Genesis 3

[lchemist]

I 've previously posted this link in another thread but was ignored. I am looking for reactions to the article.

http://www.isedet.edu.ar/jolah/Genesis3.pdf (http://www.isedet.edu.ar/jolah/Genesis3.pdf)

Thank you,

Luis

[Jack777]

I think the author has no idea what he is talking about. Mainly he has learned a lot of things about what other people think.

[lchemist]

Dear Jack:

I think the author has no idea what he is talking about?

No idea?

Severino was one of the most learned and original biblical scholars of our time.

We may disagree with him in a number of issues, but to saiy he has no idea is no only false but it is insulting.

Here is a short bio:

Professor José Severino Croatto, professor emeritus of Hebrew Scriptures, Hebrew and Phenomenology of Religion at the Instituto Universitario ISEDET in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Prof. Croatto was born in Sampacho, Cordoba, in Argentina. He was the eighth of ten siblings to a farmer family. When he was 11 years old, he entered as a novice to religious orders. He studied philosophy and theology at the Vincentian Seminary (Escobar, Buenos Aires, 1948-1953). He obtained a degree as a Licenciate in Theology at the Universidad Catolica Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1954). Later, he received a postgraduate degree as Licenciate in Biblical Sciences at the Pontificium Institutum Biblicum (Rome, 1957), and pursued further postgraduate studies at the Hebraic University in Jerusalem (1958).

During that two-year period Croatto engaged in archeological research in numerous historical regions, including Egypt, Greece, Crete, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. He continued that work by participating in excavations in succeeding years in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel/Palestine.

In 1953, Croatto received holy orders as a Roman Catholic priest in Argentina. During his priesthood he was primarily devoted to teaching. In 1972, he married, and due to this he was forced to leave the ordained ministry but not his teaching. Firmly committed to peace and justice, he was a member of /Sacerdotes para el Tercer Mundo / (Priests for the Third World), an association of Catholic priests involved in Liberation Theology in the course of the most difficult years of military dictatorships in Latin America. He raised a prophetic voice, which endangered his life during Argentina's worst years under a military regime (1976-1983).

Dedicated to education, from 1962 to 1964 he taught Hebrew Scriptures at the Jesuit School of Theology of the Colegio Máximo, San Miguel, Buenos Aires; then from 1964 to 1973 he lectured on philosophy and the history of religions at the University of Buenos Aires. While at ISEDET, he also taught comparative religions at the School of Eastern Studies, Maimonides University (1994-1996) and at the Academia del Sur (1996-2003). He expressed honor at being the only Christian professor at the Latin American Rabbinical Seminary, where he taught “Exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures” and “Christian Worldview” (Buenos Aires 1997-2003).

But Prof. Croatto's academic commitment was not limited to teaching at universities. He also participated actively in “popular education” movements of Bible reading (known in Spanish as /Movimiento de Lectura Popular de la Biblia /) and he taught at the Cursos Intensivos de Biblia (CIB). The CIB is a six-month course for leaders in Latin America working in the field of Bible Studies at popular level. They gather from all over Latin America to have week-long courses with the most prestigious Bible scholars in the region. Prof. Croatto is also well-known through his articles in the publication /RIBLA / ( /Revista de Interpretación Bíblica Latinoamericana /). These are only a couple of examples on how Croatto influenced Liberation Theology in Latin America from its very beginning. In 2002, Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia invited Prof. Croatto to be one of the eight scholars in its prestigious Campbell Scholars Seminar.

His primary fields of academic interest were the history and culture of the Ancient Near East; Classical (Latin and Greek) and Semitic (Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, Ugaritic and Arab) Languages; the phenomenology of religion and comparative religions; and biblical exegesis and Latin American biblical hermeneutics. He wrote more than 20 books and more than 200 articles which have been published in numerous languages. Some of his best-known books are: /Historia de la salvación / (Paulinas, 7 editions between 1963-1986); /Exodus: A Hermeneutics of Freedom / (New York: Orbis Books, 1981); /Die Bibel gehört der Armen. Perspektiven einer befreiungstheologischen Hermeneutik /(Munich: Chr.Kaiser Verlag, 1989); /Biblical Hermeneutics. Toward A Theory of Reading as the Production of Meaning /(New York: Orbis Books, 1995, 3rd edition); /Hermenéutica Práctica. Los principios de la hermenéutica en ejemplos /(Quito: RECU-Verbo Divino, 2002); and /Experiencia de lo sagrado y tradiciones religiosas: Estudio de fenomenología de la religión / (Estella, Spain: Verbo Divino, 2002). At the time of his death, he had just finished a new commentary on Genesis 1.

In 2000, his colleagues, students and friends – celebrating his 70 years of age, his 40 years of academic teaching, and his 25 years as faculty at ISEDET – honored Prof. Croatto with the publication of a Festschrift: Guillermo Hansen (ed.) /Los caminos inexhauribles de la Palabra. Las relecturas creativas en la Biblia y de la Biblia / (Buenos Aires, LUMEN-ISEDET, 2000).

His wife, Cristina Conti, his son Juan, and his daughter Maria, outlive Prof. Croatto. Many friends and hundreds of students will also remember this man of exceptional connection not only with human life but also with the whole creation. His friends know how he loved to take care of his trees and his garden; and even enjoyed making his own jam. That sensibility for life was constantly present in his academic work.

This was taken from www.severinocroatto.com.ar (http://www.severinocroatto.com.ar)

Blessings,

[Jack777]

I am not saying he is not a smart guy, nor am I saying that he lacks education, nor am I saying that he does not have credentials.

He thinks that Genesis 3 is a myth. That is not true.

His predicates are based on what other people think about the Bible.

If you think I am in error, then answer this:

How does he know that Genesis 3 is a myth?

If you answer, then I have more things to say if you like.

Blessings to you and your friend.

[lchemist]

Jack:

I understand, you are right when you said he was not the first to consider the first chapters og Genesis as myth. As any scholar he incorporates previous studies in his own work.

His command of the languages and exegetical literature was enormous, as shown in his three volume commentary on Genesis 1-11 and in his three volume commentary on Isaiah, both of which are full of original insights.

His conclusion about the literary genre of this passage comes from his studies on the phenomenology of religion, and biblical and extrabiblical literature.

I respect your position.

In Christ,

Luis

PD: Professor Croatto was called to the Lord's presence on April this year.

[A Beautiful Truth]

lchemist,

The paper is long but it looks interesting. I have been trying to get a discussion somewhat along these lines in other threads. Perhaps you will visit the Cosmogony forum. You may find more interaction with this topic over there.

The topic here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43054
may be of interest to you?

But as for your topic here, perhaps you will pick a few points from the paper you would like to discuss. (But I think you may get more input if you had your thread moved to Cosmogony)

[lchemist]

Thank you Charleen for your suggestion.

I posted the link here because I was looking for reactions from an exegetical/hermeneutical/theological point of view.

It was not my intention to discuss the relationship between science and faith, or to focus the conversation into the cosmogonic implications of the article.

The article abstract says: "A detailed exegetical analysis allows us to discover important aspects that defines the roles of the woman and the man in the myth of the transgression" and the article begins stating that "Genesis 3 conveys a myth 'of origins' not cosmogonic but anthropological"

Blessings,

Luis

PS: By the way, I don't how to move threads.

[Jack777]

Well, I am sorry to hear he passed away that is certain.

I suppose my terse comments are less than satisfying in some ways> However, I think language, proto-language, exegesis, and the considerations that were important to him and you have been shackled in the assumptions of those from the 18th and 19th century that appeared to be new revelations from discoveries that changed how people look at what to us are ancient people. The predicates of myth, why myth is a valid term to some to describe our investigations, and the formalism involved as it became a worldview has touched everything. I have become increasingly convinced that looking at what evidence is before those who eagerly seek explanations for things through the lense of "myth" that assumes to much ignores too much and itself is didactic has everything to do with all the things done in your friend's area of expertise.

This does not obviate an exploration of his findings. However, approaching the subject of Genesis 3 from "myth" automatically has excess baggage that colors everything. That approach is especially assumptive and onerously so in that what can be gained at best ends up as an aspect of myth. People are real, including ancient people, including the Second Person of the Trinity, including the first couple in the Garden of Eden. It is ironic that pretension to gaining truth by assuming that there is no literal truth, that Genesis 3 is not the Word of God, and that we cannot know anything unless we think that has resulted in investigation being concluded on predicates that are less because the guarantee of finding facts is that there are no facts to be found. Oddly too is that the allegorization and "spiritualizing" of some that led into fanciful thinking has been inherited by those who have been constrained by academic "schools" that assume to much as the basis for investigation.

