Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful replies on this topic.
In an earlier post, I wrote that the authors of several Bible passages
(especially Genesis 1) _apprently_ believed a flat-earth, "sky sandwich"
cosmology. I went on to say, "... God allowed his revealed truth to be
couched in the cosmological imagery of the author's culture, without first
correcting that imagery.... So it seems unlikely to me that the passage's
essential revealed truth has much, if anything, to do with the actual
'formative history' of creation."
I wrote those words with no small trepidation, because I agree with David
Tyler when he replies:
DT> It seems to me that further discussion of these comments is
> warranted - if accepted, they have far-reaching implications for
> our general approach to the exegesis of the Bible, and
> particularly Genesis 1.
Yes, there are far-reaching implications and potentially great dangers to
Biblical exegesis here. The most obvious fear is the "slippery slope"
that we will wind up accepting only those parts of the Bible we like and
dismissing the parts we don't like as "merely cultural." On the other
hand -- while many Biblical passages should clearly be obeyed in a
straightforward way at all times and in all cultures ("Love your enemies")
-- there are some passages where we believe the interpretation needs to be
heavily influenced by our understanding of the (human) author's beliefs
and culture. (I suspect we agree that, while there IS a universal and
timeless truth in Paul's command that women should keep their heads
covered in church, it is NOT that all women in 20th century America should
wear hats in church.) The hermeneutical course must be steered carefully;
but fortunately, I'm not moving into uncharted waters.
------------
Did the ancient authors really believe in a flat-earth cosmology?
Someone (I'm sorry I don't remember who) mentioned the phrase "the circle
of the earth," found in Job. I checked my New International Version study
Bible and found that the phrase -- mentioned in Job, Proverbs, and Isaiah
-- is often translated "horizon." It sounds like idiomatic language to
me. I find it inconclusive.
Jim Blake asked,
> "I've been wondering something about the supposedly flat earth cosmology of
> the old testament. Do we have hard extra-biblical evidence that the Jews
> really believed in such a cosmology, or rather, does the evidence for it
> merely come from wooden interpretations of the figures of speech used in
> the Bible itself?
I wish I knew the answer! When I first learned about the "sky sandwich"
cosmology, I was under the vague impression that there were extra-biblical
sources. But that was over a decade ago; I don't remember any details.
Any help out there?
Glenn Morton and Russ Maatman correctly point out that some language is
idiomatic (even poetic). Certain phrases are used even after we know they
are not _technically_ correct. "Sunrise" and "sunset" are classic
examples.
David Tyler correctly points out that the ancient authors had a
non-scientific or a-scientific view of the world. They properly used the
"language of appearance" as a true description.
The "language of appearance," the use of idiomatic language, and the
ancients' non-scientific worldview are all important hermeneutical points!
I am fully satisfied with the way they deal with every passage which seems
to use flat-earth, geocentric language -- every passage except one:
Genesis 1. On this passage, I am still NOT satisfied with the "language of
appearance or idiom" approach.
David Tyler asked, "Why not!?"
At this point, I'm afraid it's more of an intuitive feeling than one I can
eloquently express, so please bear with me. To understand why I am not
satisfied with a "language of appearances" approach to Genesis 1, please
do a little exercise with me. First of all, recall what we know -- or at
least hope we know with reasonable assurance -- about this sequence of
events: the formation of heavier elements in stellar cores/supernovea,
the initial formation of our stellar system, planetary formation through
bombardment, the formation of the earth's atmosphere by release of trapped
gasses, cooling and condensation to produce the oceans, and the sequence
in which life appeared in the ocean and then on land.
Now, read through the Genesis 1 creation account assuming that the author
either believed in a spherical earth or else was agnostic about the issue,
assuming that the author used the "language of appearance," and ASSUMING
an "overlapping day/age" hermeneutics. (That is, assume that each "day"
is an "age" which starts with a supernatural act(s), the consequences of
which continue for some time, possibly into the next "day" -- and that the
supernatural acts happened in the order described.) The ordering of the
days of creation strikes me as odd, EVEN IF you use the "language of
appearance." The supernatural act which leads to the formation of the sky
preceeds the formation of land; the supernatural act which leads to the
eventual appearance of land vegetation preceeds the appearance of the sun,
moon, and stars, and preceeds ocean life. The order of the "Days" is not
a SERIOUS problem for overlapping-day/age hermeneutics, but it is
significant. The order of events doesn't sound right EVEN assuming
"language of appearance." I am not satisfied with this interpretation.
Now, re-read Genesis 1, this time assuming the "days of proclamation"
interpretation. Again, the sequence of the days poses a problem. Did God
"proclaim" the existence of sky, oceans, land, and vegetation BEFORE
proclaiming the existence (or appearance) of the sun, moon, and stars?
Surely the conception of -- and the "fine-tuning" of the fundamental laws
of nature necessary to allow for -- a planet, oceans, and plant life would
ALREADY include the formation of stars and moons, especially if the
heavier elements required for life are formed in stellar cores! Glenn
chooses his punctuation marks in Genesis 1 in such a way so that "God
doesn't talk funny." And I mostly agree with Glenn's punctuation marks.
But the "days of proclamation" view seems to have God "plan funny."
Again, I'm not saying the order of the "Days" is a SERIOUS problem for
"days of proclamation," but it IS a problem. The order of the
proclamations seems odd. I am not satisfied with this interpretation.
Finally, re-read Genesis 1 one more time, this time assuming that the
author (and his intended audience) really DID believe in a flat-earth,
"sky sandwich" cosmology. Suddenly, the ordering of Days 1-6 makes a lot
of sense! If you now contrast Genesis 1 with contemporary pagan creation
myths, a revealed truth from God fairly leaps out at us! (A truth which
was by no means trivial or obvious to the author's culture -- or to ours.)
----------------
If we take this final interpretation, there seem to follow two
hermeneutical consequences which are at once frightening and hopeful. (1)
The Genesis 1 story does not help us determine the sequence of events (nor
the degree to which certain events were SUPERnatural) in creation's
formative history. (2) God is sometimes willing to have his revealed
truth -- truth which is affirmed by the Spirit and universally recognized
as inspired by God -- couched in language which reflects some mistaken
beliefs of the author's culture. I know that these two "consequences" are
at variance with the view of scripture held by many Christians, especially
non-European protestants of the last 100 years (of whom I am one). But I
do not think they are inconsistent with what scripture says about itself,
I do not think they, in themselves, lead to a "slippery slope," and I
think they are within the greater Christian tradition (and even more
narrowly, within the greater Protestant tradition) of hermeneutics.
Well, I'm certainly not trying to be dogmatic here, because I'm none too
certain of my own conclusions -- I'm not even entirely comfortable with
them! So I thank all of you again for continuing this discussion in a
thoughtful, careful, and gracious way, and I'll be happy to learn new
insights from anyone. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... No, but the truth is more complicated." | Loren Haarsma
--Dad (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu