"In the beginning": reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18 as the interpretative text
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Jane Ellingwood
May 14, 2012, 7:07:11 AM5/14/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear colleagues,
To answer Herb's question about which tradition one is writing in, I am writing to you in the tradition of the early Church Fathers, up through the late fourth and early fifth centuries.
Herb, as much as you know that I love you, it's not a very nice shot to accuse Scott of spiritualizing the text of Genesis. That is a shot that has been done in recent decades, especially by Colin Gunton, who accused Origen of allegorizing the text of Genesis, which Origen certainly did, and who also accused Augustine for Augustine's ways of approaching the text. Gunton had a slight preference for the way Basil of Caesarea and the other Cappadocians read Gen. 1, but he still criticizes Basil for not having enough of a trinitarian view of the six days of creation, in Basil's hexaemeral homilies. For Gunton, the third-century Irenaeus is usually the hero when it comes to early trinitarian thinking and thinking about Genesis and the creation accounts. But guess what? Even this hero very seldom wrote about the six days of creation or the early verses of Gen. 1. Irenaeus usually focused on Gen. 1.26-27 and then the second creation account, which begins in the second chapter of Genesis. He especially liked Gen. 2.7, where 'the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." I've done a whole rift on the word translated as "formed" here. It would be interesting for another day. And I know that Willis loves this verse for other reasons, more focused on the breath of life.
But, the point is, Gen. 1 was rarely read or interpreted literally in the early centuries of church history, including by our heroes of the faith. They knew way back then that one cannot take Gen. 1 literally and that the text offers a lot of challenges. But they also very much wanted to try to understand Gen. 1. A huge crop of commentaries on Genesis and sermons on the six days of creation appeared in the early centuries, and people like Basil and his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom and Augustine and others, including people in the Syrian tradition whose works are just now being dealt with in English, tried to interpret Gen. 1, literally or allegorically. They of course read Genesis christologically, and with trinitarian eyes, which I suggest is appropriate for us too.
One issue that Basil, Augustine, Chrysostom, and others were hung up on is that early verses of Gen. 1 seem to say that God created two heavens. What's up with that? Two heavens? If you take the text literally, as Basil and Augustine tried to do, you get caught up in twists and turns. Augustine ended up arguing way, way too long about their being a 'heaven of heavens', which comes from the Psalms. This heaven's heaven was over the heaven that we know, making two heavens. Basil had to do some juggling on this issue in his homilies, which he preached to lay people of mixed backgrounds. His hexaemeral homilies are old fashioned, of course, but they make good reading, and he loved the variety of God's creation. He drew on as much science and philosophy as he could, while sticking to the Bible. Augustine also did his best, although he can go on and on and on. He's my main man, though, so I will be defending him later on. But how many of you, when you take apart Gen. 1 literally, are going to spend time figuring out why the text suggests that there are two heavens? I don't think you'll focus your energy there!
Gen. 1 was not read literally way back then, by the fathers of the church, who are saints today, and who left us a legacy in their writings, theological doctrines, and the words of some creeds. And theologians do not do their work today by reading the Bible literally, or trying to prove the point of doctrines by doing proof-texting from selected passages. They look at the witness of the Church and churches throughout the centuries, as well as at the Bible and other resources. Gabe has written all about that!
If we are going to talk about interpreting Genesis in this forum, then I suggest one way of doing it is to read Gen. 1 by using John 1.1-18 (the prologue to John) as an interpretive text. This is a time honored tradition, and the prologue to John may itself be a midrash on Gen. 1.1-5, and it may use Prov. 8.22-31 as one of its own interpretative texts.
One of the verses from the prologue to John with the greatest impact in the early centuries of Church history, and the period when the doctrines of creation and the Trinity were formulated, is John 1.3: 'All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.'
The next verse after that is, in some translations: 'What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.'
So, here we learn, for our discussions today, that ALL THINGS and ALL PEOPLE came into being through Jesus Christ. We don't hear anything about male and female, gay or straight, black or white or Asian or Indian or other, Jew or Greek, etc. etc. etc. Pretty simple. God the Father made all things with and through his eternal Son, and all things were given life.
WOW When it says 'not of the will of man', some translators think 'man' means a 'husband', so this is very blunt. We do not become children of God through the desires of a husband and what men and women do together in the act of procreation.
So all things were created through the Word, the Son, Jesus Christ: that is all things. And what it means to be children of God takes on a non-biological meaning. We can't do more on this here, but certainly we also read in the other gospels that Jesus redefined what it meant to be family: he was not as interested in his biological relatives as in other people who believed in him and were trying to do the will of his Father. What people call 'family values' today is not something that can be argued for, based on the gospels!
So, is the author of the prologue guilty of spiritualizing Genesis? The author is pretty tangible about things. He goes on to say that the Word became flesh and set up his tent among us. And the rest is history, as they say. Real history. Not spiritualized thinking.
And the author says: 'From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.' (John 1.16-18, NRSV)
This is how I read Gen. 1: through the lens of John 1.1-18. I am staking my academic life on this and am immersed in reading early church writings about creation and the Trinity. But for my pastoral role, and my daily life in the church, I can also see that John 1.1-18 is a very inclusive text, with a very inclusive understanding of creation and re-creation and the life that is given to all people, because the Word or Son or Jesus Christ physically came into the world, our world, and took on flesh, flesh like our flesh, only of a different skin color than the flesh that most of us in this forum have.
If the Word or Son came into the world to give life to all people, and all people can be non-biological children of God, and if all people have received grace upon grace, and if Moses brought the law and Jesus brought grace to go with the law, I think we can view Gen. 1 (and other favorite passages of ours that we like to draw on to bolster our arguments) in a different light. We don't have to read Gen. 1 literally. We should read it through the lens of what we have learned about the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Son who was and is and always will be close to the Father's heart, and who makes the Father known to us. What does Jesus Christ teach us about the issues we are arguing about, and how we might understand the profound words of the first book of Genesis in light of those teachings? We don't go back to the very beginning, without trying to understand it through the one who changed what the beginning, and middle, and end mean.
So, I am sure no one has made it this far in this long posting. But at least I am contributing to the proposed task of doing different exegesis on Gen. 1.
And, by the way, given that I have to write my dissertation according to UK standards, my quotation marks and commas and citations of Bible verse are mostly in the UK style, except for when I forget!
Jane
SCOTT R PAETH
May 14, 2012, 7:58:12 AM5/14/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Well exegeted, Jane.
Since I have to edit for a British Journal, I frequently have to grapple with British editorial tropes. I hope they aren't going to force you to adopt British spelling!
Scott
link...@aol.com
May 14, 2012, 10:06:37 AM5/14/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Jane,
I fully agree with reading John 1 in light of Gen 1, and Gen 1 in
light of John 1, but however you read Gen 1, you need to read Gen 1 as
it is Gen 1. Barth read Gen 1 with 2 as "Creation as the external
basis of covenant," and "Covenant as the internal basis of creation,"
respectively, and I tend to think that we should read these very
closely together (which are very intimately joined, canonically
speaking, as Childs was very pointed in reminding us) before we would
bring in John 1. In fact, it is only in Gen 2 that we begin to read of
the "flesh" that the Word became, as the promise that the two will be
one flesh (same word in LXX and John 1, as you can see). Notice how
Jesus brought together both creation stories (Mark 10:6-9 and Mt
19:3-6).
And of course, what you have left out in John is the witness that he
took on the flesh of his own, his own people, Mosaic flesh, a flesh
governed by the Law which came by Moses, including Gen 1, the Mosaic
word which itself seems to have inspired John 1! There is no mention
of "only a different skin color that the flesh that most of us in this
form have."
Jim
I fully agree with reading John 1 in light of Gen 1, and Gen 1 in
light of John 1, but however you read Gen 1, you need to read Gen 1 as
it is Gen 1. Barth read Gen 1 with 2 as "Creation as the external
basis of covenant," and "Covenant as the internal basis of creation,"
respectively, and I tend to think that we should read these very
closely together (which are very intimately joined, canonically
speaking, as Childs was very pointed in reminding us) before we would
bring in John 1. In fact, it is only in Gen 2 that we begin to read of
the "flesh" that the Word became, as the promise that the two will be
one flesh (same word in LXX and John 1, as you can see). Notice how
Jesus brought together both creation stories (Mark 10:6-9 and Mt
19:3-6).
And of course, what you have left out in John is the witness that he
took on the flesh of his own, his own people, Mosaic flesh, a flesh
governed by the Law which came by Moses, including Gen 1, the Mosaic
word which itself seems to have inspired John 1! There is no mention
of "only a different skin color that the flesh that most of us in this
form have."
Jim
link...@aol.com
May 14, 2012, 10:22:34 AM5/14/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
P.S. I suppose I need not add that we should not read the two texts as
adversaries, but I will translate John 1,17, just to make sure,
"Indeed, the law was given through Moses: grace and truth have come
through Jesus Christ."
Jim
> ...
>
> read more »
adversaries, but I will translate John 1,17, just to make sure,
"Indeed, the law was given through Moses: grace and truth have come
through Jesus Christ."
Jim
>
> read more »
Jane Ellingwood
May 15, 2012, 6:23:36 AM5/15/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jim,
Thank you for reading my posting and for the exchange of ideas about reading Genesis and other passages of scripture.
Yes, as you said in your P.S., when we read one text in light of another, used as an interpretative text, the texts are not adversaries, nor does either text supplant the other. Reading texts together can allow us to achieve new insights. And I did already comment, in my posting, about how Moses had brought the law and Jesus brought grace to "go with" the law. My choice of the words "go with" was intentional, and you and I are in agreement on your P.S.