I think this in some measure that gets to the heart of what we mean by the meaning of language, exegesis, explication, and hermenuetics as it exists.

[lchemist]

Thank you again for the explanation.

It is true that the concept of myth has been abused. In the article Prof. Croatto does not argue at length about the reasons why he thinks these chapters are mythical. He just asserts that, and goes into his work with that presupposition.

Obviously his views and assumptions are open to crticism.

I must disagree with you when you say: It is ironic that pretension to gaining truth by assuming that there is no literal truth, that Genesis 3 is not the Word of God, because reading Genesis 3 as a genre different from the historical does not say it is not true. It may be a non historical piece, but its truth is no way compromised.

Moreover, I as a Baptist, strongly affirm the Bible as the Word of God even if the first chapters of Genesis are not historical.

Blessings,

Luis

[A Beautiful Truth]

...reading Genesis 3 as a genre different from the historical does not say it is not true. It may be a non historical piece, but its truth is no way compromised.

Moreover, I as a Baptist, strongly affirm the Bible as the Word of God even if the first chapters of Genesis are not historical.



Please continue.

[Jack777]

I would like to know how that you know they are not historical?

[kofh2u]

I am not saying he is not a smart guy, nor am I saying that he lacks education, nor am I saying that he does not have credentials.

He thinks that Genesis 3 is a myth. That is not true.

His predicates are based on what other people think about the Bible.

If you think I am in error, then answer this:

How does he know that Genesis 3 is a myth?

If you answer, then I have more things to say if you like.

Blessings to you and your friend.

There are about seven different perspectives of scripture in general.
Each has had, or will have, its short reign of Fame, some 15 "minutes" of centuries, even.

Myth, Kabbalahistic Mystery, Literal Fundamentalism, Platonic Metaphysical, Theistic Evolutionary, and such.

Here is a verse or two from the Freudian Interpretation, which understands Genesis as a psycho-sociological theory coached in a clever subtlity:

Gen. 3:5 For (the pantheistic reasoning of) God doth know that in the day ye contemplate (Consciousness) thereof, then your (thinking will see things with different) eyes (which) shall be opened (and awakened), and ye shall be as (mythological, anthropomorphic caricatures of) gods, knowing (the Free Will of) good and bad.

[lchemist]

There are about seven different perspectives of scripture in general.
Myth, Kabbalahistic Mystery, Literal Fundamentalism, Platonic Metaphysical, Theistic Evolutionary, and such.
Which one do you favor and why?

Luis

[A Beautiful Truth]

I would like to know how that you know they are not historical?

Here is a little I had written elsewhere:

"As we know, the order of some events differs from Gen. one and Gen. two. This is because, as most have learned, that the point of Gen. two is just narrowing in on day six, especially on man.

Here is the rub--I accept this answer for Gen. 2, but where do we know where to draw the line? How is pulling in of the reigns to "literal" justified for the instant creation of Adam and Eve from the dust, but the letting out of the reigns when it comes to the instant creation of animals, from the dust after man. It seems if we allow the order to be contrary to the stated order in Genesis two (because of the comparison to the order presented in Gen. one), then where does the "theological" allowance end and where does the literalness begin again? We know the order is wrong in chapter two, we chalk this up to it being a "theological" focus. So how are we justified in pulling in the reigns back to "literal" after we conveintly answered with "theological" the problem of the order of creation of the animals in relation to man?

If we say it is literal for all parts except the animals, I ask what justification for picking one over the other. The order is clearly amiss in comparison to chapter one, if it is because it is only a theological focus, then why is the entire chapter not just theological, how do we justify any literalness to it?"

The order is clearly at odds with Gen. 1, which leads me to think the order is theologically important, not literally so. And again, if it is not literally important, then why do we demand so much literernalness from it?

[kofh2u]

Which one do you favor and why?

Luis

Each has been useful to its own time and day. I prefer today's, TE.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).

[kofh2u]

Here is a little I had written elsewhere:

"As we know, the order of some events differs from Gen. one and Gen. two. This is because, as most have learned, that the point of Gen. two is just narrowing in on day six, especially on man.

