lundi 28 novembre 2022
Henke
Lundahl (2022b) raises additional objections to Hypothesis #2. He complains that advocates of Hypothesis #2 are going against a tradition that Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation and that they tend to be Old-Earth creationists:
Citation of Lundahl
“One more: proponents of #2 for Genesis 3 go against tradition, as the tradition says that Moses had a vision of the Six Days, and they are also likely to be Old Earthers, trying to motivate why an event purportedly 2500 - 3000 years before Moses could in fact have been known if Adam was rather 250 000 BP.”
Henke
However, whose tradition is this? Where did it come from? How do we know that this tradition is reliable? Why should the favored prejudices (traditions) of past generations be necessarily trusted? Even if Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation, how does that rule out Moses having additional visions that included Genesis 3? Also, why do advocates of Hypothesis #2 necessarily have to believe in Old-Earth creationism? Couldn’t advocates of Hypothesis #2 argue that God could have given Moses visions of any event in the past at any time? The arguments in Lundahl (2022b) and Lundahl (2022c) are worthless and would not convince any advocate of Hypothesis #2. Furthermore, advocates of Hypotheses #3 and/or #4 would identify any “traditions” about Moses seeing visions as probably nothing more than groundless made-up stories that became widely circulated and popular over the centuries.
For clarity, for those who have missed earlier parts. Henke's four hypotheses for the epistemic origin of Genesis 3 are:
· 1) tradition from Adam and Eve
· 2) revelation to Moses
· 3) campfire story
· 4) fraudulent claim to prophecy
He is obviously favouring 3 or 4 over both 1 and 2, and in context, he is challenging why I prefer 1 over 2. He already did so in Henke2022a.
My argument is cited, and I will analyse it as two arguments:
I) proponents of #2 for Genesis 3 go against tradition, as the tradition says that Moses had a vision of the Six Days,
My point being, perhaps stated somewhat elliptically (at least in this citation), there is no tradition at all of Moses having a vision of the rest of Genesis. If Exodus 6 makes Levi his greatgrandfather, it makes much more sense for Moses to know about Levi from family tradition than from a vision. And Abraham is Levi's greatgrandfather, and his story begins to be told in detail already in Genesis 12, starting in some final verses of Genesis 11. But previous parts of Genesis 11 purport at least to be a genealogy, and the usual way to get genealogies is for generations to remember who they are and transmit that to ensuing generations.
So, it would make in some way sense for all of the preceding to be tradition, but this is impossible insofar as Adam as observer of events was absent totally from "the beginning" and days 1 through 5 and even the beginning of day 6. The obvious options for (most of) the six days are prophecy or made up or faked prophecy - only hypotheses 2, 3 or 4 are possible for Day 4.
And we do have a tradition (at least in book of Jubilees) that Moses had a vision of the six days. My main point however is, this tradition does NOT cover anything beyond the six days account. Even chapter 2 involves Adam being present before some things happen before his eyes. And the verses from Genesis 2:5 to when Adam is a conscious human being and an adult male are such that God could have briefly revealed them to Adam himself.
The end of the six day account, God blessing Adam and Eve with fertility and God blessing the Sabbath, would also have been available to Adam as observer, but were arguably (if Moses had a vision of the six days) transferred to the end point of this vision.
From the Haydock comment to Genesis 1, verse 4:
Good; beautiful and convenient:---he divided light by giving it qualities incompatible with darkness, which is not any thing substantial, and therefore Moses does not say it was created. C.
In other words, Moses was given complete understanding of the process of creation - at minimum a vision. You can believe this tradition is false, and his info on creation is worthless, but you can hardly deny this is the tradition about it.
II) and they are also likely to be Old Earthers, trying to motivate why an event purportedly 2500 - 3000 years before Moses could in fact have been known if Adam was rather 250 000 BP
I say this from experience with Catholic Old Earthers. I have been saying "Genesis 3 is pretty important for Mariology, right?" - "Yes" - "So, if as you believe Adam lived 40 000 years ago or more, how was it recalled correctly?" - "It was revealed to Moses." - "Well, there is no tradition of it."
My point is, the people trying to pinpoint Genesis 3 to vision rather than tradition are inventing a vision that is NOT in the tradition.
However, whose tradition is this?
Arguably one Hebrew tradition that predates the split between Jews and Christians, and arguably even the split between Samaritans and Jews, though in this case I cannot point to a specific expression of this tradition among Samaritans.
Where did it come from?
The tradition by implication points to coming from Moses. As long as it cannot be traced to a later and complex fraud (which would need to be argued), I'll leave it at that.
How do we know that this tradition is reliable?
How do we "know" that any tradition is reliable? By trusting it. History is ultimately about what tradition you trust, in the case of there being conflicting ones.
I may not be able to articulate why I trust the Hebrew tradition above the Babylonian one or the Khemetic (Egyptian one), but I do.
I can say why I trust tradition above reconstruction. This brings us to the next point:
Why should the favored prejudices (traditions) of past generations be necessarily trusted?
I prefer the favoured prejudice of a past generation above that of the present one, when it comes to past events. I do so on a lot of other issues too, but when it comes to past events, it's pretty obvious why. They were closer to them. And what we get from "scientific" reconstruction is not a near mathematical certitude trumping any past prejudices, we just get a sophisticated expression of present prejudices (including, since Hume, too often "miracles don't happen").
So, I would not go as far as "necessarily" but I would definitely say "usually, unless there is a major argument to the contrary."
In the case of Flood stories, that of Babylon and that of the Bible cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that one god was annoyed people were making too much noise and decided to send a flood, and his twin, being a trixter, and having had the task of creating men, saved some by warning Utnapishtim (or Noah) AND at the same time one and the same just God (neither peevish, nor trixter) decided to send the Flood because society was turning too horrible on a world wide scale, and also to save one family which stood out against the horrors of their times. It cannot both be true that the vessel was a giant version of the coracle, and that it was a wood box of tanker proportions. One can argue that the wood box of tanker proportions was adequate to save all kinds of animals, while the coracle wouldn't have been. Or one can argue that the coracle is likelier in a local Flood, and good luck explaining how Shuruppak, some tens of metres above the Persian Gulf (34?) was flooded locally and the flood rose to a mount Nisir that is upstreams and is 2588 meters above the Persian Gulf! But the ultimate reason for my preference is kind of what world I feel we live in. The one God who is just is more credible than one peevish lord of gods and one devious second in command who sometimes saves us from the peevishness. And obviously, the adherents of this other theology also say the Flood was world wide.
Even if Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation, how does that rule out Moses having additional visions that included Genesis 3?
It's not the presence of the vision of the six days, but the total absence of a tradition of such a vision for Genesis 3 that rules this out.
Couldn’t advocates of Hypothesis #2 argue that God could have given Moses visions of any event in the past at any time?
That God could do it is no argument to assume He did so without there being any indication of it either in the Bible or in traditions around it.
Furthermore, advocates of Hypotheses #3 and/or #4 would identify any “traditions” about Moses seeing visions as probably nothing more than groundless made-up stories that became widely circulated and popular over the centuries.
Indeed. One extra reason not to add to the visions Moses had. Burning bush and subsequent commands leading Moses and through him Israel, check. Ten Commandments, twice, check. Six Days, perhaps in connection with Sabbath commandment, check. All legislation passages involving "God spoke to Moses and said," check. Revelations about what Israel was to do, about Miriam and Aaron, about what he could expect for himself (seeing God from the back), check. But a vision of Genesis 3 - it's neither in Exodus, nor in the traditions surrounding any of it.
Finally, one more:
The arguments in Lundahl (2022b) and Lundahl (2022c) are worthless and would not convince any advocate of Hypothesis #2.
I haven't seen any, except the Old Earther I met in a Catholic charity where he was volunteering and I was received. And even he didn't claim to have given the matter totally thorough thought.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Sosthenes
28.XI.2022
Apud Corinthum natalis sancti Sosthenis, ex beati Pauli Apostoli discipulis; cujus mentionem facit idem Apostolus Corinthiis scribens. Ipse autem Sosthenes, ex principe Synagogae conversus ad Christum, fidei suae primordia, ante Gallionem Proconsulem acriter verberatus, praeclaro initio consecravit.
PS, the Old Earther, even Evolutionist, though a Catholic, it was in 2019, it would seem, if you read French:
New blog on the kid : Quatre évolutionnistes rencontrés
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/06/quatre-evolutionnistes-rencontres.html
Enjoy!/HGL
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 12:39 Aucun commentaire:
Libellés : Kevin R. Henke