Jump to content


Photo

Ancient Near East (ANE) Interpretation of Bible Events and Accounts


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:48 AM

Ancient Near East (ANE) Interpretation of Biblical Events

Recent discussion on and email group again highlighted the need for discussion in relation to Ancient Near East (ANE) interpretation of Biblical Events, a subject which was to commence here in the short term, but now current.

In scholarship there appears to be a larger movement that we must now interpret Bible events and accounts only in light of scholarship and “allow extra-biblical research ... to control ... interpretation of the bible accounts and events"

As example, Meredith G. Kline:

The Two Tables of the Covenant

that the Bible, the Law, the Ten Commandments, have to be interpreted in light of "ANE vassal treaties".

How does this related to the section:

Theistic Evolution Compared to the Biblical Record including Doctrinal Implications

From experience and trend in discussing the nature of evolution and creation, Scholarship in these two areas seem to be moving towards the position, and to support change to a Theistic Evolution position that we must now interpret the Bible in light of ANE myths and thoughts, therefore questioning the veracity of the Bible account of events.

There was student comment from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, in relation to (my highlighting/bolding):

Kline, Horton, and the Mosaic Covent

What more caught my attention was the following:

The first criticism is that Kline-Horton embraces what one might call a Rosetta Stone methodology. This is evident in the way Kline allows extra-biblical research on ANE vassal treaties to control his interpretation of the biblical covenants. In relying upon his understanding and research of the ANE vassal treaties, Kline permits the secular to govern the sacred. Kline subjugates God’s holy and infallible Word to his own limited understanding of pagan treaties. This creates a hermeneutical slippery slope. If one allows ANE treaties to dictate one’s understanding of the biblical covenants, why not permit Darwinian science to govern ones understanding of creation? Why not interpret Scripture’s teaching on sin and guilt according to popular psychology? There is no bottom to this rabbit hole.

But to embrace a Rosetta Stone methodology is to wrap all exegetical insights in a deadly shroud of perpetual provisionality. If biblical interpreters universally misunderstood the biblical covenants before Kline’s work on ANE suzerainty treaties, then the last two thousand years of church history were ignorant, malnourished, and utterly uninformed and this by Gods own hand, since by his providence the church for two millennia lacked the covenant-interpreting Rosetta Stone of ANE treaties. And if this be said of the last two thousand years, is there any reason to think there will be a better result in the years to come? What essential Rosetta Stones will the future reveal the present to have lacked? All of biblical truth remains forever on the table awaiting the next discovery.


Thoughts?

Though again to highlight this as it is very relevant to the argument of evolution and creation:

then the last two thousand years of church history were ignorant, malnourished, and utterly uninformed and this by Gods own hand, since by his providence the church for two millennia lacked the covenant-interpreting Rosetta Stone of ANE treaties. And if this be said of the last two thousand years, is there any reason to think there will be a better result in the years to come? What essential Rosetta Stones will the future reveal the present to have lacked? All of biblical truth remains forever on the table awaiting the next discovery.


"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users