Every Friday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay
from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week's
guest entry was written by Peter Enns. Enns is an evangelical Christian
scholar and author of several books and commentaries, including the
popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament
As I mentioned in an earlier post, since the nineteenth century, the discovery of texts and artifacts has given scholars a backdrop against which to understand more clearly the nature of Israelite religion in general and Genesis specifically. The texts that were discovered in the nineteenth century contained Mesopotamian stories of creation and a flood. The names of these stories are known to us as Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh.
These texts were written in Akkadian, the language of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians. It was a new language to scholars and it took a bit of time to decipher them, but once these texts were translated, their impact was immediately felt. Whereas beforehand, the biblical creation and flood stories could safely be read in a self-referential manner, these texts placed Israelite religion in a larger context. It was inevitable that discerning readers would begin comparing and contrasting Israel to her neighbors and forbearers.
Placing Israel in its broader cultural and religious context has been referred to as the "comparative approach." This is a sometimes-maligned term, as it is unfortunately understood by some to imply that Israel was simply copying or "borrowing" what was around them. This is not the case. Rather, the literature of Israel and that of her predecessors and neighbors reflect a common way of looking at the world. The value of these ancient texts is not in telling us from where Israel got her ideas. Instead, they help us understand what kind of a text Genesis is. I like to refer to this as "genre calibration."
By comparing Genesis to the creation and other primordial tales that other cultures of antiquity produced, we gain a clearer understanding of the nature of Genesis. I understand that some object to allowing something outside of the Bible to tell us what the Bible is doing. It seems to put ancient stories on the same level as the Bible, so to speak. But the fact of the matter is that faithful readers of the Bible looking to things outside of the Bible to help us understand what the Bible is doing. A glance at a good study Bible will put to rest any notion of trying to isolate the Bible from its ancient setting.
To put it another way, genre calibration guides us in seeing what we have a right to expect from Genesis. To cut to the chase, despite whatever unique elements we see in the opening chapters of Genesis, comparing and contrasting Genesis to the Mesopotamian texts discovered in the nineteenth century (not to mention to the broader ancient Near Eastern world of subsequent discoveries) leads to the conclusion, quite inescapable in my mind, that Genesis 1-11 is not prepared to answer the kinds of questions that occupy modern scientific or historical studies.
The biblical descriptions of creation and the flood are ancient texts that address ancient issues within the scope of ancient ways of knowing. These stories are not to be read as if overlapping with or informing scientific investigation of human origins or modern notions of historiography. To think that they do is a genre misidentification of a most fundamental order.
But there is something more important than just excluding certain genre options. Calibrating the genre of Genesis by ancient standards will lead to positive articulations of the nature of Genesis that also respect its ancient setting. In the Genesis/science dialogue, it is not enough to say "we know that Genesis is not science" and be done with it. We must also attempt to articulate, in as direct and unflinching manner as possible, what Genesis is. What was the book of Genesis written to do?
Addressing this question will help us articulate positively how Genesis contributes to Christian thought. The synthesis of Christianity and evolution is all too often perceived as taking something away from Genesis (its literal, historical, scientific value) and leaving nothing behind. Rather, a comparative approach will leave us with a proper notion of what Genesis contributed to ancient Israelite thought, what it now contributes to Christian thought, and the extent to which that entire dynamic can be brought into the Christianity/evolution discussion.
A comparative approach, therefore, has helped modern readers "calibrate" the genre of Genesis, and thus has helped us understand how to read it
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
John#,
"What we do know about the Hebrews from inscriptions, from related contemporaneous cultures, and from Hebrew extrabiblical stories is that they indeed believed that the sky was a solid dome."
This statement forgets the fact that the authority for what we ought to believe is not what the Hebrews themselves believed but what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. The Jewish rabbis were not infallible interpreters of their own Scripture. There is a huge distinction to be made between the Hebrew Scriptures themselves-- which were given by divine inspiration through the mouth of the prophets and are therefore infallible-- and Hebrew tradition, which is a mixed bag of truth, fable, and fantasy. Only those aspects of Hebrew tradition which find confirmation in the written Scriptures may be regarded as true, for the fact that those aspects of tradition are affirmed by the Spirit of God Himself proves their truth, since the Spirit of God does not lie. It is not surprising to me that if a biblical writer (under divine inspiration) described the heavens phenomenologically as a "dome," some rabbi would come along later and embellish that biblical statement by expostulating on the precise nature of the sky dome as a solid object enclosing the earth, etc. But we must not confuse the misguided pseudo-science of Hebrew tradition (or Babylonian or Sumerian tradition) with what the Scriptures themselves affirm. To equate the overly literalistic interpretations of Jewish rabbis (which are false) with the phenomenlogical statements of the inspired writers themselves (which are true) is to call into question the authority of the Holy Spirit Himself, since He only speaks truth.
Rizley writes, "phenomenlogical statements of the inspired writers themselves (which are true) is to call into question the authority of the Holy Spirit Himself, since He only speaks truth."
How does Rizley know that the Holy Spirit used phenomenological language? And how does Rizley know that the inspired writers knew that the descriptions they used in the Bible were factually false and only phenomenologically true? Rizley cannot know this from the text itself nor from any historic literature or cultural artifacts. Rather, he can only know those propositions by previously developing a particular view of the inspiration of scripture and then bringing that view of inspiration to the Bible and interpreting the Bible in the light of and consistent with his pre-established beliefs about inspiration.