Here is the rub--I accept this answer for Gen. 2, but where do we know where to draw the line? How is pulling in of the reigns to "literal" justified for the instant creation of Adam and Eve from the dust, but the letting out of the reigns when it comes to the instant creation of animals, from the dust after man. It seems if we allow the order to be contrary to the stated order in Genesis two (because of the comparison to the order presented in Gen. one), then where does the "theological" allowance end and where does the literalness begin again? We know the order is wrong in chapter two, we chalk this up to it being a "theological" focus. So how are we justified in pulling in the reigns back to "literal" after we conveintly answered with "theological" the problem of the order of creation of the animals in relation to man?

If we say it is literal for all parts except the animals, I ask what justification for picking one over the other. The order is clearly amiss in comparison to chapter one, if it is because it is only a theological focus, then why is the entire chapter not just theological, how do we justify any literalness to it?"

The order is clearly at odds with Gen. 1, which leads me to think the order is theologically important, not literally so. And again, if it is not literally important, then why do we demand so much literernalness from it?

Your focus on the problem of contradiction is good.

Genesis 1, SEEMS to contradict Gen 2. The animals were created before physical man, on day six. But, the animals SEEM to be formed AFTER man in Gen 2.

The answer is BOTH are correct!
One creation is in the World, the other, in the mind.

The hypothesis of Theistic Evolution is followed by several theories:

1) Man is evolving into the image of God, fulfillment coming in the power of all men to become sons of God, to become Immanent God.

2) God, Elohim, is a plural term explained by these axioms of definition.

a) Theistic God: pre-exists and transcends the material universe.

b) Pantheistic God is the omnipotent power which controls the material universe which is formed.

c) Immanent God is YHVH, "becoming"...
(God evolves, "becomes" the Son in the man Christ.)

God is transcendent in the form of his theistic manifestation, pantheistic in his presence in Universe, and Immanent God in the Son of God.

2) Genesis 2 concerns the evolving humanoid mind.

What we read about here, in Gen 2, is the growing recognition, by Adam, of the animals. They are "becoming" in the mind, the immanent God within man, in His image in man.
These animals were, indeed, already created by the pantheistic powers of God. Man's mind is becoming cognitively aware of these entities. Man is becoming subconscioisly aware that he is co-existing with animals "brought to him," mentally.


Gen. 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD, (the Immanent) God, formed (by means of pantheistic Nature Laws) every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and
brought them (mentally) unto Adam, (Ramapithecus), to see what he would call them (in his mind's eye): and whatsoever (Ramapithecus), Adam, called every living creature, that was the name thereof (among this first species of humanoids).

[Jack777]

Thanks for your answer Charleen, I appreciate your perspective. I see a bit more about it as a result of your reply. I do not see it that way or the way kofhu2 does exactly.

Well, I do not see Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 the same way others do, nor Genesis 1:3. The apparent contradictions are because the narrative involves the intial story of creation in Genesis 1:1, things as they became on earth in Genesis 1:2 and the restoration of the earth from there on with the following narrative describing things other than the original creation of the universe and the earth.

[kofh2u]

Thanks for your answer Charleen, I appreciate your perspective. I see a bit more about it as a result of your reply. I do not see it that way or the way kofhu2 does exactly.

Well, I do not see Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 the same way others do, nor Genesis 1:3. The apparent contradictions are because the narrative involves the intial story of creation in Genesis 1:1, things as they became on earth in Genesis 1:2 and the restoration of the earth from there on with the following narrative describing things other than the original creation of the universe and the earth.


Certainly, your perspective is as valid as any.

I constantly remind myself that there are always a dozen or so ways to understand things, all sooo to human. The MBTT confirms this. The Gospels add support to the idea that twelve or thirteen different types of thinking all are valid. Understanding one another is the essence of salvation, for sure.

But, one big important thing comes out of this,... people are fixed in the concrete they pour for foundations to what they will come to believe.

The BA, born again experience makes so much sense in light of our innate disposition to reason out things. BA sort of suggests we hold greater democracy for one anothers views. And, of course, the Word has a purpose for the unsaved, the saved need no difference in understanding Genesis.

I am saying, God has blessed you with salvation emanating from the Word, and what it means to you.

My only reason to post is to ach out, to those unsaved, who can not accept the tradition interpretations, varied as they maybe.

