separate.  Either Genesis is history (and natural knowledge is not pertinent) or fiction (and natural knowledge is irrefutable).

0022 The postmodern synthesis begins with the admission that the literature of the ancient Near East expresses genres, that do not match the modern genres of history or fiction.  Genre offers a path to bring reading into relation with interpretation.

0023 The recovery and translation of cuneiform texts from the ancient Near East offers both science and religion new opportunities.  Science may observe and measure genres as phenomena.  Religion may compare written origin stories of the ancient Near East to Gen 1-11.

0024 The latter inquiry produces an observation that is hard to ignore.

All origin stories of the ancient Near East (with the exception of the Genesis Creation Story) depict a recent creation of humans.  For example, in one ancient Mesopotamian myth, humans are created to do the work of the gods.

How far is that from God creating Adam and giving him a garden to tend?

This observation is consistent with the hypothesis of the first singularity.