So we must then look at whether his theory of inspiration is valid, and it is not obviously true that it is. How then should we formulate our theory of the nature of inspiration, and should the character of Genesis 1 - 11 inform our thinking?
regards,
#John
John#,
“How does Rizley know that the inspired writers knew that the descriptions they used in the Bible were factually false and only phenomenologically true? Rizley cannot know this from the text itself. . .”
I am not saying that the inspired writers knew that the descriptions they used in the Bible were factually false. To know that the moon is not made of cheese, for example, one would have to have knowledge of its actual composition-- something inaccessible to the ancients. What I am saying is saying is their intention when they described the world around them was not to assert anything scientifically “factual” about the physical structure of the universe, but simply to describe the natural world as it “appeared” to them, using the language of analogy and metaphor. Their intention did not go beyond that. Yet many modern scholars slander the biblical writers by putting into their mouths cosmological assertions that have nothing to do with the author’s intention. They say, for example, that when the prophet Isaiah speaks of the “circle of the earth,” it was his intention to assert that the earth is literally in the shape of a flat disk or pancake; and in so doing, he taught “error.” That is a complete misreading of the text, however, for several reasons. First of all, as Edward Andrews points out, the Hebrew word for “circle” in this verse can be variously translated “circle, arch, vault, or compass.” Says Andrews, “Like our own vague word ’round,’ it can be used to indicate both two and three dimensional objects. Almost certainly, Isaiah meant ’vault’ and was referring not to the Earth at all but to the heavens.” In other words, “the circle of the earth” is a poetic way of describing the arched or vaulted sky above the earth. That Isaiah is speaking poetically is obvious from the fact that he goes on to say that the God who sits above the “vault” of the earth (that is, who is higher than the heavens) also ’stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.’ Clearly, Isaiah is describing the natural world poetically and metaphorically, with no intention of giving us a technical, structural description of the cosmos.
We know from our own experience that it is the most natural thing in the world for human beings to describe the natural world as it “appears” to them, without any intention of asserting anything about its physical structure. For example, despite our modern knowledge of the physical structure of the universe, we continue to speak of the sun “rising” and “setting,” just like the biblical writers. Are we asserting anything about the physical structure of the universe by the use of such language? Obviously not. Then why do we use it? Because it is natural for human beings to describe the natural world as it appears to the human eye.
So authorial intention has everything to do with whether or not we are justified in ascribing error to the biblical writers‘ descriptions of the natural world. If an author’s intention in describing the sky as a dome is simply to let us know how the sky appears to him, he cannot be accused of teaching error. That accusation can only be made if it were his intention to assert something dogmatically about the physical structure of the universe. We have no basis whatsoever of saying that this was the intention of the biblical writers.
As far as my view of biblical inspiration, it is the same as that of the apostolic writers, who believed that "What Scripture says, God says" and that the Spirit moved holy men to write so that what they wrote, though expressing their own personalities, vocabulary, etc., is exactly what God wanted them to write. God superintended the whole process of prophetic writing, so that the words of Scripture can be regarded as God's own words. For that reason, we can regard the Scriptures as being "without error in all that they intend to affirm."
Rizley on December 9th wrote, "What I am saying is saying is their intention when they described the world around them was not to assert anything scientifically “factual” about the physical structure of the universe, . . ."
But how does Rizley determine that their intention was not to assert anything factual about the earth?
Moreover, the point is not that the Biblical writers were engaging in an analysis of cosmology and then making assertions. Rather, the point is that the Biblical writers assumed the factual truth of these things when they wrote. The Biblical writers assumed that the sun went around the earth, and so when they wrote that the sun rose and set they meant that the sun indeed did rise up and go around the earth.
As to the circle of the earth, it is much more likely that the Hebrews shared the ANE assumptions of the time, such as a flat earth with a physical hard dome over it (like a snowglobe).
If, on the other hand, Rizley is write that the Biblical writers did not intend these descriptions to be taken as factually correct, is that not the same point that Enns et al. make? just in regard to different texts?
regards,
#John
How does Rizley determine that their intention was not to assert anything factual about the earth?
I determine that by paying close attention to the biblical context of the passages which allegedly teach bogus ideas about cosmological structure, and I regularly discover, upon close examination of the text, that the biblical writer is clearly intending to use poetic imagery. Take the passage from Isaiah that I quoted. Do you think the prophet-- who clearly understood God’s immaterial, spiritual nature-- believed that God literally measured the waters of the earth in the hollow of some gigantic, fleshy hand? Or that he literally held the dust of the earth in an enormous swinging basket? Or that he literally weighed the mountains in a pair of scales? (40:12) If not, why would you assume that he believed the sky to be a literal canopy stretched out over the earth or the people of the earth literal grasshoppers, or the earth itself a flat, circular disk? The context suggests otherwise, that the prophet is not asserting pseudo-scientific ideas out of ignorance, but is describing nature using the poetic language of analogy and metaphor (even if the "circle of the earth" refers to the earth itself, and not to the sky, it could still be simply a poetic description of the horizon stretching out on all sides like an enormous circle). The fact that certain false cosmologies were circling around in the ancient world does not mean that those cosmologies found their way into the teaching of biblical writers who writing under divine inspiration. Can you give me one clear example where that is what they are doing-- making scientifically false assertions about cosmological structure, rather than describing nature in a poetic or phenomenlogical fashion? Bring on your example; I'd like to examine it closely, for that is the key to getting at truth; It will not do simply to talk in generalities like "the Babylonians believed. . ." or "the Sumerians believed. . ." We must look at particular biblical texts in their context, to determine what particular biblical writers were intending to say or assert.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.