On reading Gen. 1 "as it is," that is not possible. We all bring our own texts and experiences and doctrinal beliefs to reading Gen. 1, as we do with other passages in scripture. It's part of how and where we stand in the "hermeneutical circle," and there is no such thing as just reading Gen. 1 or Gen. 1 and 2 "as it is." Even in the example you cite here from Barth, it appears that he brought his ideas about covenant to the text. You bring your beliefs about marriage and related topics to your reading of Genesis. I bring my trinitarian theology. Each of us reads things into the text that may or may not be there, as we also try to understand what is there and what the author may have meant, and try to take ideas out of the text.
Your belief that Gen. 1 and 2 should be read together is a fine one, but it's no more or less important than reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18, which is clearly a related text. In fact, as I said in my posting, as Christians, we do work backwards. Jesus, at least according to Luke, taught the two people he walked with on the road to Emmaeus how to read the scriptures in a new way, so that they would see what the scriptures said about him. So this principle of reading Old Testament scriptures christologically goes back either to Jesus himself, or to the writers of NT scriptures. And it certaily was undertaken with gusto by the Church Fathers in the first several centuries of church history! Perhaps too much gusto, in fact!
With that said, Gen. 1.1-2.4 is one of the texts I am studying for my dissertation, and I have read and translated it from Greek and Latin, and in many English translations, including in Jewish and Christian Bibles. I've also read one of the targums on this passage (in English translation). I am very, very interested in this first creation account in Genesis. I am less interested in the second account, only because it does not fit with the main lines of my research and writing. However, as I mentioned in my posting, Gen. 2.7 offers many interesting ways of thinking about what it means to say that God "formed" the first human being. The ideas about "forming" are related to ideas about what "creation" really means, or what it means to say that we were "made."
For your last paragraph in your note below, the one about flesh, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I did write about Jesus taking on flesh, which naturally turned out to be the flesh of the Jews who were in the Mosaic tradition, which is why I mentioned that his skin color was likely to have different from most of ours. This is not a major point for me, but it is an appropriate inference to make, and you may want to skim through what I wrote again.
Finally, what I was doing by offering my early morning exegesis of Gen. 1 yesterday was to show that yet another reading of the text is possible. There are as many readings as theologians and biblical scholars and pastors and lay people. Just as I was not setting two texts up as adversaries, I also did not want us to be adversaries. It's just an act of sharing and giving on my part to have taken a bit of time out to offer another perspective to the discussion, especially since Ted said he'd be willing to talk about Genesis for a while longer, if there were new things to say.
Thank you again for reading my posting and exchanging ideas with me.
Jane
______________________________________
Thank you for reading my posting and for the exchange of ideas about reading Genesis and other passages of scripture.
Yes, as you said in your P.S., when we read one text in light of another, used as an interpretative text, the texts are not adversaries, nor does either text supplant the other. Reading texts together can allow us to achieve new insights. And I did already comment, in my posting, about how Moses had brought the law and Jesus brought grace to "go with" the law. My choice of the words "go with" was intentional, and you and I are in agreement on your P.S.
On reading Gen. 1 "as it is," that is not possible. We all bring our own texts and experiences and doctrinal beliefs to reading Gen. 1, as we do with other passages in scripture. It's part of how and where we stand in the "hermeneutical circle," and there is no such thing as just reading Gen. 1 or Gen. 1 and 2 "as it is." Even in the example you cite here from Barth, it appears that he brought his ideas about covenant to the text. You bring your beliefs about marriage and related topics to your reading of Genesis. I bring my trinitarian theology. Each of us reads things into the text that may or may not be there, as we also try to understand what is there and what the author may have meant, and try to take ideas out of the text.
Your belief that Gen. 1 and 2 should be read together is a fine one, but it's no more or less important than reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18, which is clearly a related text. In fact, as I said in my posting, as Christians, we do work backwards. Jesus, at least according to Luke, taught the two people he walked with on the road to Emmaeus how to read the scriptures in a new way, so that they would see what the scriptures said about him. So this principle of reading Old Testament scriptures christologically goes back either to Jesus himself, or to the writers of NT scriptures. And it certaily was undertaken with gusto by the Church Fathers in the first several centuries of church history! Perhaps too much gusto, in fact!
With that said, Gen. 1.1-2.4 is one of the texts I am studying for my dissertation, and I have read and translated it from Greek and Latin, and in many English translations, including in Jewish and Christian Bibles. I've also read one of the targums on this passage (in English translation). I am very, very interested in this first creation account in Genesis. I am less interested in the second account, only because it does not fit with the main lines of my research and writing. However, as I mentioned in my posting, Gen. 2.7 offers many interesting ways of thinking about what it means to say that God "formed" the first human being. The ideas about "forming" are related to ideas about what "creation" really means, or what it means to say that we were "made."
For your last paragraph in your note below, the one about flesh, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I did write about Jesus taking on flesh, which naturally turned out to be the flesh of the Jews who were in the Mosaic tradition, which is why I mentioned that his skin color was likely to have different from most of ours. This is not a major point for me, but it is an appropriate inference to make, and you may want to skim through what I wrote again.
Finally, what I was doing by offering my early morning exegesis of Gen. 1 yesterday was to show that yet another reading of the text is possible. There are as many readings as theologians and biblical scholars and pastors and lay people. Just as I was not setting two texts up as adversaries, I also did not want us to be adversaries. It's just an act of sharing and giving on my part to have taken a bit of time out to offer another perspective to the discussion, especially since Ted said he'd be willing to talk about Genesis for a while longer, if there were new things to say.
Thank you again for reading my posting and exchanging ideas with me.
Jane
______________________________________
link...@aol.com
May 15, 2012, 8:08:38 AM5/15/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Jane,
By "as it is" I mean that the author(s) has something to say to us. No
doubt we bring ourselves to the text, but what does the text bring to
us? If it were impossible to hear the text in this sense "as it is,"
that could only mean that communication is impossible, and each of us
is stuck in his or her own little world, which, of course we would be,
without the Holy Spirit. This text "as it is" is not to be heard apart
from Gen. 2.
By the way, "go with" is a very poor interpretation, from my
perspective, of John. It is more like, "For the Law has been given
through Moses, grace and peace have come through Jesus Christ." Moses
has written authoritatively, for the one of whom he spoke, Jesus
Christ, has brought that about which he wrote as the foundation of the
law, grace and peace.
On May 15, 6:23 am, Jane Ellingwood <bctj...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> Thank you for reading my posting and for the exchange of ideas about reading Genesis and other passages of scripture.
>
> Yes, as you said in your P.S., when we read one text in light of another, used as an interpretative text, the texts are not adversaries, nor does either text supplant the other. Reading texts together can allow us to achieve new insights. And I did already comment, in my posting, about how Moses had brought the law and Jesus brought grace to "go with" the law. My choice of the words "go with" was intentional, and you and I are in agreement on your P.S.
>
> On reading Gen. 1 "as it is," that is not possible. We all bring our own texts and experiences and doctrinal beliefs to reading Gen. 1, as we do with other passages in scripture. It's part of how and where we stand in the "hermeneutical circle," and there is no such thing as just reading Gen. 1 or Gen. 1 and 2 "as it is." Even in the example you cite here from Barth, it appears that he brought his ideas about covenant to the text. You bring your beliefs about marriage and related topics to your reading of Genesis. I bring my trinitarian theology. Each of us reads things into the text that may or may not be there, as we also try to understand what is there and what the author may have meant, and try to take ideas out of the text.
>
> Your belief that Gen. 1 and 2 should be read together is a fine one, but it's no more or less important than reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18, which is clearly a related text. In fact, as I said in my posting, as Christians, we do work backwards. Jesus, at least according to Luke, taught the two people he walked with on the road to Emmaeus how to read the scriptures in a new way, so that they would see what the scriptures said about him. So this principle of reading Old Testament scriptures christologically goes back either to Jesus himself, or to the writers of NT scriptures. And it certaily was undertaken with gusto by the Church Fathers in the first several centuries of church history! Perhaps too much gusto, in fact!
>
> With that said, Gen. 1.1-2.4 is one of the texts I am studying for my dissertation, and I have read and translated it from Greek and Latin, and in many English translations, including in Jewish and Christian Bibles. I've also read one of the targums on this passage (in English translation). I am very, very interested in this first creation account in Genesis. I am less interested in the second account, only because it does not fit with the main lines of my research and writing. However, as I mentioned in my posting, Gen. 2.7 offers many interesting ways of thinking about what it means to say that God "formed" the first human being. The ideas about "forming" are related to ideas about what "creation" really means, or what it means to say that we were "made."
>
> For your last paragraph in your note below, the one about flesh, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I did write about Jesus taking on flesh, which naturally turned out to be the flesh of the Jews who were in the Mosaic tradition, which is why I mentioned that his skin color was likely to have different from most of ours. This is not a major point for me, but it is an appropriate inference to make, and you may want to skim through what I wrote again.
>
> Finally, what I was doing by offering my early morning exegesis of Gen. 1 yesterday was to show that yet another reading of the text is possible. There are as many readings as theologians and biblical scholars and pastors and lay people. Just as I was not setting two texts up as adversaries, I also did not want us to be adversaries. It's just an act of sharing and giving on my part to have taken a bit of time out to offer another perspective to the discussion, especially since Ted said he'd be willing to talk about Genesis for a while longer, if there were new things to say.
>
> Thank you again for reading my posting and exchanging ideas with me.
>
> Jane
>
> ______________________________________
>
By "as it is" I mean that the author(s) has something to say to us. No
doubt we bring ourselves to the text, but what does the text bring to
us? If it were impossible to hear the text in this sense "as it is,"
that could only mean that communication is impossible, and each of us
is stuck in his or her own little world, which, of course we would be,
without the Holy Spirit. This text "as it is" is not to be heard apart
from Gen. 2.
By the way, "go with" is a very poor interpretation, from my
perspective, of John. It is more like, "For the Law has been given
through Moses, grace and peace have come through Jesus Christ." Moses
has written authoritatively, for the one of whom he spoke, Jesus
Christ, has brought that about which he wrote as the foundation of the
law, grace and peace.
On May 15, 6:23 am, Jane Ellingwood <bctj...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> Thank you for reading my posting and for the exchange of ideas about reading Genesis and other passages of scripture.
>
> Yes, as you said in your P.S., when we read one text in light of another, used as an interpretative text, the texts are not adversaries, nor does either text supplant the other. Reading texts together can allow us to achieve new insights. And I did already comment, in my posting, about how Moses had brought the law and Jesus brought grace to "go with" the law. My choice of the words "go with" was intentional, and you and I are in agreement on your P.S.
>
> On reading Gen. 1 "as it is," that is not possible. We all bring our own texts and experiences and doctrinal beliefs to reading Gen. 1, as we do with other passages in scripture. It's part of how and where we stand in the "hermeneutical circle," and there is no such thing as just reading Gen. 1 or Gen. 1 and 2 "as it is." Even in the example you cite here from Barth, it appears that he brought his ideas about covenant to the text. You bring your beliefs about marriage and related topics to your reading of Genesis. I bring my trinitarian theology. Each of us reads things into the text that may or may not be there, as we also try to understand what is there and what the author may have meant, and try to take ideas out of the text.
>
> Your belief that Gen. 1 and 2 should be read together is a fine one, but it's no more or less important than reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18, which is clearly a related text. In fact, as I said in my posting, as Christians, we do work backwards. Jesus, at least according to Luke, taught the two people he walked with on the road to Emmaeus how to read the scriptures in a new way, so that they would see what the scriptures said about him. So this principle of reading Old Testament scriptures christologically goes back either to Jesus himself, or to the writers of NT scriptures. And it certaily was undertaken with gusto by the Church Fathers in the first several centuries of church history! Perhaps too much gusto, in fact!
>
> With that said, Gen. 1.1-2.4 is one of the texts I am studying for my dissertation, and I have read and translated it from Greek and Latin, and in many English translations, including in Jewish and Christian Bibles. I've also read one of the targums on this passage (in English translation). I am very, very interested in this first creation account in Genesis. I am less interested in the second account, only because it does not fit with the main lines of my research and writing. However, as I mentioned in my posting, Gen. 2.7 offers many interesting ways of thinking about what it means to say that God "formed" the first human being. The ideas about "forming" are related to ideas about what "creation" really means, or what it means to say that we were "made."
>
> For your last paragraph in your note below, the one about flesh, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I did write about Jesus taking on flesh, which naturally turned out to be the flesh of the Jews who were in the Mosaic tradition, which is why I mentioned that his skin color was likely to have different from most of ours. This is not a major point for me, but it is an appropriate inference to make, and you may want to skim through what I wrote again.
>
> Finally, what I was doing by offering my early morning exegesis of Gen. 1 yesterday was to show that yet another reading of the text is possible. There are as many readings as theologians and biblical scholars and pastors and lay people. Just as I was not setting two texts up as adversaries, I also did not want us to be adversaries. It's just an act of sharing and giving on my part to have taken a bit of time out to offer another perspective to the discussion, especially since Ted said he'd be willing to talk about Genesis for a while longer, if there were new things to say.
>
> Thank you again for reading my posting and exchanging ideas with me.
>
> Jane
>
> ______________________________________
>
Jean Easland
May 15, 2012, 8:32:03 AM5/15/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
All: Jesus IS the Law Giver not Moses, He IS author of the Word, He IS One
with the Father and Spirit and he IS our friend.+++ They just closed the
only grocery store in Pine Ridge S.D. due to health concerns from the meat
dept. The nearest food source is Rapid City---------look at a map, DO THE
MATH. Lets get real and start talking about something that is both Word and
Deed getting our eyes off the crotch and the navel will help. How interested
is Jesus in that? +++ Grace all around. Roger
with the Father and Spirit and he IS our friend.+++ They just closed the
only grocery store in Pine Ridge S.D. due to health concerns from the meat
dept. The nearest food source is Rapid City---------look at a map, DO THE
MATH. Lets get real and start talking about something that is both Word and
Deed getting our eyes off the crotch and the navel will help. How interested
is Jesus in that? +++ Grace all around. Roger
link...@aol.com
May 15, 2012, 11:54:23 AM5/15/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Brother Roger,
You could call our conversation many things, but I don't think crotch
or navel gazing are two of them. Maybe Newsweek gazing.
May God open His hand and feed the Pine Ridge area, showing us what we
can do, with you, to be his servants in this very matter!
And God give you good courage and joy in his house!
Jim
You could call our conversation many things, but I don't think crotch
or navel gazing are two of them. Maybe Newsweek gazing.
May God open His hand and feed the Pine Ridge area, showing us what we
can do, with you, to be his servants in this very matter!
And God give you good courage and joy in his house!
Jim
Jean Easland
May 15, 2012, 9:14:48 PM5/15/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Brother Jim: Agreed just crude language to keep some balance for those of us
who would rather move on. But I respect your deep look at texts and the
right to the conversation. Rock on hen keeper: roger
who would rather move on. But I respect your deep look at texts and the
right to the conversation. Rock on hen keeper: roger
Jane Ellingwood
May 16, 2012, 7:21:38 AM5/16/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jim,
Yes, I agree with you that we should be seeking to try to understand what a passage in scripture might have been intended to say, by its author or authors. That is one task of exegesis, although it's impossible to know whether we are ever right about what the author meant to say, even when we do our best research and reading, and look at reputable thinking of the Church and churches and theologians on a text.
Rather than saying that we are stuck in our worlds (which actually we are, to some extent), I prefer what has been said about how each of us brings our worlds and theologies and denominational heritages and social locations and beliefs to the texts, no matter who we are. We do not stand before the texts as neutral and unbiased readers, again no matter who we are. I've already written about this in my earlier postings, but we quite often read just as much into the text as we try to draw out of it, and this is a time honored tradition in the Church, going back to the earliest years of Christianity. One way we do this is to bring christological and trinitarian ideas to texts, even as we also seek to understand those texts as much as possible on their own. What I offered earlier this week was not meant to be the "be all or end all" interpretation of Genesis, or to offer my perspective on what the author(s) of Gen. 1 might have meant. I was just offering some ideas to stimulate reflection, given that someone said he'd read more in Genesis, if there was anything new to say.
I am sorry that you feel the way you do about my informal writing of "go with" in the paragraph where I touched on the law and grace from the prologue to John. Given that that topic was not my primary interest, I had been informal and had not offered any official interpretation. I was also trying to stay on the bridge between you and me, as we continue our dialogues. I do agree with you, though, that if I had been offering an interpretation of that part of the prologue, or if I had been doing formal exegesis, either here in this forum or for my dissertation, I would have written that differently. But here and now, it's not my battle to fight.
If anyone would like to talk about the prologue to John someday, that is the second of the two biblical texts I am focusing on in my dissertation. I've read an incredible amount of secondary research --- more than I could handle --- and translated the prologue from the Greek and Latin. My main interest is in tracing its influence in the early centuries of the church, on the development of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, as well as seeing how the prologue interprets and reinterprets the opening verses of Gen. 1.
But I was fascinated to learn that the overall Gospel of John writes of Moses twice as often as the other gospels (that comes from Raymond Brown). I am also interested in the ideas of scholars who see the heavy influence of the Exodus Sinai and tabernacle traditions on the prologue, including ideas about God's Word, glory, and Shekinah (this is in addition to my greater interest in the Wisdom tradition, which was more influential in the development of Trinitarian doctrine, and in addition to similar traditions represented in the targums). Given that most scholars see the first verses of the prologue as an interpretation of Gen. 1.1-5, one could read the prologue as being heavily influenced by, and offering new interpretations of, some passages from both Genesis and Exodus. It's amazing to me how much is packed into the first eighteen verses of the Gospel of John, almost rivaling how much is packed into Gen. 1.
Time to move on to other subjects, so let's see what the next topics will be for our postings. I think this one has lived out its lifespan.
Jane
----------------
Yes, I agree with you that we should be seeking to try to understand what a passage in scripture might have been intended to say, by its author or authors. That is one task of exegesis, although it's impossible to know whether we are ever right about what the author meant to say, even when we do our best research and reading, and look at reputable thinking of the Church and churches and theologians on a text.
Rather than saying that we are stuck in our worlds (which actually we are, to some extent), I prefer what has been said about how each of us brings our worlds and theologies and denominational heritages and social locations and beliefs to the texts, no matter who we are. We do not stand before the texts as neutral and unbiased readers, again no matter who we are. I've already written about this in my earlier postings, but we quite often read just as much into the text as we try to draw out of it, and this is a time honored tradition in the Church, going back to the earliest years of Christianity. One way we do this is to bring christological and trinitarian ideas to texts, even as we also seek to understand those texts as much as possible on their own. What I offered earlier this week was not meant to be the "be all or end all" interpretation of Genesis, or to offer my perspective on what the author(s) of Gen. 1 might have meant. I was just offering some ideas to stimulate reflection, given that someone said he'd read more in Genesis, if there was anything new to say.
I am sorry that you feel the way you do about my informal writing of "go with" in the paragraph where I touched on the law and grace from the prologue to John. Given that that topic was not my primary interest, I had been informal and had not offered any official interpretation. I was also trying to stay on the bridge between you and me, as we continue our dialogues. I do agree with you, though, that if I had been offering an interpretation of that part of the prologue, or if I had been doing formal exegesis, either here in this forum or for my dissertation, I would have written that differently. But here and now, it's not my battle to fight.
