Although I've been a little distracted by Michael Winger's videos, I did intend to write in the later part of this week on Science and Scripture. So why not jump to the proposed Genesis 2-3 chapter of the Science and Scripture book I've started working on? Previous posts covered all but the final piece of chapter 1.
_______________________________
8.1 Approaches to Genesis 2-3
1. In chapter 4, we began to explore questions about Genesis' structure, genre, and historical context. We argued that these were often crucial elements in the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 as they relate to questions of science and faith. We showed how young earth creationists, old earth creationists, and evolutionary creationists each lean toward a different understanding of the genre of Genesis 1.
For example, young earth creationists often claim to take Genesis 1 "literally." We saw, however, that their interpretations were only selectively literal and that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 would probably result in a picture of the cosmos that is quite different from the one with which they normally operate (e.g., a flat earth with waters above a dome and stars below the dome). An individual like Ken Ham tends to interpret Genesis 1 as historical narrative.
By contrast, old earth creationists tend to take Genesis 1 at least somewhat figuratively with the word day referring to an unspecified but large period of time, likely millions of years. This is the "day-age theory" which on days five and six allows for the millions of years of the fossil record -- with God stepping in with a special creation at the appropriate developmental points. Nevertheless, the structure of Genesis 1 is still largely seen as historical narrative -- just a less literal one.
Finally, the so-called "framework hypothesis" takes Genesis 1 not as a historical narrative but a theological one. We saw that John Walton, as an example, wonders if Genesis 1 was a liturgy for the new year whose fundamental purpose was to re-enact the installment of Yahweh as king of the world each year. Others might see a less specific situation. Clearly, Genesis 1 presents God as sole creator of the world. It indicates that God's creation is orderly. It situates humanity -- male and female -- as the pinnacle of creation.
Genesis 1 also, arguably, introduces the Pentateuch. In chapter 4, we briefly discussed questions of Genesis' authorship and noted that most see Genesis as the synthesis of both oral tradition and literary sources rather than a single document produced by Moses. In such hypotheses, Genesis 1 serves as a kind of introduction to the Pentateuch, written somewhere between the late sixth century and mid-fifth century. In this view, Genesis 1 "grounds" the Pentateuch in the sole authority of Yahweh, the God who brings order out of chaos.
Approaches to Genesis 1 that see it as historical narrative on some level do lead to tensions with modern science, especially the young earth creationist interpretation. However, interpretations that see Genesis 1 as a more poetic, theological presentation of creation leave ample room for theories of modern cosmology such as the Big Bang. Indeed, we argued in chapter 3 that the Big Bang theory actually supports faith in the special creation of the universe quite well. Science has no evidence-based theory on what caused the expansion of the universe from a singularity or why it expanded when it did. Faith in a Creator thus is in perfect alignment with current cosmological hypotheses.
2. In this chapter, we want to continue this discussion into Genesis 2-3. Here we once again have three basic interpretations of the biblical text. First, young earth creationists (YEC) see Genesis 2-3 as historical narrative. Adam and Eve are understood to be literal historical individuals, the first humans to exist on the earth. Genesis 2 is seen as a template for ideal humanity, and Genesis 3 is seen as an explanation -- or etiology -- of why humanity is as it is today. Let us call this the traditional literal view.
Textbox: An etiology is an origin story that explains a particular practice or social reality
The old earth creationist (OEC) also takes Genesis 2 somewhat literally but situates it within a flow of millions of years. For example, the main difference between an old earth creationist and a young earth creationist on Genesis 2-3 largely has to do with what precedes and follows it. An old earth creationist would see Adam and Eve as the first humans on earth. They would see Adam and Eve as literal, historical individuals fashioned by the special creation of God.
However, they might see God having created other hominins prior to Adam and Eve by special creation as well. For example, they might see God stepping into the flow of history to create Neanderthals and Denisovans some 100,000 years before he created homo sapiens. Another key difference has to do with the continuity of natural law. The young earth creationist might follow the traditional Augustinian approach and see a dramatic change in natural law after the Fall of Adam and Eve. For example, a YEC might see the second law of thermodynamics as a consequence of the fall (see chapter 12).
By contrast, an OEC would not likely see any wholesale change in natural law after the sin of Adam and Eve. For example, animal death would have existed before the Fall. The law of entropy would have existed both before and after Adam and Eve's sin. However, one might still propose that the power of Sin exacerbated the corruptive forces of the world after the Fall.
Because old earth creationists differ from young earth creationists primarily on matters that are outside of what Genesis 2-3 say, we will include it in the first interpretation of Genesis 2-3 that takes this story as historical narrative. The differences, as we mentioned, have to do with what happened before Genesis 2. OEC still takes Genesis 2-3 fairly literally. Adam and Eve are still literal, historical individuals.
3. A second interpretation of Genesis 2-3 still considers Adam and Eve to be literal, historical individuals like the young and old earth creationists. Like the old earth creationists, it sees Adam and Eve in a flow of millions of years that have preceded Genesis 2. However, this particular concordist view would situate Adam and Eve within a flow of evolution. I am calling this a distinct interpretation of Genesis 2-3 because Adam and Eve are not seen as the first homo sapiens but perhaps as representatives of the species before God. Let us call it the representative Adam view.
While this approach considers the key elements of Genesis 2-3 to be historical, it involves enough reinterpretation of the context of Genesis 2-3 to seem to warrant its own category. That is to say, the Genesis 2-3 story seems to be taken less literally than the old earth creationist takes it. It is a creative attempt to integrate the predominant scientific theory of human evolution with a mostly literal reading of Genesis.
In the previous chapter, we have already discussed the question of whether genetics allows for two individuals to be either the direct or genealogical ancestors of the human race. The views of Walton and Swamidass both would allow for a somewhat literal interpretation of Genesis 2 within a flow of evolutionary development. However, we would need to infer that Adam and Eve are not the only humans around at the time, and the Fall would not result in as dramatic a change as in the traditional literal view. For example, death would have been present before and after Adam and Eve's sin -- not only for animals but for humans as well.
The genre of Genesis 2-3 in this approach seems less straightforwardly historical. John Walton would call it Ancient Near Eastern theological narrative. [] Adam and Eve are archetypes of humanity although not the first or only humans. The story is thus as much or more a parable of humanity as a historical story, although based on events that Walton believes literally happened.
4. A third interpretation sees Genesis 2-3 as myth in the technical sense or perhaps as a parable of humanity...
[complete]
1 comment:
Interesting, and seems fair enough.
Post a Comment