Re: [asa] Understanding Genesis (was: the Way Science Works/)

I always love Christine's posts; they're always so substantive and
thought-provoking.

On 7/28/07, Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "So basically, the Hebrew creation narrative was
> > God's theological rebuttal
> > to the Egyptian creation mythology, not necessarily
> > a scientific rebuttal to
> > ANE cosmology."
>
> I've heard this before from several others and have
> found the idea intriguing...

Which is exactly why we need to take upon ourselves the mindset and beliefs
of the ancient Hebrews to best understand Genesis; and yes, that includes
their scientific beliefs and the myths around them as well.

In pondering the other chapters of Genesis however, it
> seems to me that it cannot be wholly figurative or
> "mythic" though, because the details of the
> individuals, particular the genealogies given, appear
> rooted in a real history (I say this in part, because
> I am a genealogist and it strikes me as very odd that
> such details would be made up as part of a "parable").

Good point. Christians, I think, should be rather hesitant to refer to
themselves as "biblical literalists" or "biblical allegorists" because, as
Christine has realized, the exact same hermeneutic cannot be applied to
every single situation regardless of the context (both biblical and
extra-biblical). And, of course, anyone familiar with the Bible and the
young-earthers can tell you that they are far from being literalists; just
look at how quickly they pass of the ancient cosmology in the Bible!

I wonder then...would it be accurate to extend this
> theological critique idea to Genesis more broadly?
> That is to say--might Genesis more broadly be thought
> of as a blended narrative, one in which Israel's own
> national roots (extending all the way back to a
> literal Adam and Eve) were over-layed onto the popular
> myths circulating at the time, not only to present a
> theological critique, but also to present themselves
> as a distinct people?
>
> In other words, if I'm an ancient writer and I want to
> write about the origins of my nation (Israel) and my
> faith in a way that distinguishes us from the other
> peoples of the time, wouldn't it make sense that I
> would take the following elements:
> - the literal history of my people, in so far as I'm
> aware, including genealogies, events, travels, etc.
> - our theological belief system, specifically a
> monotheistic worldview, the idea that we are a chosen
> people of God, our understanding of creation and the
> rise of civilization, sin, etc.
> - the popular myths of the peoples we wish to set
> ourselves apart from.
> and weave these 3 elements together such that for
> example, our understanding of the creation is linked
> with our knowledge of Israel's "creation" (aka: it's
> historical roots and ancestry), in a way that
> demonstrates theological truths (i.e. our unique
> relationship with God from the very beginning, the
> fall of man into sin, teachings on marriage, etc.)
> while simultaneously hijacking the creation myths of
> others in order to reject their worldview.

I wouldn't really think of it as a "blending." In my opinion, Denis
Lamoureux put it best when he wrote of the Bible's "Divine Message" being
carried via the "Incidental Vessel." The incidental vessel did contain the
Hebrew's ancient cosmological "science" (e.g., the firmament) and
accommodation to *some* mythology (e.g., the Leviathan, IMHO), but this is
not part of the divine message of the Bible.

The problem with seeing it as a "blending" is that is causes trouble (imo)
with inerrancy; how do we distinguish between the science and the doctrine
if they truly are "blended" together? Young-earthers like to attack the
accommodation view by putting it together as indistinguishable blending,
rather than seeing the science as merely a "carrier" for the divine message.

Would this type of characterization of Genesis be
> consistent with what is known from archeology and
> other fields? It would to me at least, seem to make
> more sense with elements of the New Testament (i.e.
> Paul's linking of a "real" Adam with Christ) while yet
> allowing for more of a figurative understanding of
> Genesis.

As I alluded above, it's not really a matter of deciding whether or not to
view Genesis as figurative, but simply reading from the eyes of the Hebrews
and recognizing the poetic and ancient scientific elements that are there.

By the way, one way to answer a lot of questions are to get some good
commentaries on Genesis. The two I have are by Kidner and by Waltke. The
Kidner focouses a good deal on the science of Scripture, while the Waltke
focouses more on the literary construction of Genesis. Both are excellent.

-David (ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 28 20:29:46 2007