The metaphysics of century old Christian dogmas, and/or the traditional teachings of men who did their best, is not to be disparaged in the coming new Era of this seventh day, the rest of God now over.

Theistic Evolution merely preaches the Gospel Truth in terms of secular truth.








Zech. 14:17 And it SHALL BE, that whoso will not come up of ALL THE FAMILIES of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Thanks for your answer Charleen, I appreciate your perspective. I see a bit more about it as a result of your reply. I do not see it that way or the way kofhu2 does exactly.

Well, I do not see Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 the same way others do, nor Genesis 1:3. The apparent contradictions are because the narrative involves the intial story of creation in Genesis 1:1, things as they became on earth in Genesis 1:2 and the restoration of the earth from there on with the following narrative describing things other than the original creation of the universe and the earth.

Actually, I was concerned with the order of events. How does the gap theory help to escape the contradiction? In Genesis one, we have animals before man, in Genesis two, we have animals after man. It would seem a contradiction if we are to take the account as literal.

[Jack777]

Yes, I noticed that myself. To answer it briefly might get me misunderstood, but I will do so anyway.

The creation of man-male and female is one thing

The creation of man-Adam and Eve-male and female is another.

The creation and the restoration are different events.

Please indulge my brevity...Maybe you could tell me what I am not making sense about.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yes, I noticed that myself. To answer it briefly might get me misunderstood, but I will do so anyway.

The creation of man-male and female is one thing

The creation of man-Adam and Eve-male and female is another.

The creation and the restoration are different events.

Please indulge my brevity...Maybe you could tell me what I am not making sense about.

So you do not believe that the "male and female" in the first account is really the Adam and Eve of the second account? Were Adam and Eve the first humans or not?

[jcroatto]

I am sending them a text written in memory of Severino by one of its
students. I invite to look for them bibliografia printed of Severino to deepen
your wisdom and not to take them outside context.
In its page they can find reference to those texts in English. (I´m sorry; I´m using an online translator because i´m from Argentina)

"The class began, then. Already seated and defining the sorts literary, it sent sudden: "génesis 1-11: myth ". The eyes enlarged to us and we watched ourselves worried. But it was enough to observe Severino and to realize that its objective was fulfilled. In a single phrase it destroyed our prejudices not only on which the Biblical text also means but on which it is a myth. No longer there was a return back for our understanding of the bible; yes a new one, deeper it needed to be created and Severino accompanied to us to
conceive it." Darío Barolín.

Juan Croatto
Son of Severino and Webmaster of his site.


It is true that the concept of myth has been abused. In the article Prof. Croatto does not argue at length about the reasons why he thinks these chapters are mythical. He just asserts that, and goes into his work with that presupposition.

Obviously his views and assumptions are open to crticism.

I must disagree with you when you say: It is ironic that pretension to gaining truth by assuming that there is no literal truth, that Genesis 3 is not the Word of God, because reading Genesis 3 as a genre different from the historical does not say it is not true. It may be a non historical piece, but its truth is no way compromised.

Moreover, I as a Baptist, strongly affirm the Bible as the Word of God even if the first chapters of Genesis are not historical.

Blessings,

Luis[/QUOTE]

[Solly]

That's a very interesting article, thanks for posting it. Can you point to any other english language articles on the site, i couldn't navigate it easily.

[jcroatto]

I'm trying! My english is terrible. I'm looking for somebody that could helpme translating the site to the english.

Thanks!!

Juan

[jcroatto]

It is true that the concept of myth has been abused. In the article Prof. Croatto does not argue at length about the reasons why he thinks these chapters are mythical. He just asserts that, and goes into his work with that presupposition.

Obviously his views and assumptions are open to crticism.

I must disagree with you when you say: It is ironic that pretension to gaining truth by assuming that there is no literal truth, that Genesis 3 is not the Word of God, because reading Genesis 3 as a genre different from the historical does not say it is not true. It may be a non historical piece, but its truth is no way compromised.

Moreover, I as a Baptist, strongly affirm the Bible as the Word of God even if the first chapters of Genesis are not historical.

Blessings,

Luis[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
which are the historical bases in which this supposition is based? The found rolls of the Dead Sea speaks about that. I recommend to read investigations on the basis of that to understand why to say that Genesis 3 is a myth.