If anyone would like to talk about the prologue to John someday, that is the second of the two biblical texts I am focusing on in my dissertation. I've read an incredible amount of secondary research --- more than I could handle --- and translated the prologue from the Greek and Latin. My main interest is in tracing its influence in the early centuries of the church, on the development of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, as well as seeing how the prologue interprets and reinterprets the opening verses of Gen. 1.
But I was fascinated to learn that the overall Gospel of John writes of Moses twice as often as the other gospels (that comes from Raymond Brown). I am also interested in the ideas of scholars who see the heavy influence of the Exodus Sinai and tabernacle traditions on the prologue, including ideas about God's Word, glory, and Shekinah (this is in addition to my greater interest in the Wisdom tradition, which was more influential in the development of Trinitarian doctrine, and in addition to similar traditions represented in the targums). Given that most scholars see the first verses of the prologue as an interpretation of Gen. 1.1-5, one could read the prologue as being heavily influenced by, and offering new interpretations of, some passages from both Genesis and Exodus. It's amazing to me how much is packed into the first eighteen verses of the Gospel of John, almost rivaling how much is packed into Gen. 1.
Time to move on to other subjects, so let's see what the next topics will be for our postings. I think this one has lived out its lifespan.
Jane
----------------
link...@aol.com
May 16, 2012, 8:16:54 AM5/16/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Jane,
I have trouble also with your generalizations when you write "we
similar generalization about the "fathers" and then did not tell us a
thing about "male and female" as they interpreted it. I looked up what
Augustine had to say, in the City of God, (Book 14, par 22) and while
Ted may be glad Augustine agrees with him, what he wrote serves to
illustrate that "the fathers" very well could take a pass on the
"spiritual" meaning and even miss the trinity and christology when it
was staring them in the face: "For no sooner had Scripture said, 'Male
and female created He them, than it immediately continues, 'And God
blessed them, and God said unto, Increase, and multiply, and replenish
the earth, and subdue,' etc. And though all these things may not
unsuitably be interpreted in a spiritual sense, yet, 'male and
female,' cannot be understood of two things in one man, as if there
were in him one thing which rules, and another which is ruled; but it
is quite clear that they were created male and female, with bodies of
different sexes, for the very purpose of begetting offspring, and so
increasing, multiplying, and replentishing the earth; and it is great
follow to oppose so plain a fact." He then goes on to cite Jesus use
of this text, in support of his own non-spiritual interpretation. I
realize that you were using the fathers to chastise Herb for his use
of the word "spiritual," so I will give you points in your favor for
that, even though it seems pretty clear that Herb was not using
"spritual" in the same sense that the fathers would have used it with
respect to interpretation.
And I do applaud you for working on John 1 and the history of the
chruch.
God bless you!
Jim
On May 16, 7:21 am, Jane Ellingwood <bctj...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> Yes, I agree with you that we should be seeking to try to understand what a passage in scripture might have been intended to say, by its author or authors. That is one task of exegesis, although it's impossible to know whether we are ever right about what the author meant to say, even when we do our best research and reading, and look at reputable thinking of the Church and churches and theologians on a text.
>
> Rather than saying that we are stuck in our worlds (which actually we are, to some extent), I prefer what has been said about how each of us brings our worlds and theologies and denominational heritages and social locations and beliefs to the texts, no matter who we are. We do not stand before the texts as neutral and unbiased readers, again no matter who we are. I've already written about this in my earlier postings, but we quite often read just as much into the text as we try to draw out of it, and this is a time honored tradition in the Church, going back to the earliest years of Christianity. One way we do this is to bring christological and trinitarian ideas to texts, even as we also seek to understand those texts as much as possible on their own. What I offered earlier this week was not meant to be the "be all or end all" interpretation of Genesis, or to offer my perspective on what the author(s) of Gen. 1 might have meant. I was just offering some ideas to stimulate reflection, given that someone said he'd read more in Genesis, if there was anything new to say.
>
> I am sorry that you feel the way you do about my informal writing of "go with" in the paragraph where I touched on the law and grace from the prologue to John. Given that that topic was not my primary interest, I had been informal and had not offered any official interpretation. I was also trying to stay on the bridge between you and me, as we continue our dialogues. I do agree with you, though, that if I had been offering an interpretation of that part of the prologue, or if I had been doing formal exegesis, either here in this forum or for my dissertation, I would have written that differently. But here and now, it's not my battle to fight.
>
> If anyone would like to talk about the prologue to John someday, that is the second of the two biblical texts I am focusing on in my dissertation. I've read an incredible amount of secondary research --- more than I could handle --- and translated the prologue from the Greek and Latin. My main interest is in tracing its influence in the early centuries of the church, on the development of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, as well as seeing how the prologue interprets and reinterprets the opening verses of Gen. 1.
>
> But I was fascinated to learn that the overall Gospel of John writes of Moses twice as often as the other gospels (that comes from Raymond Brown). I am also interested in the ideas of scholars who see the heavy influence of the Exodus Sinai and tabernacle traditions on the prologue, including ideas about God's Word, glory, and Shekinah (this is in addition to my greater interest in the Wisdom tradition, which was more influential in the development of Trinitarian doctrine, and in addition to similar traditions represented in the targums). Given that most scholars see the first verses of the prologue as an interpretation of Gen. 1.1-5, one could read the prologue as being heavily influenced by, and offering new interpretations of, some passages from both Genesis and Exodus. It's amazing to me how much is packed into the first eighteen verses of the Gospel of John, almost rivaling how much is packed into Gen. 1.
>
> Time to move on to other subjects, so let's see what the next topics will be for our postings. I think this one has lived out its lifespan.
>
> Jane
>
> ----------------
>
I have trouble also with your generalizations when you write "we
quite often read just as much into the text as we try to draw out of
it, and this is a time honored tradition in the church." You made a
similar generalization about the "fathers" and then did not tell us a
thing about "male and female" as they interpreted it. I looked up what
Augustine had to say, in the City of God, (Book 14, par 22) and while
Ted may be glad Augustine agrees with him, what he wrote serves to
illustrate that "the fathers" very well could take a pass on the
"spiritual" meaning and even miss the trinity and christology when it
was staring them in the face: "For no sooner had Scripture said, 'Male
and female created He them, than it immediately continues, 'And God
blessed them, and God said unto, Increase, and multiply, and replenish
the earth, and subdue,' etc. And though all these things may not
unsuitably be interpreted in a spiritual sense, yet, 'male and
female,' cannot be understood of two things in one man, as if there
were in him one thing which rules, and another which is ruled; but it
is quite clear that they were created male and female, with bodies of
different sexes, for the very purpose of begetting offspring, and so
increasing, multiplying, and replentishing the earth; and it is great
follow to oppose so plain a fact." He then goes on to cite Jesus use
of this text, in support of his own non-spiritual interpretation. I
realize that you were using the fathers to chastise Herb for his use
of the word "spiritual," so I will give you points in your favor for
that, even though it seems pretty clear that Herb was not using
"spritual" in the same sense that the fathers would have used it with
respect to interpretation.
And I do applaud you for working on John 1 and the history of the
chruch.
God bless you!
Jim
On May 16, 7:21 am, Jane Ellingwood <bctj...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> Yes, I agree with you that we should be seeking to try to understand what a passage in scripture might have been intended to say, by its author or authors. That is one task of exegesis, although it's impossible to know whether we are ever right about what the author meant to say, even when we do our best research and reading, and look at reputable thinking of the Church and churches and theologians on a text.
>
> Rather than saying that we are stuck in our worlds (which actually we are, to some extent), I prefer what has been said about how each of us brings our worlds and theologies and denominational heritages and social locations and beliefs to the texts, no matter who we are. We do not stand before the texts as neutral and unbiased readers, again no matter who we are. I've already written about this in my earlier postings, but we quite often read just as much into the text as we try to draw out of it, and this is a time honored tradition in the Church, going back to the earliest years of Christianity. One way we do this is to bring christological and trinitarian ideas to texts, even as we also seek to understand those texts as much as possible on their own. What I offered earlier this week was not meant to be the "be all or end all" interpretation of Genesis, or to offer my perspective on what the author(s) of Gen. 1 might have meant. I was just offering some ideas to stimulate reflection, given that someone said he'd read more in Genesis, if there was anything new to say.
>
> I am sorry that you feel the way you do about my informal writing of "go with" in the paragraph where I touched on the law and grace from the prologue to John. Given that that topic was not my primary interest, I had been informal and had not offered any official interpretation. I was also trying to stay on the bridge between you and me, as we continue our dialogues. I do agree with you, though, that if I had been offering an interpretation of that part of the prologue, or if I had been doing formal exegesis, either here in this forum or for my dissertation, I would have written that differently. But here and now, it's not my battle to fight.
>
> If anyone would like to talk about the prologue to John someday, that is the second of the two biblical texts I am focusing on in my dissertation. I've read an incredible amount of secondary research --- more than I could handle --- and translated the prologue from the Greek and Latin. My main interest is in tracing its influence in the early centuries of the church, on the development of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, as well as seeing how the prologue interprets and reinterprets the opening verses of Gen. 1.
>
> But I was fascinated to learn that the overall Gospel of John writes of Moses twice as often as the other gospels (that comes from Raymond Brown). I am also interested in the ideas of scholars who see the heavy influence of the Exodus Sinai and tabernacle traditions on the prologue, including ideas about God's Word, glory, and Shekinah (this is in addition to my greater interest in the Wisdom tradition, which was more influential in the development of Trinitarian doctrine, and in addition to similar traditions represented in the targums). Given that most scholars see the first verses of the prologue as an interpretation of Gen. 1.1-5, one could read the prologue as being heavily influenced by, and offering new interpretations of, some passages from both Genesis and Exodus. It's amazing to me how much is packed into the first eighteen verses of the Gospel of John, almost rivaling how much is packed into Gen. 1.
