OST is closed for business but its spirit survives on my blog.
The relation of "Cracks in the pavement" to the scriptures
You describe your Cracks in the Pavement post as ‘a narrative eschatology.’
The idea of narrative as a (better) way of approaching the scriptures frequently emerges on this site but, so far as I have been able to discover (using the search function), the concept itself has not been subject to examination. So, let me set down a few thoughts.
Fable, myth, novel could all be described as narrative and so (less certainly) can history. To label a piece of writing as a narrative leaves open the question of whether it describes what took place or whether it is, say, rumour or fiction or imaginative recreation. Hence, I do not think you could label the events described in evidence at a murder trial as a narrative because that would imply that you are not claiming that the events actually occurred, and that is essential to a court process.
Secondly, narrative comprehends a wide variety of literary forms. It could, at one extreme, be a PG Wodehouse novel in which the plot and the subplots all come together in a conclusion in which all the couples are happily united; or, at the other extreme, it could be a recital of events which have no overall direction or end point eg a diary or a picaresque novel.
Turning now to Cracks in the Pavement, in your response to Chris, you suggest that the OT text itself does not support the Chris’s notion that
A biblical narrative, then, should see what God planned and actually accomplished in Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Israel - not as imperfect plans that failed and were set aside, but as necessary steps leading to a single destination. and you go on to suggest that exegetical integrity is till demanded of us
What then do you see as the relation of your story to the scriptures? Is it just one of a number of stories that could be extracted; or do you consider that it is broadly true to the text.
If the latter, my feeling is that it leaves out some major parts of the story that, if included, would yield a very different conclusion . For example
1. there is no mention that God’s promises to restore Israel in the post exilic period were never fulfilled
2. you refer to violent humanity but not to a violent Jahweh.
3. the rewards and punishments promised by Jahweh were of this world. But Jesus shifts the goal posts: the real treasure for human beings is eternal life and death is the real enemy. Jahweh’s rewards of prosperity, posterity, power, prestige and good health are, for Jesus, either of no importance or seen as a temptation. This suggests that the OT is more friendly to a theology of the environment that the NT.
Secondly, by treating your retelling as a narrative you by-pass the question: did this actually happen? Is that your intention or would you assert that it is history? For my own part, I would regard some of the narrative as drawing on myth eg the creation narrative.