Abstract
Ever since the fourth century Christian theologians read Genesis 1–3 as a historical account about creation and fall. Augustine (354–430), one of the Latin fathers of the Church, introduced the idea of “original sin” on account of his reading of these chapters. According to him God created a perfect world which collapsed because of the sin of Adam and Eve. This idea became a fixed doctrine in the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. The doctrine holds that every human being, by the very fact of birth, inherits a “tainted” nature in need of regeneration. Since the paradigm shift in Biblical Studies which occurred towards the end of the nineteenth century, the doctrine has come under severe criticism by Old Testament scholars. In recent years even systematic theologians are questioning the interpretation of Augustine and proclaim: “There is no fall in Scripture.” This issue is discussed in detail and an answer is given to the question whether Christians can accept other readings and whether Christianity can change.
Highlights
In some theological circles the year 2006 has been earmarked as Bonhoeffer year. This well-known German theologian of the twentieth century was born a century ago on February 4, 1906. He was one of twins born to Paula and Karl Bonhoeffer
I was curious about how he expounded Genesis [1,2,3], and hoped that he showed a better understanding of these chapters than other contemporary systematic theologians
When Bonhoeffer delivered his lectures on Genesis [1,2,3] there was already a lively debate taking place between the Swiss Old Testament scholar Ludwig Köhler (1880–1956) and the dogmatician Emil Brunner (1889–1966) concerning Genesis [2,3] (Reventlow 1985:19–27; Barr 1992:87–93)
Summary
In some theological circles the year 2006 has been earmarked as Bonhoeffer year This well-known German theologian of the twentieth century was born a century ago on February 4, 1906. He was one of twins born to Paula and Karl Bonhoeffer. This event led to the arrest and execution of those who had planned it. I was curious about how he expounded Genesis [1,2,3], and hoped that he showed a better understanding of these chapters than other contemporary systematic theologians To my astonishment this was not the case. About “eisogesis” Joseph Hoffmann wrote the following memorable sentence: “‘Eisogesis’ — the skill of reading out of the text the interests we read into it — is a welldeveloped habit in theological circles” (1993:241)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