>
> Time to move on to other subjects, so let's see what the next topics will be for our postings. I think this one has lived out its lifespan.
>
> Jane
>
> ----------------
>
Jane Ellingwood
May 16, 2012, 9:55:46 AM5/16/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jim,
I am not sure I can add any more to the discussion of what you call "generalizations," and I stand by what I've written.
As to Augustine, the chapter you cite from Book 14 of City of God is interesting, and it's set in a much broader discussion in Book 14 in general, where Augustine has specific aims in mind. I think I've mentioned this to you before, although I also think I deleted it earlier this week, to reduce my words in my long postings, but I am not studying theological anthropology. I am working on the intersection of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, and specifically where the former influenced the latter on issues related to the unity of the triune God. I have had to intentionally exclude anthropology and other interesting topics, while also reading about some of these ideas in Augustine and the Cappadocians and others who wrote commentaries or sermons on Gen. 1. So I would not have commented to you on their ideas about male and female or other anthropological issues.
It's interesting, I just wrote something recently for my current chapter on how some of the Cappadocians and others in the fourth century, before Augustine, sometimes forget their trinitarian ideas, when they are writing about creation. They are good at trinitiarian ideas when they are intentionally writing about the Trinity or the Son or the Holy Spirit. It's just that they sometimes either forget or overlook things in scripture, as you say. I mentioned that to my PhD advisor a while back. It will end up written in some appropriate academic way by the time the chapter is done. I did find a couple of very interesting things that Basil does in his homilies on the six days of creation which do reveal more christological or trinitarian ideas than he is sometimes given credit for (e.g., he is criticized by Gunton for not bringing the Word into his homilies, but I found out that he does, in subtle ways).
Your insights on spiritual vs. literal meanings are interesting, and there's quite a bit of interest in these two types of readings these days, among some patristic scholars, including, coincidentally, my PhD advisor. Even when Augustine and Basil thought they were doing literal interpretations, including of Genesis, their ideas of literal are not necessarily what ours would be. I think the current thinking, at least as represented by my advisor, is that we have to take them at their word: if they say they are working on a literal interpretation, it's only fair to accept that, and not apply present-day standards for exegesis to the fourth and fifth centuries. I think this frees us up to glean even more insights from the Fathers, whose works are sometimes overlooked because some people think their works were too allegorical. I know that I love reading their writings on Genesis, even the parts that are not related to my specific focus areas.
As to Herb, I had forgotten Herb, and I am sorry if I chastised him, which I do remember now that I did.
As to points, I had not realized we were on a points system. I thought we were having a dialogue.
Finally, I was going to mention to you yesterday that you had failed to offer me a "God bless you!" like you do for Scott, Ted, and Willis. I am so honored to make it into their category, even if for this tiny reason, given that I will never make it into their circle in other ways.
Jane
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure I can add any more to the discussion of what you call "generalizations," and I stand by what I've written.
As to Augustine, the chapter you cite from Book 14 of City of God is interesting, and it's set in a much broader discussion in Book 14 in general, where Augustine has specific aims in mind. I think I've mentioned this to you before, although I also think I deleted it earlier this week, to reduce my words in my long postings, but I am not studying theological anthropology. I am working on the intersection of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, and specifically where the former influenced the latter on issues related to the unity of the triune God. I have had to intentionally exclude anthropology and other interesting topics, while also reading about some of these ideas in Augustine and the Cappadocians and others who wrote commentaries or sermons on Gen. 1. So I would not have commented to you on their ideas about male and female or other anthropological issues.
It's interesting, I just wrote something recently for my current chapter on how some of the Cappadocians and others in the fourth century, before Augustine, sometimes forget their trinitarian ideas, when they are writing about creation. They are good at trinitiarian ideas when they are intentionally writing about the Trinity or the Son or the Holy Spirit. It's just that they sometimes either forget or overlook things in scripture, as you say. I mentioned that to my PhD advisor a while back. It will end up written in some appropriate academic way by the time the chapter is done. I did find a couple of very interesting things that Basil does in his homilies on the six days of creation which do reveal more christological or trinitarian ideas than he is sometimes given credit for (e.g., he is criticized by Gunton for not bringing the Word into his homilies, but I found out that he does, in subtle ways).
Your insights on spiritual vs. literal meanings are interesting, and there's quite a bit of interest in these two types of readings these days, among some patristic scholars, including, coincidentally, my PhD advisor. Even when Augustine and Basil thought they were doing literal interpretations, including of Genesis, their ideas of literal are not necessarily what ours would be. I think the current thinking, at least as represented by my advisor, is that we have to take them at their word: if they say they are working on a literal interpretation, it's only fair to accept that, and not apply present-day standards for exegesis to the fourth and fifth centuries. I think this frees us up to glean even more insights from the Fathers, whose works are sometimes overlooked because some people think their works were too allegorical. I know that I love reading their writings on Genesis, even the parts that are not related to my specific focus areas.
As to Herb, I had forgotten Herb, and I am sorry if I chastised him, which I do remember now that I did.
As to points, I had not realized we were on a points system. I thought we were having a dialogue.
Finally, I was going to mention to you yesterday that you had failed to offer me a "God bless you!" like you do for Scott, Ted, and Willis. I am so honored to make it into their category, even if for this tiny reason, given that I will never make it into their circle in other ways.
Jane
--------------------------------------------------------------------
link...@aol.com
May 16, 2012, 10:49:54 AM5/16/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Jane,
God bless you, always! On Sunday I was going to reply to your Mothers
Day note with,"God bless the womb which bore you and the breasts which
suckled you, or the hands that bottle fed you!" but I was afraid you
would be offended. I do hope you are not offended.
As for "points," I acknowledge some points, and some I don't. You are
right, it is not a system, it is a dialogue. I acknowledg your points
with Herb, even if, pardon me for saying so, you were trying to score
a few points in your favor with your introduction of your baby,
Concerning John One, into a dialogue on sexuality. Anyway, it is a
beautiful baby and you have every right to be proud.
In any event, I was glad to be prodded to look at Augustine, for the
way he makes his point is very interesting to me. Notice how he
discounts one "spiritual" interpretation of Gen 1:27,28 (was it the
dominant one at that point?) and then dismisses all the sundry others
as he brings in Jesus' use of the passage. I am going to look at it in
the Latin, it is such a masterful way of forming an argument.
Your brother,
Jim
> ...
>
> read more »
God bless you, always! On Sunday I was going to reply to your Mothers
Day note with,"God bless the womb which bore you and the breasts which
suckled you, or the hands that bottle fed you!" but I was afraid you
would be offended. I do hope you are not offended.
As for "points," I acknowledge some points, and some I don't. You are
right, it is not a system, it is a dialogue. I acknowledg your points
with Herb, even if, pardon me for saying so, you were trying to score
a few points in your favor with your introduction of your baby,
Concerning John One, into a dialogue on sexuality. Anyway, it is a
beautiful baby and you have every right to be proud.
In any event, I was glad to be prodded to look at Augustine, for the
way he makes his point is very interesting to me. Notice how he
discounts one "spiritual" interpretation of Gen 1:27,28 (was it the
dominant one at that point?) and then dismisses all the sundry others
as he brings in Jesus' use of the passage. I am going to look at it in
the Latin, it is such a masterful way of forming an argument.
Your brother,
Jim
> I am not sure I can add any more to the discussion of what you call "generalizations," and I stand by what I've written.
>
> As to Augustine, the chapter you cite from Book 14 of City of God is interesting, and it's set in a much broader discussion in Book 14 in general, where Augustine has specific aims in mind. I think I've mentioned this to you before, although I also think I deleted it earlier this week, to reduce my words in my long postings, but I am not studying theological anthropology. I am working on the intersection of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, and specifically where the former influenced the latter on issues related to the unity of the triune God. I have had to intentionally exclude anthropology and other interesting topics, while also reading about some of these ideas in Augustine and the Cappadocians and others who wrote commentaries or sermons on Gen. 1. So I would not have commented to you on their ideas about male and female or other anthropological issues.
>
> It's interesting, I just wrote something recently for my current chapter on how some of the Cappadocians and others in the fourth century, before Augustine, sometimes forget their trinitarian ideas, when they are writing about creation. They are good at trinitiarian ideas when they are intentionally writing about the Trinity or the Son or the Holy Spirit. It's just that they sometimes either forget or overlook things in scripture, as you say. I mentioned that to my PhD advisor a while back. It will end up written in some appropriate academic way by the time the chapter is done. I did find a couple of very interesting things that Basil does in his homilies on the six days of creation which do reveal more christological or trinitarian ideas than he is sometimes given credit for (e.g., he is criticized by Gunton for not bringing the Word into his homilies, but I found out that he does, in subtle ways).
>
> Your insights on spiritual vs. literal meanings are interesting, and there's quite a bit of interest in these two types of readings these days, among some patristic scholars, including, coincidentally, my PhD advisor. Even when Augustine and Basil thought they were doing literal interpretations, including of Genesis, their ideas of literal are not necessarily what ours would be. I think the current thinking, at least as represented by my advisor, is that we have to take them at their word: if they say they are working on a literal interpretation, it's only fair to accept that, and not apply present-day standards for exegesis to the fourth and fifth centuries. I think this frees us up to glean even more insights from the Fathers, whose works are sometimes overlooked because some people think their works were too allegorical. I know that I love reading their writings on Genesis, even the parts that are not related to my specific focus areas.
>
> As to Herb, I had forgotten Herb, and I am sorry if I chastised him, which I do remember now that I did.
>
> As to points, I had not realized we were on a points system. I thought we were having a dialogue.
>
> Finally, I was going to mention to you yesterday that you had failed to offer me a "God bless you!" like you do for Scott, Ted, and Willis. I am so honored to make it into their category, even if for this tiny reason, given that I will never make it into their circle in other ways.
>
> Jane
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As to Augustine, the chapter you cite from Book 14 of City of God is interesting, and it's set in a much broader discussion in Book 14 in general, where Augustine has specific aims in mind. I think I've mentioned this to you before, although I also think I deleted it earlier this week, to reduce my words in my long postings, but I am not studying theological anthropology. I am working on the intersection of the doctrines of creation and the Trinity, and specifically where the former influenced the latter on issues related to the unity of the triune God. I have had to intentionally exclude anthropology and other interesting topics, while also reading about some of these ideas in Augustine and the Cappadocians and others who wrote commentaries or sermons on Gen. 1. So I would not have commented to you on their ideas about male and female or other anthropological issues.
>
> It's interesting, I just wrote something recently for my current chapter on how some of the Cappadocians and others in the fourth century, before Augustine, sometimes forget their trinitarian ideas, when they are writing about creation. They are good at trinitiarian ideas when they are intentionally writing about the Trinity or the Son or the Holy Spirit. It's just that they sometimes either forget or overlook things in scripture, as you say. I mentioned that to my PhD advisor a while back. It will end up written in some appropriate academic way by the time the chapter is done. I did find a couple of very interesting things that Basil does in his homilies on the six days of creation which do reveal more christological or trinitarian ideas than he is sometimes given credit for (e.g., he is criticized by Gunton for not bringing the Word into his homilies, but I found out that he does, in subtle ways).
>
> Your insights on spiritual vs. literal meanings are interesting, and there's quite a bit of interest in these two types of readings these days, among some patristic scholars, including, coincidentally, my PhD advisor. Even when Augustine and Basil thought they were doing literal interpretations, including of Genesis, their ideas of literal are not necessarily what ours would be. I think the current thinking, at least as represented by my advisor, is that we have to take them at their word: if they say they are working on a literal interpretation, it's only fair to accept that, and not apply present-day standards for exegesis to the fourth and fifth centuries. I think this frees us up to glean even more insights from the Fathers, whose works are sometimes overlooked because some people think their works were too allegorical. I know that I love reading their writings on Genesis, even the parts that are not related to my specific focus areas.
>
> As to Herb, I had forgotten Herb, and I am sorry if I chastised him, which I do remember now that I did.
>
> As to points, I had not realized we were on a points system. I thought we were having a dialogue.
>
> Finally, I was going to mention to you yesterday that you had failed to offer me a "God bless you!" like you do for Scott, Ted, and Willis. I am so honored to make it into their category, even if for this tiny reason, given that I will never make it into their circle in other ways.
>
> Jane
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> read more »
Herb Davis
May 16, 2012, 11:04:24 AM5/16/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jane, Jim, Ted, Scott, I still haven’t
gotten to the sermon note since you folks have sent me back to look at Gen. I
don’t think any of us read Gen literally but we do read Gen out of
different traditions and we bring different cultural values to any
reading. I agree with Jane that no one comes to a text pure. We all
have baggage and it is good to have that baggage up front. The difficulty
is that in our time there is no certainty that we share the same values or work
out of the same tradition. It is difficult for us to chat because we don’t
share a common language and we need to keep trying to learn second
languages. I can understand Scott’s difficulty in reading these texts and
with the language that some of us use, yet he always pushes me to rethink my
position. That is always true of Ted who has some wonderful ways of
unpacking text. Jane also added and forces to look again at John 1 in a
different way. I love John one. My disagreement with Willis is he
assumes there is a right way. Jim and I are closer since we share to some
degree a common tradition Barth, Calvin. We both preach or preached weekly
and lived in a parish. I think we both enjoy but also distrust the liberal
culture. Take for examples the value words, “Family Values” that Jane uses
in her note. Family values when used by conservative Christians are viewed
by the more elite as a way of putting women back in the kitchen. Family
values as viewed by evangelical maybe more about faithful marriage and care of
children. Who know what Newt means by family values. Evangelical’s
look at what they see as the breakdown of family while liberal look at the way
family limits and enslaves and hurts people. We use family values to hit
the enemy over the head. What does Eph.5:21 say about family values?
I liked what Ted said about Gal. rescinding Gen.3:14ff, great way of seeing the
work of Christ. What was wonderful about this chat was there was an
attempt to look at a text and make points and not destroy each other. What
maybe the result since we have no common language is that the texts no longer
have much power.
I was amazed how sex and reproduction was removed from
the Gen 1 text and that we did not look at Gen 2, which seems to say to me that
nothing can ease man’s loneliness, not God, not the best friend a dog, nothing
in the creation, it might imply not another man, something new must enter
creation, a surprise , a woman. Brueggemann suggest that the vision of
human community is man and woman together. Jane and Ted don’t deal with
this possibility. The creation isn’t complete in Gen.1-2:4. Ted
makes us remember that these are complex texts and we need to be careful.
I enjoyed but did not fully understand the chat with Jim on male and
female. Brueggeman suggested that the image of God is seen in Phil. 2, the
man who does not grasp at divinity.
But on Gen.1:27ff Von Rad suggest that we are talking
about reproduction .
I too love John 1:10: :He was in the world and the
world came into being through him;” but there is the sense that there is
something missing, something surprising, something unbelievable, “ yet the world
did not know him.” How do you deal with that mystery? We do not know
our maker. We come to know him not through our sex, or our flesh or our
creation but by receiving, believing the one who does not grasp.
I think our chatting has helped me to see more clearly
that one who believes, receives and confesses Jesus as Lord is my brother or
sister in Christ, regardless of sexual orientation. At the same time our
chat has not convinced that the vision of Gen 1 and 2 is same sex
marriage.
Finally a note to Jane on heaven. It is good to
remember that heaven is created and the two of them will someday end in a new
heaven and a new earth where all tears will be wiped away and we will see more
clerly.
Herb
Sent:
Monday, May 14, 2012 7:07 AM
Subject: "In the beginning": reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18 as the
interpretative text
link...@aol.com
May 16, 2012, 12:13:36 PM5/16/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Herb,
Very well said!
You might want to read CD III,1 pp.181-187, where Barth is most
succinct on Gen 1:26-27 (he joins these more closely together than Von
Rad and Augustine, who join 27 more closely to 28). If you don't have
it, it is available on line, or you can buy the whole CD set (worth
its weight in gold, but not the most recently revised edition) at the
bargan basement price of about $100 from Christian Book Distributors.
God bless you!
Jim
On May 16, 11:04 am, "Herb Davis" <herb.da...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Dear Jane, Jim, Ted, Scott, I still haven’t gotten to the sermon note since you folks have sent me back to look at Gen. I don’t think any of us read Gen literally but we do read Gen out of different traditions and we bring different cultural values to any reading. I agree with Jane that no one comes to a text pure. We all have baggage and it is good to have that baggage up front. The difficulty is that in our time there is no certainty that we share the same values or work out of the same tradition. It is difficult for us to chat because we don’t share a common language and we need to keep trying to learn second languages. I can understand Scott’s difficulty in reading these texts and with the language that some of us use, yet he always pushes me to rethink my position. That is always true of Ted who has some wonderful ways of unpacking text. Jane also added and forces to look again at John 1 in a different way. I love John one. My disagreement with Willis is he assumes there is a right way. Jim and I are closer since we share to some degree a common tradition Barth, Calvin. We both preach or preached weekly and lived in a parish. I think we both enjoy but also distrust the liberal culture. Take for examples the value words, “Family Values” that Jane uses in her note. Family values when used by conservative Christians are viewed by the more elite as a way of putting women back in the kitchen. Family values as viewed by evangelical maybe more about faithful marriage and care of children. Who know what Newt means by family values. Evangelical’s look at what they see as the breakdown of family while liberal look at the way family limits and enslaves and hurts people. We use family values to hit the enemy over the head. What does Eph.5:21 say about family values? I liked what Ted said about Gal. rescinding Gen.3:14ff, great way of seeing the work of Christ. What was wonderful about this chat was there was an attempt to look at a text and make points and not destroy each other. What maybe the result since we have no common language is that the texts no longer have much power.
>
> I was amazed how sex and reproduction was removed from the Gen 1 text and that we did not look at Gen 2, which seems to say to me that nothing can ease man’s loneliness, not God, not the best friend a dog, nothing in the creation, it might imply not another man, something new must enter creation, a surprise , a woman. Brueggemann suggest that the vision of human community is man and woman together. Jane and Ted don’t deal with this possibility. The creation isn’t complete in Gen.1-2:4. Ted makes us remember that these are complex texts and we need to be careful. I enjoyed but did not fully understand the chat with Jim on male and female. Brueggeman suggested that the image of God is seen in Phil. 2, the man who does not grasp at divinity.
> But on Gen.1:27ff Von Rad suggest that we are talking about reproduction .
>
> I too love John 1:10: :He was in the world and the world came into being through him;” but there is the sense that there is something missing, something surprising, something unbelievable, “ yet the world did not know him.” How do you deal with that mystery? We do not know our maker. We come to know him not through our sex, or our flesh or our creation but by receiving, believing the one who does not grasp.
> I think our chatting has helped me to see more clearly that one who believes, receives and confesses Jesus as Lord is my brother or sister in Christ, regardless of sexual orientation. At the same time our chat has not convinced that the vision of Gen 1 and 2 is same sex marriage.
>
> Finally a note to Jane on heaven. It is good to remember that heaven is created and the two of them will someday end in a new heaven and a new earth where all tears will be wiped away and we will see more clerly.
>
> Herb
>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 7:07 AM
> To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: "In the beginning": reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18 as the interpretative text
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> To answer Herb's question about which tradition one is writing in, I am writing to you in the tradition of the early Church Fathers, up through the late fourth and early fifth centuries.
>
> Herb, as much as you know that I love you, it's not a very nice shot to accuse Scott of spiritualizing the text of Genesis. That is a shot that has been done in recent decades, especially by Colin Gunton, who accused Origen of allegorizing the text of Genesis, which Origen certainly did, and who also accused Augustine for Augustine's ways of approaching the text. Gunton had a slight preference for the way Basil of Caesarea and the other Cappadocians read Gen. 1, but he still criticizes Basil for not having enough of a trinitarian view of the six days of creation, in Basil's hexaemeral homilies. For Gunton, the third-century Irenaeus is usually the hero when it comes to early trinitarian thinking and thinking about Genesis and the creation accounts. But guess what? Even this hero very seldom wrote about the six days of creation or the early verses of Gen. 1. Irenaeus usually focused on Gen. 1.26-27 and then the second creation account, which begins in the second chapter of Genesis. He especially liked Gen. 2.7, where 'the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." I've done a whole rift on the word translated as "formed" here. It would be interesting for another day. And I know that Willis loves this verse for other reasons, more focused on the breath of life.
>
> But, the point is, Gen. 1 was rarely read or interpreted literally in the early centuries of church history, including by our heroes of the faith. They knew way back then that one cannot take Gen. 1 literally and that the text offers a lot of challenges. But they also very much wanted to try to understand Gen. 1. A huge crop of commentaries on Genesis and sermons on the six days of creation appeared in the early centuries, and people like Basil and his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom and Augustine and others, including people in the Syrian tradition whose works are just now being dealt with in English, tried to interpret Gen. 1, literally or allegorically. They of course read Genesis christologically, and with trinitarian eyes, which I suggest is appropriate for us too.
>
> One issue that Basil, Augustine, Chrysostom, and others were hung up on is that early verses of Gen. 1 seem to say that God created two heavens. What's up with that? Two heavens? If you take the text literally, as Basil and Augustine tried to do, you get caught up in twists and turns. Augustine ended up arguing way, way too long about their being a 'heaven of heavens', which comes from the Psalms. This heaven's heaven was over the heaven that we know, making two heavens. Basil had to do some juggling on this issue in his homilies, which he preached to lay people of mixed backgrounds. His hexaemeral homilies are old fashioned, of course, but they make good reading, and he loved the variety of God's creation. He drew on as much science and philosophy as he could, while sticking to the Bible. Augustine also did his best, although he can go on and on and on. He's my main man, though, so I will be defending him later on. But how many of you, when you take apart Gen. 1 literally, are going to spend time figuring out why the text suggests that there are two heavens? I don't think you'll focus your energy there!
>
> Gen. 1 was not read literally way back then, by the fathers of the church, who are saints today, and who left us a legacy in their writings, theological doctrines, and the words of some creeds. And theologians do not do their work today by reading the Bible literally, or trying to prove the point of doctrines by doing proof-texting from selected passages. They look at the witness of the Church and churches throughout the centuries, as well as at the Bible and other resources. Gabe has written all about that!
>
> If we are going to talk about interpreting Genesis in this forum, then I suggest one way of doing it is to read Gen. 1 by using John 1.1-18 (the prologue to John) as an interpretive text. This is a time honored tradition, and the prologue to John may itself be a midrash on Gen. 1.1-5, and it may use Prov. 8.22-31 as one of its own interpretative texts.
>
> One of the verses from the prologue to John with the greatest impact in the early centuries of Church history, and the period when the doctrines of creation and the Trinity were formulated, is John 1.3: 'All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.'
>
> The next verse after that is, in some translations: 'What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.'
>
> So, here we learn, for our discussions today, that ALL THINGS and ALL PEOPLE came into being through Jesus Christ. We don't hear anything about male and female, gay or straight, black or white or Asian or Indian or other, Jew or Greek, etc. etc. etc. Pretty simple. God the Father made all things with and through his eternal Son, and all things were given life.
>
> Then there is John 1.12, which is very powerful for our discussion here: 'But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or the will of man, but of God.'
>
> WOW When it says 'not of the will of man', some translators think 'man' means a 'husband', so this is very blunt. We do not become children of God through the desires of a husband and what men and women do together in the act of procreation.
>
> So all things were created through the Word, the Son, Jesus Christ: that is all things. And what it means to be children of God takes on a
> ...
>
> read more »
Very well said!
You might want to read CD III,1 pp.181-187, where Barth is most
succinct on Gen 1:26-27 (he joins these more closely together than Von
Rad and Augustine, who join 27 more closely to 28). If you don't have
it, it is available on line, or you can buy the whole CD set (worth
its weight in gold, but not the most recently revised edition) at the
bargan basement price of about $100 from Christian Book Distributors.
God bless you!
Jim
On May 16, 11:04 am, "Herb Davis" <herb.da...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Dear Jane, Jim, Ted, Scott, I still haven’t gotten to the sermon note since you folks have sent me back to look at Gen. I don’t think any of us read Gen literally but we do read Gen out of different traditions and we bring different cultural values to any reading. I agree with Jane that no one comes to a text pure. We all have baggage and it is good to have that baggage up front. The difficulty is that in our time there is no certainty that we share the same values or work out of the same tradition. It is difficult for us to chat because we don’t share a common language and we need to keep trying to learn second languages. I can understand Scott’s difficulty in reading these texts and with the language that some of us use, yet he always pushes me to rethink my position. That is always true of Ted who has some wonderful ways of unpacking text. Jane also added and forces to look again at John 1 in a different way. I love John one. My disagreement with Willis is he assumes there is a right way. Jim and I are closer since we share to some degree a common tradition Barth, Calvin. We both preach or preached weekly and lived in a parish. I think we both enjoy but also distrust the liberal culture. Take for examples the value words, “Family Values” that Jane uses in her note. Family values when used by conservative Christians are viewed by the more elite as a way of putting women back in the kitchen. Family values as viewed by evangelical maybe more about faithful marriage and care of children. Who know what Newt means by family values. Evangelical’s look at what they see as the breakdown of family while liberal look at the way family limits and enslaves and hurts people. We use family values to hit the enemy over the head. What does Eph.5:21 say about family values? I liked what Ted said about Gal. rescinding Gen.3:14ff, great way of seeing the work of Christ. What was wonderful about this chat was there was an attempt to look at a text and make points and not destroy each other. What maybe the result since we have no common language is that the texts no longer have much power.
>
> I was amazed how sex and reproduction was removed from the Gen 1 text and that we did not look at Gen 2, which seems to say to me that nothing can ease man’s loneliness, not God, not the best friend a dog, nothing in the creation, it might imply not another man, something new must enter creation, a surprise , a woman. Brueggemann suggest that the vision of human community is man and woman together. Jane and Ted don’t deal with this possibility. The creation isn’t complete in Gen.1-2:4. Ted makes us remember that these are complex texts and we need to be careful. I enjoyed but did not fully understand the chat with Jim on male and female. Brueggeman suggested that the image of God is seen in Phil. 2, the man who does not grasp at divinity.
> But on Gen.1:27ff Von Rad suggest that we are talking about reproduction .
>
> I too love John 1:10: :He was in the world and the world came into being through him;” but there is the sense that there is something missing, something surprising, something unbelievable, “ yet the world did not know him.” How do you deal with that mystery? We do not know our maker. We come to know him not through our sex, or our flesh or our creation but by receiving, believing the one who does not grasp.
> I think our chatting has helped me to see more clearly that one who believes, receives and confesses Jesus as Lord is my brother or sister in Christ, regardless of sexual orientation. At the same time our chat has not convinced that the vision of Gen 1 and 2 is same sex marriage.
>
> Finally a note to Jane on heaven. It is good to remember that heaven is created and the two of them will someday end in a new heaven and a new earth where all tears will be wiped away and we will see more clerly.
>
> Herb
>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 7:07 AM
> To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: "In the beginning": reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18 as the interpretative text
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> To answer Herb's question about which tradition one is writing in, I am writing to you in the tradition of the early Church Fathers, up through the late fourth and early fifth centuries.
>
> Herb, as much as you know that I love you, it's not a very nice shot to accuse Scott of spiritualizing the text of Genesis. That is a shot that has been done in recent decades, especially by Colin Gunton, who accused Origen of allegorizing the text of Genesis, which Origen certainly did, and who also accused Augustine for Augustine's ways of approaching the text. Gunton had a slight preference for the way Basil of Caesarea and the other Cappadocians read Gen. 1, but he still criticizes Basil for not having enough of a trinitarian view of the six days of creation, in Basil's hexaemeral homilies. For Gunton, the third-century Irenaeus is usually the hero when it comes to early trinitarian thinking and thinking about Genesis and the creation accounts. But guess what? Even this hero very seldom wrote about the six days of creation or the early verses of Gen. 1. Irenaeus usually focused on Gen. 1.26-27 and then the second creation account, which begins in the second chapter of Genesis. He especially liked Gen. 2.7, where 'the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." I've done a whole rift on the word translated as "formed" here. It would be interesting for another day. And I know that Willis loves this verse for other reasons, more focused on the breath of life.
>
> But, the point is, Gen. 1 was rarely read or interpreted literally in the early centuries of church history, including by our heroes of the faith. They knew way back then that one cannot take Gen. 1 literally and that the text offers a lot of challenges. But they also very much wanted to try to understand Gen. 1. A huge crop of commentaries on Genesis and sermons on the six days of creation appeared in the early centuries, and people like Basil and his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom and Augustine and others, including people in the Syrian tradition whose works are just now being dealt with in English, tried to interpret Gen. 1, literally or allegorically. They of course read Genesis christologically, and with trinitarian eyes, which I suggest is appropriate for us too.
>
> One issue that Basil, Augustine, Chrysostom, and others were hung up on is that early verses of Gen. 1 seem to say that God created two heavens. What's up with that? Two heavens? If you take the text literally, as Basil and Augustine tried to do, you get caught up in twists and turns. Augustine ended up arguing way, way too long about their being a 'heaven of heavens', which comes from the Psalms. This heaven's heaven was over the heaven that we know, making two heavens. Basil had to do some juggling on this issue in his homilies, which he preached to lay people of mixed backgrounds. His hexaemeral homilies are old fashioned, of course, but they make good reading, and he loved the variety of God's creation. He drew on as much science and philosophy as he could, while sticking to the Bible. Augustine also did his best, although he can go on and on and on. He's my main man, though, so I will be defending him later on. But how many of you, when you take apart Gen. 1 literally, are going to spend time figuring out why the text suggests that there are two heavens? I don't think you'll focus your energy there!
>
> Gen. 1 was not read literally way back then, by the fathers of the church, who are saints today, and who left us a legacy in their writings, theological doctrines, and the words of some creeds. And theologians do not do their work today by reading the Bible literally, or trying to prove the point of doctrines by doing proof-texting from selected passages. They look at the witness of the Church and churches throughout the centuries, as well as at the Bible and other resources. Gabe has written all about that!
>
> If we are going to talk about interpreting Genesis in this forum, then I suggest one way of doing it is to read Gen. 1 by using John 1.1-18 (the prologue to John) as an interpretive text. This is a time honored tradition, and the prologue to John may itself be a midrash on Gen. 1.1-5, and it may use Prov. 8.22-31 as one of its own interpretative texts.
>
> One of the verses from the prologue to John with the greatest impact in the early centuries of Church history, and the period when the doctrines of creation and the Trinity were formulated, is John 1.3: 'All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.'
>
> The next verse after that is, in some translations: 'What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.'
>
> So, here we learn, for our discussions today, that ALL THINGS and ALL PEOPLE came into being through Jesus Christ. We don't hear anything about male and female, gay or straight, black or white or Asian or Indian or other, Jew or Greek, etc. etc. etc. Pretty simple. God the Father made all things with and through his eternal Son, and all things were given life.
>
> Then there is John 1.12, which is very powerful for our discussion here: 'But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or the will of man, but of God.'
>
> WOW When it says 'not of the will of man', some translators think 'man' means a 'husband', so this is very blunt. We do not become children of God through the desires of a husband and what men and women do together in the act of procreation.
>
> So all things were created through the Word, the Son, Jesus Christ: that is all things. And what it means to be children of God takes on a
>
> read more »
Jean Easland
May 16, 2012, 2:34:11 PM5/16/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dearest Brother Herb: Ah yes something good is
coming out of the discussion. Your words bring us back to; the need we have
for each other, how deep our longing is, how rich the mystery of Christ is,
how much peace we know becaus we can talk to each other because of the
Incarnation and the faith we bring to it feeble as it is, and how far we have to
go. To give up in exhaustion is good some times. My cousin from Wisc., a local
Lutheran pastor friend and I caught so many walleye on the beautiful River, I
dare not tell. We cept only our limit. Then this morning it was too
windy to fish so we shared faith journey stories and had a great big hug at
the end. I beg you keep on this line as long as you can! Your are a rock for
some of us. +++Roger
Willis E. Elliott
May 16, 2012, 8:49:17 PM5/16/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Herb
I like your skill at bringing people & traditions together
in a "chat."
In your Genesis chat, the chatters (you say) "don't share a
common language." The God-given common language to be shared when talking
Genesis is Hebrew.
Now let's get down to why Willis "assumes there is a right
way." My PhD oral in Hebrew faced three white-bearded rabbis for some
hours (2 or 3, can't remember which), & my fate depended of which way trhe
beards moved more - up/down or sideways ----- Original Message -----
From: Herb Davis /*+-Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:04 AM
Jane Ellingwood
May 19, 2012, 8:41:26 PM5/19/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Brother Jim,
I am very sorry about my delay in responding to you, and I hope that you did not think that I was offended, as I very much was not. There were other reasons for my absence and my tardiness in replying.
So, thank you very much for your blessing. I would not have been offended by the Mother's Day blessing, and I am touched, but it is a bit over the top, and it was intended for Someone Else. So it's just as well that you sent it in the way you did --- sort of after the fact. This is a good example of how it's the thought that counts! :-)))
As to points, I don't really seek to "score points" as such. I may wish to "fill my point bucket" for a later day. If you really want to know the truth --- and this is in fact the truth --- the reason I presented one of my babies for comment by this group was that I was only 40% through writing a major chapter, which was supposed to be 100% done a few weeks ago. On my new delayed schedule, it is now supposed to be 100% done by the time I fly to Chicago this coming Wednesday, for the North America Patristics Society conference. My research has been done for a while, and my notes are very well organized, and even my thoughts were pretty much in order. But I was having a hard time moving forward. I was stuck at the 40% mark, with no hope in sight.
So, I figured I could "kill two birds with one stone" and give you all something about Genesis and the Prologue to John to think about, if you wished, and I would also "float my ideas," to find out if there were any responses. Even so, I have already written that part of my dissertation ---- the part I shared with you. That's not the part that I was stuck on. So it was really just an exercise in writing and self-discipline.
I was going to ask for you and others to pray for me to be able to write my chapter, but I didn't. Instead, I told you about my news, and then I took Thursday and Friday off as vacation days, to "practice" my new schedule. And miracle of miracles, I have been writing and have made considerable progress, and now I estimate that I am at the 60% mark, with the rest being more or less "the downhill slide."
So, it was selfish on my part, but you and the rest of our colleagues in this forum were "with me" as I pushed forward. And if I was selfish and tried to "make a few points" along the way, I am sorry for that, but it ended up having a good result.
As to Augustine, let's stay in touch about him, including the Latin part. I take private Latin classes on Saturday mornings, and now we are wading through parts of the last three books of his Confessions. I am very much NOT a Latin scholar --- I just muddle through. But it's still very worthwhile to see how he writes.
Your sister,
Jane
_____________________________________________________
I am very sorry about my delay in responding to you, and I hope that you did not think that I was offended, as I very much was not. There were other reasons for my absence and my tardiness in replying.
So, thank you very much for your blessing. I would not have been offended by the Mother's Day blessing, and I am touched, but it is a bit over the top, and it was intended for Someone Else. So it's just as well that you sent it in the way you did --- sort of after the fact. This is a good example of how it's the thought that counts! :-)))
As to points, I don't really seek to "score points" as such. I may wish to "fill my point bucket" for a later day. If you really want to know the truth --- and this is in fact the truth --- the reason I presented one of my babies for comment by this group was that I was only 40% through writing a major chapter, which was supposed to be 100% done a few weeks ago. On my new delayed schedule, it is now supposed to be 100% done by the time I fly to Chicago this coming Wednesday, for the North America Patristics Society conference. My research has been done for a while, and my notes are very well organized, and even my thoughts were pretty much in order. But I was having a hard time moving forward. I was stuck at the 40% mark, with no hope in sight.
So, I figured I could "kill two birds with one stone" and give you all something about Genesis and the Prologue to John to think about, if you wished, and I would also "float my ideas," to find out if there were any responses. Even so, I have already written that part of my dissertation ---- the part I shared with you. That's not the part that I was stuck on. So it was really just an exercise in writing and self-discipline.
I was going to ask for you and others to pray for me to be able to write my chapter, but I didn't. Instead, I told you about my news, and then I took Thursday and Friday off as vacation days, to "practice" my new schedule. And miracle of miracles, I have been writing and have made considerable progress, and now I estimate that I am at the 60% mark, with the rest being more or less "the downhill slide."
So, it was selfish on my part, but you and the rest of our colleagues in this forum were "with me" as I pushed forward. And if I was selfish and tried to "make a few points" along the way, I am sorry for that, but it ended up having a good result.
As to Augustine, let's stay in touch about him, including the Latin part. I take private Latin classes on Saturday mornings, and now we are wading through parts of the last three books of his Confessions. I am very much NOT a Latin scholar --- I just muddle through. But it's still very worthwhile to see how he writes.
Your sister,
Jane
_____________________________________________________
Willis E. Elliott
Jul 8, 2012, 6:23:03 PM7/8/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Jane
I just re-read this not-too-long description of what you stake
your academic future on - reading Gn.1 through Jn.'s prolog, & taking
seriously the early Church Fathers on how to read the Bible vis-a-vis the
Trinity - & want to re-affirm that it sounds solid to me.
A suggestion: What do you make of the fact (is it not?) that
the skeletal template for Gn.1 is the Jewish week? Or do you think that
the Jewish week is an emergent from Gn.1?
Grace and peace--
Willis
----- Original Message -----From: Jane EllingwoodSent: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:07 AMSubject: "In the beginning": reading Gen. 1 with John 1.1-18 as the interpretative text
Jane Ellingwood
Jul 10, 2012, 7:38:21 AM7/10/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Willis,
Thank you so very much for re-reading my posting and writing to me. I needed that "lift," because I have had to take a short break from my dissertation writing in the past couple of weeks. You brought me back to my mission. And your affirmation that I may be on some solid ground here is extremely helpful to me. You have no idea!
As to your question to me about Gen. 1 and the Jewish week, let me answer that later this week, during our week! Coincidentally, I was just finishing William P. Brown's chapter on the second creation account in Genesis when I received your question. He has some very interesting ideas, and between that chapter and the one on the creation account in Genesis 1, I should be able to give you an answer that represents my thinking and one that gives you a few points from his thinking.
I want to write to you, Jim, Chris, Herb, Pam, and all others about Brown and Genesis 2 and 3, but I won't have time until Thursday.
Blessings to you Willis!!!!
Jane
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages