You'll meet people today who don't like Mark Twain, because sometimes he uses the work n***** in his books. Of course, Twain was anti-racist for his time, but it can be hard for people to understand this because the word is so jarring to most modern ears. It's easy to judge Twain by our standards today. It's easy to forget that his books were written a particular point in time, and that to understand what he means, we have to understand his time to some degree. This is true of all literature. All literature is written in time by people from that time, at least originally to people from that time.
Let's talk about Genesis 1-3.
In many churches, Genesis chapter one immediately raises questions concerning science and religion. "What does Christianity teach about evolution?" Christians disagree about this, with Evangelicals usually stating that the earth was created in six days and more importantly believing that humans are not apes. Theological liberals tend to believe in evolution and don't think the Genesis 1 narrative ought to be taken literally.
For now, I'm not interested in writing about evolution as a topic. Instead, I'd like us to imagine reading this text before Darwin and any of his immediate predecessors. In fact, I'd like us to imagine reading the text during the era it was written, a time before monotheism was common. Normally, I've had people read the text before, but today I'd rather people follow along in the text as they read. I'll point things out as we go. To see everything well, you'll need a literal translation for this text. I recommend using an NASB.
The first thing I want to do is to take a look at the days of creation. I'll list them here, feel free to check it out for yourself. Notice how the items in column A tend to match the items to their right in column B.
Column A Column B
DAY 1). Light and Darkness DAY 4). Sun, Moon, and Stars
DAY 2). Sky and Ocean DAY 5). Birds and Fish
DAY 3). Land and Plants DAY 6). Animals and Humans
We don't normally see the days laid out like this, but take a good look. In Genesis 1, God creates an environment and then fills it with stuff. He paints the background, then animates it. The days in each column correlate with one another to make this point. One might think that the plants on day three are an anomaly, but that's only because we as removed from hunting and farming. You can't have animals and humans without have plants first. It's a different way of thinking than what we're used to, but the logic follows throughout the text.
Let's look at a few other things. As you read through the text, notice the all-inclusive language. In the NASB, the word "every" appears 11 times. The word "all" also appears several times in the text. It's important to the writer than the readers of the text understand that "God made everything!" This message is lost on us, because most of us either believe in one God or zero Gods. We don't understand why someone would bother to tell us that God created everything. This wasn't true when the text was written. Polytheism was once the religion of the day. In polytheism, one god might have created the sky and another god might be responsible for the sea. One god is responsible for the moon and another for trees, etc. (For it's time, this was an incredibly controversial story, even among the Israelites who often worshipped Ba'al and other gods).
We see further evidence for this in the term Greater and Lesser Light. A dynamic translation fails us here, using the term Sun, Moon, and Stars, but if you know anything about polytheism, you know that people used to worship these thing. Their names were the names of Gods. If you're attacking polytheism, you probably don't want to refer to these terms by the names of God, because you don't want your audience to think you're saying, "God created other gods." So, in Egyptian, you wouldn't say, "God created Ra (the sun)." You'd say God created the Great Light, removing the false god's name. To a polytheist, referring to the Sun as a great light would have been more controversial than saying Happy Holidays during Christmas is to some American Evangelicals. What's happening in this text was incredibly controversial for the time it was written. Apparently it worked, since most of us aren't polytheists.
-You might ask, "would these be the names of gods in Hebrew?" Yes, because Hebrew was a dialect of Phoenician. In fact, El wasn't just worshiped by the Israelites. El was the head of the pantheon throughout the Levant (what most Christians think of as Palestine).-
Genesis 1 was originally intended to defend monotheism in a polytheistic world. What does that say about whether we should apply the text to the discussion concerning evolution? You might expect me to say that it means that we shouldn't do it. Clearly, I wouldn't do it. But, I don't know that it's fair to expect this from every tradition of Christianity. A text can have more than one meaning. Even if the most important meaning isn't a literal one, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't also interpret the text literally. Instead of saying that Evangelicals shouldn't interpret this text through the lens of evolution, it's better to say that they should be aware of the text's original context.
My hope in writing this is that readers will understand that the historical context of the Bible matters when we read it. The writers and original readers were asking different questions than we are. Understanding that will help us access meanings in the text we might not otherwise have access to. However, I can't fairly say that people shouldn't find more than one meaning in a set of scriptures or that people can't see meaning there that I don't.
I do hope that I have at least bridged some understanding between theological liberals and conservatives in writing this post. They don't take the same approach when interpreting scripture, but if you can understand why the other party is interpreting it differently the conversations go a lot better. It becomes easier to see each other as people seeking the truth, rather than heretics who have no concern for the truth whatsoever. It's also easier have conversations if we understand each other's perspectives.
Let's talk about Genesis 1-3.
In many churches, Genesis chapter one immediately raises questions concerning science and religion. "What does Christianity teach about evolution?" Christians disagree about this, with Evangelicals usually stating that the earth was created in six days and more importantly believing that humans are not apes. Theological liberals tend to believe in evolution and don't think the Genesis 1 narrative ought to be taken literally.
For now, I'm not interested in writing about evolution as a topic. Instead, I'd like us to imagine reading this text before Darwin and any of his immediate predecessors. In fact, I'd like us to imagine reading the text during the era it was written, a time before monotheism was common. Normally, I've had people read the text before, but today I'd rather people follow along in the text as they read. I'll point things out as we go. To see everything well, you'll need a literal translation for this text. I recommend using an NASB.
The first thing I want to do is to take a look at the days of creation. I'll list them here, feel free to check it out for yourself. Notice how the items in column A tend to match the items to their right in column B.
Column A Column B
DAY 1). Light and Darkness DAY 4). Sun, Moon, and Stars
DAY 2). Sky and Ocean DAY 5). Birds and Fish
DAY 3). Land and Plants DAY 6). Animals and Humans
We don't normally see the days laid out like this, but take a good look. In Genesis 1, God creates an environment and then fills it with stuff. He paints the background, then animates it. The days in each column correlate with one another to make this point. One might think that the plants on day three are an anomaly, but that's only because we as removed from hunting and farming. You can't have animals and humans without have plants first. It's a different way of thinking than what we're used to, but the logic follows throughout the text.
Let's look at a few other things. As you read through the text, notice the all-inclusive language. In the NASB, the word "every" appears 11 times. The word "all" also appears several times in the text. It's important to the writer than the readers of the text understand that "God made everything!" This message is lost on us, because most of us either believe in one God or zero Gods. We don't understand why someone would bother to tell us that God created everything. This wasn't true when the text was written. Polytheism was once the religion of the day. In polytheism, one god might have created the sky and another god might be responsible for the sea. One god is responsible for the moon and another for trees, etc. (For it's time, this was an incredibly controversial story, even among the Israelites who often worshipped Ba'al and other gods).
We see further evidence for this in the term Greater and Lesser Light. A dynamic translation fails us here, using the term Sun, Moon, and Stars, but if you know anything about polytheism, you know that people used to worship these thing. Their names were the names of Gods. If you're attacking polytheism, you probably don't want to refer to these terms by the names of God, because you don't want your audience to think you're saying, "God created other gods." So, in Egyptian, you wouldn't say, "God created Ra (the sun)." You'd say God created the Great Light, removing the false god's name. To a polytheist, referring to the Sun as a great light would have been more controversial than saying Happy Holidays during Christmas is to some American Evangelicals. What's happening in this text was incredibly controversial for the time it was written. Apparently it worked, since most of us aren't polytheists.
-You might ask, "would these be the names of gods in Hebrew?" Yes, because Hebrew was a dialect of Phoenician. In fact, El wasn't just worshiped by the Israelites. El was the head of the pantheon throughout the Levant (what most Christians think of as Palestine).-
Genesis 1 was originally intended to defend monotheism in a polytheistic world. What does that say about whether we should apply the text to the discussion concerning evolution? You might expect me to say that it means that we shouldn't do it. Clearly, I wouldn't do it. But, I don't know that it's fair to expect this from every tradition of Christianity. A text can have more than one meaning. Even if the most important meaning isn't a literal one, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't also interpret the text literally. Instead of saying that Evangelicals shouldn't interpret this text through the lens of evolution, it's better to say that they should be aware of the text's original context.
 |
| Zeus and other Gods. In ancient times polytheism was the norm. This is one reason why the Jews like the Persians (they too were monotheists). |
I do hope that I have at least bridged some understanding between theological liberals and conservatives in writing this post. They don't take the same approach when interpreting scripture, but if you can understand why the other party is interpreting it differently the conversations go a lot better. It becomes easier to see each other as people seeking the truth, rather than heretics who have no concern for the truth whatsoever. It's also easier have conversations if we understand each other's perspectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment