As I mentioned to Sam earlier, I kinda liked Dickson’s ‘Christ Files’ stuff. But I don’t agree with his TE views.

Thanks for the info.  :)

I've known Diane from well before she took a tumble and landed in Anglicanism (like myself, though I was much earlier). However, Anglicanism does have some things going for it.

I would love a copy … assuming it's not breaching copyright or anything? Else, I'd be happy to pay for it.

All of the Aristo staff email addresses are listed at the bottom of our Contact Us page.

And yes, Diane and I attend the same church and are among the YEC Anglican minority. I was not aware that you two were friends!

If you read the second link Marc provided above you'll get hit with a large sample of terms that are at the disposal of those who study and write about this stuff on a regular basis.

Sternberg lists the following devices: parallel plotting with
its ostensible appearance of simultaneity, delayed action
and outcomes, asymmetrical and ironic juxtapositioning,
convergence and retrospective alignment, sequential twists,
temporal shifts, the omitting or ambiguating of causal links,
temporal gaps and blanks, analogous or repetitive themes
and incidents, alternation whereby the narrative sequence
zig-zags between objective simultaneities, suspense-driven
episodes, deep interlinear polarities of theme, foreclosure or
premature curtain-dropping which ‘jumps ahead’ in absolute
time in order to synchronize effects, the establishment
of contextual hierarchies of importance, shifts in focus,
complex word plays, parataxis and interepisodic suspense.

No mention of “stylized literary style” or “proto history”, but I am sure they're in the unabridged version of whatever source these originally came from?

I've been sitting on this post for a long time now but I think the occasion of starting up a new blog inspired me to finish it.

John Dickson… you don't say? You know I have his Christ Files DVD and quite enjoyed it.

Aside from that, some of these phrases that get slapped together (like “stylized literary structure”) really make it hard for the average reader to understand what is being communicated. I think it was also Sandy that used the term “proto history” in his article to describe Genesis. Even after reading the entire article through to get some context or clues to its meaning, I was left somewhat confused by the term.

(Now I wish I could find my October 2006 copy for a quick review, I seem to have misplaced it)

Sandy Grant's reference to “stylized literary structure” in Genesis 1 as reason to discount it as history is just repetition of the highly flawed analysis of Genesis 1 by John Dickson. When they engage so much in “smoothing the feathers” of one another they are bound to miss the truth expounded elsewhere. There are serious pride and self indulgence problems extant in the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese.

Sam Drucker