
30
Theism seems to be caught in a dilemma: either it sacrifices its own integrity in order to speak persuasively to the
surrounding culture or it affirms its distinctiveness and thereby moves itself to the periphery of the culture.
Explores not only the dilemma, but also its genesis. In this connection considers the modern assum ptions of
foundationalism. The classic foundationalist divides beliefs into those which need support from other beliefs and
those which need no su pport, i.e., basic beliefs which are self-evident, evident to the senses, or incorrigible reports
of experience. Finds this basisrestrictive foundationalism internally incoherent and thus itself posing no real
dilemma.
Ehlers, Wilhelm (1985) "BIBELSZENEN IN EPISCHER GESTALT: EIN BEITRAG ZU ALCIMUS
AVITUS. Vigiliae Christianae 39(4):353–369.
Avitus, bishop of Vienne (d. 518), in De spiritalis historiae gestis told the story of Genesis and Exodus in epic
poetry. It is not a simple biblical paraphrase but rearranges, expands, or abbreviates the biblical text. Books 4 and
5 on the Flood and Exodus are rela ted to the first three on Creation by presenting baptism as the redemption from
original sin. (German)
Ellington, John (1979) "MAN AND ADAM IN GENESIS 1–5. Bible Translator 30(2):201–205.
The attempt to create a process to determine the proper translation of the Hebrew word adam. Suggests these steps:
(1) textual decisions, (2 ) the article rule, (3) the p lural pronoun rule, (4) the negative rule, (5) the proper name
rule, (6) translation adjustments.
Ellul, Jacques. (1985) "From the Bible to a History of NonWork. Cross Currents 35(1):43–48.
Except for a few, unusual passages, the Bible presents work as a necessity, a constraint, a punishment, not as
valuable, good as a virtue. Genesis 2 is ambiguous and after the break work is necessary and harsh. Enthusiasm
for work is far from the tenor of the Bible. Contemporary society has abandoned human society's history of
non-work in favor of a stance which works more to consume m ore. Work has become the object of devotion,
producing w orkaholics and burn-outs. (A n excerpt from on e of seven essays in Foi et Vie, July 1980, and part
of a special number devoted to Ellul, see abstract
Emerton, J. A. (1971) "THE RIDDLE OF GENESIS XIV. Vetus Testamentum 21(4):403–439.
Offers a reconstruction of the history of the development of Gen. 14. There was a popular oral tradition telling
of the hero Abram (vss. 13–17, 21–23, Prob. 10–11). The M elchizedek passage (vs. 18–20) was add ed, probably
in the reign of David, hoping to encourage Israelites to accept the fusion of the worship of Yahweh with the cult
of El Elyon. The references to Aner, Eschol and Mamre (13,24) were probably added at the same time to show
how the Canaanites and Israelites could unite successfully against a common enemy. The story of the eastern
kings was added at the same time or later in order to glorify Abraham as a military leader. The glosses in vss. 2,
3, 7, 8, and 17 were added then or later in order to explain the meanings of archaic names. The references to Lot
were added in vss. 12, 14, and 16 to connect Gen. 14 with the tradition, which told how Lot lived in Sodom.
Emerton, J. A. (1988) "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in
Genesis. Part II. Vetus Testamentum 38(1):3–21.
Continuation from VT, 19 87, 37(4):40 1–420 (see abstract XXX I:4, #2714). The third attempt is by F. I. Andersen,
who bases his criticism of source analysis on "apposition sentences" and chiasmus. There are difficulties with his
chiastic structures and with one exception the apposition sentences do not cross J and P source boundaries. The
fourth critic, G. J. Wenham, argues that Gen 6:10–9:19 is a palistrophe of 31 items, but the correspondence in the
two halves is dubious. The final writer is Y. T. Radday, who develops his chiasmus with accompanying statistics,
but some of them are not in chiastic order. The five writers have not succeeded.
Emerton, J. A. (1971) "SOME FALSE CLUES IN THE STORY OF GENESIS XIV. Vetus Testamentum
21(1):24–47.
The two main theories regarding the background of Gen. 14 are: (1) that it had derived from a poetic source, (2)
that it was dependent on an Akkadian source. Literary, grammatical, and linguistic considerations, coupled with