The ‘framework hypothesis’ is probably the favourite view among respectability-craving seminaries that say they accept biblical authority but not six ordinary days of creation.
It is strange, if the literary framework were the true meaning of the text, that no-one interpreted Genesis this way until Arie Noordtzij in 1924. Actually it’s not so strange, because the leading framework exponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, admitted that their rationale for this bizarre, novel interpretation was a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science…
Clearly, the framework idea did not come from trying to understand Genesis, but from trying to counter the view, held by scholar and layman alike for 2,000 years, that Genesis records real events in real space and time.
My two cents
I always hated the framework hypothesis, but I like how the quote reveals the motivation behind the hypothesis: the push by ‘respectability-craving’ (as opposed to faithful) seminaries who are only too willing to reframe the word of God in light of naturalism and scientism. Seminaries like this remind me of insecure teenagers who are preoccupied with obtaining approval from their peers in the schoolyard.
I hadn’t realised the hypothesis was only invented within the lifetimes of my grandparents. It would be interesting to go back to 1923 and see what people thought of it then. Humanists have an evolutionary view of law and morals, and the hypothesis makes me think that Christians want to follow in the wake of humanists by having an evolutionary view of origins. This sounds like salt losing its savour.
Batten, D et al. (n.d). Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? Critique of the Framework Hypothesis. Available: http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history. Last accessed 14th Nov 2013.