The book of Genesis includes two very different creation stories. The first, “Genesis 1” runs from verse 1:1 to the middle of 2:4 (2:4a). The second, “Genesis 2,” runs from verse 2:4b to 2:25.
Beginning in the 18th century, European Old Testament scholars discussed this point in earnest. The next two centuries brought the discovery of numerous creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan. With the discovery of these creation stories, scholars could now see clear evidence to support a nonliteral reading of the Genesis texts, since each biblical story shares characteristics of different Near Eastern stories.
Pete's analyses and those before his give us a clear understanding of the role of humans and their relationship to God. This is a spiritual relationship and the entire purpose of both creation stories is to tell us that God dwells on high but that He created humans to be among them. There is no science here and those who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 that way completely miss the point.
That these and other analyses will be ignored by the leading young earth creation sites is a given. Such analyses are, in a sense, time-inspecific. In this construct, when the earth was created is almost irrelevant, as is how it was created. How humans appeared is only important in the sense of the fact that they are created by God to relate to him. These chapters show that they are not scientific accounts of anything.
I have often thought that this kind of analysis should be central to Sunday school teaching about how we are to relate to God such that the richness of the scripture can be felt. It might also be a way of alerting people to the scriptural vacuity of young earth creationism.
----------------
Now playing: Shadowfax - Distant Voices
via FoxyTunes
"I have often thought that this kind of analysis should be central to Sunday school teaching about how we are to relate to God such that the richness of the scripture can be felt. It might also be a way of alerting people to the scriptural vacuity of young earth creationism."
ReplyDeleteI agree, however, it challenges the currently accepted paradigm and requires a more in-depth understanding of Scripture and history of Christian thought. Neither of which makes for "interesting" Sunday school. This, combined with anti-intellectualism which is frequently visible, would make the proposal for a non-literal reading of Genesis a lightning rod.
Yes, what I think and what will actually fly are two very different things. I just hate to see an emphasis on bad science at the expense of what is perceived to be a theological strength which is, in actuality, no such thing.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy this kind of analysis, and it's helped me with my study which has been shifting me from a "fundamentalist" interpretation to an interpretation which has found evolution to be acceptable (and plausible).
ReplyDeleteBut I didn't find this specific analysis to be useful at all, because it presumed from the start one of the things which has to be decided: that the two texts are not harmonizable on the basis of what they directly claim. It may well be that the two are indeed separate myths; but the fact that the two appear directly adjacent is evidence (not proof) that they are not entirely separate. This may turn out to be untrue; but it should not simply be dismissed.
Doing so is like claiming that the Mosaic Law contradicts itself when it condemns killing and then advocates that certain violators of the Law be killed -- the context shows that the prohibition is against murder, and the command is for punishment of the criminal.
Unfortunately, the author's decision to prejudge this question empties his otherwise interesting analysis of value, because in the analysis he MUST harmonize the two texts at _some_ level, and his decision that they cannot be harmonized at any historical factual level means that they must be simply twisted to mean something non-factual (which many people think means 'spiritual').
But I didn't find this specific analysis to be useful at all, because it presumed from the start one of the things which has to be decided: that the two texts are not harmonizable on the basis of what they directly claim.
ReplyDeleteDid you read the post Jim linked to, or a different part in the series? I ask because the linked post has Enns listing reasons why the two creation stories are not harmonizable. He doesn't just assume it to be the case and move on from there.
Look at Enns' reasons. They aren't actually reasons why the accounts can't be harmonized; Enns purports that they're reasons why we should want to look closely at the differences. (I agree with Enns on that point, so the first reason he lists is sufficient, and the fourth I agree with as well.)
ReplyDeleteHis second reason needs to be elaborated; it doesn't demonstrate anything unless we can show that the two accounts are not merely historically irreconcilable, but would have been obviously so (to anyone not steeped in fundamentalism, of course).
The third one is actually a presumption that the texts shouldn't be reconciled at all -- it claims that not trying to reconcile is somehow more respectful. The odd thing is that it explicitly extends that insistence to the Gospels, so presumably Enns thinks that those are irreconcilable and thus not intended to be seen as historical as well.
Now, Enns' stated goal is noble: to look at the differences. It's the assumptions that he's bringing in that are going to determine the result of his study.
Consider, for example, how he presumes that both accounts have a "different depiction of the beginning", rather than chapter 2 depending on a preceding creation event (perhaps part or all of chapter 1). We already "know" that chapter 1 isn't the ultimate beginning -- other creation accounts in the Bible tell us that God created from things that are not seen, while chapter 1 starts from a visible (but chaotic) Earth covered with waters, so supposing that chapter 2 isn't trying to describe from the beginning not only helps make sense of the context, but also fits with the shape of the rest of the Bible.
I think my biggest problem isn't that Enns is bringing the presuppositions in without supporting them; it's that he's bringing in presuppositions that can't possibly be maintained. If the accounts truly can't be reconciled at all, one or both of them must be discarded. Enns doesn't believe this at all; he thinks that they can be reconciled by considering them to be recording some truth other than historical. So by saying that other people obscure "obscuring those [different] elements in order to achieve some artificial unity," he's actually ignoring the fact that his purpose is to deemphasize selected elements in order to achieve a unity that describes his idea of the correct reading. (I choose to use accurate and non-insulting words rather than the emotionally loaded ones Enns uses to describe those who differ with him.)
Really, the goal must be to achieve not "artificial" unity, but actual unity. If the actual unity isn't historical, as Enns suggests, we should explore and explain that without fear, but we shouldn't suppose that by rejecting it from the outset we're being more "respectful".