[Milton-L] Biblical Scholarship

Hannibal Hamlin hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com
Tue Aug 24 17:49:07 EDT 2010


I was also going to mention Williams's book, very useful. My sense is that
most if not all early modern biblical scholars would not have thought in
terms of actual "discrepancies" or even "differences," but rather of
exegetical problems. Genesis 1 and 2 would not be thought to conflict,
therefore, but to present different, reconcilable accounts of the same
events. The reconciliation was the trick, but allegorical or symbolic
readings were always preferable to admitting textual inconsistencies. This
is, in fact, how many students (and others) respond to the two Creation
accounts today. When I teach the English Bible, I regularly have a few
students who insist that there are no real conflicts between Genesis 1 and
2, or indeed among any of the Gospels.

Hannibal

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Kevin J Donovan <kdonovan at mtsu.edu> wrote:

> Arnold Williams, The Common Expositor (1948), pp. 66-67, cites Pareus,
> Calvin, Pererius, and Willett as agreeing in their way of reconciling the
> two accounts, interpreting the first as "a summary and anticipation of the
> second." He doesn't address the issue of priority nor how the discrepancy
> might have been explained (away) by patristic, scholastic, or rabbinic
> commentators.
>
> Kevin J. Donovan
> Professor and Graduate Program Director
> Department of English
> Peck Hall 316
> Middle Tennessee State University
> P.O. Box 70
> Murfreesboro, TN 37132
> phone: 615-898-2665
> fax: 615-494-8744
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Rovira" <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
> To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Biblical Scholarship
>
>
>
> I'm not a Biblical scholar, but from what I understand, there's some
>> recognition of differences between Genesis 1 and 2 in midrash and
>> other Jewish commentary prior to the 17thC.  I just moved and all of
>> my theological books are in boxes right now, otherwise I might be able
>> to come up with names and dates.  Off the top of my head,  Alexander
>> Geddes comes to mind as an early English commentator who would be open
>> to this kind of observation, but he's 18thC.  See his Critical Remarks
>> on the Hebrew Scriptures.  I am unsure what he says about Gen. 1 and
>> 2.  Origen attacks literal readings of the Genesis account in the
>> 2nd-3rd century in his On First Principles -- see the opening
>> paragraphs of Bk IV, ch. III -- but I don't recall if he notices
>> differences between Gen. 1 and 2 elsewhere in his commentary.
>>
>> Jim R
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:50 PM,  <wmmoeck at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Milton List,
>>>
>>> A question for the biblical scholars among you:
>>>
>>> It has long been recognized by critics of Paradise Lost that the texts of
>>> Genesis on which it based, chapters 1 and 2, are inconsistent. Adam is
>>> created after the animals in chapter 1 but before the animals in chapter
>>> 2.
>>> Which biblical scholar of the seventeenth century first observed this
>>> discrepancy? (I am assuming it to be 17th c scholar.) Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Milton-L mailing list
>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
>> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>>
>> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>



-- 
Hannibal Hamlin
Associate Professor of English
Editor, Reformation
Organizer, The King James Bible and its Cultural Afterlife
http://kingjamesbible.osu.edu/
The Ohio State University
164 West 17th Ave., 421 Denney Hall
Columbus, OH 43210-1340
hamlin.22 at osu.edu/
hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20100824/306d577d/attachment.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list