Jason Rosenhouse of
EvolutionBlog has been working on a book on evolution and creationism, and in the process, he has been reading a lot on how to interpret the Bible. In
Reading Genesis, he tells us some of what he had found.
He came across Marcus Borg's
Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2001).
After noting that in previous centuries, young-earth creationism was taken for granted, MB stated
Quote:
|
But contemporary biblical scholarship does not read these stories as historically factual accounts of the world's beginnings. Instead, it sees them as ancient Israel's stories of the world's beginnings and interprets them as profoundly true mythological stories. In this chapter I will describe these stories as seen through the lens of contemporary scholarship. More specifically, I will offer a historical-metaphorical reading, focusing primarily on the creation stories in the first three chapters of Genesis.
|
As JR notes, MB is fond of "profoundly true", as opposed to everyday notions of truth. JR continues with some consequences of MB's claims.
Quote:
|
That the accounts in Genesis are Israel's accounts, not God's accounts is, of course, what any atheist would say. We should not let slide the fact that Borg has very casually discarded huge swaths of Protestant theology. Inerrancy? Not a term you apply to purely human writing. Perspicuity? Borg has already informed us that virtually everyone misunderstood these narratives prior to the dawn of the Enlightenment. Sola Scriptura? It is pretty hard to argue that Israel's factually inaccurate creation myths are a supreme source of knowledge to which all human inquiry must bow.
|
That's a difficulty with a lot of liberal Xianity -- a consequence of this common liberal-Xian belief is that for most of the history of their religion, just about everybody had grossly misunderstood important parts of their sacred book, including just about every big-name theologian.
Turning to Genesis 1, JR states
Quote:
|
We are told the P story makes the point that even God observes the sabbath. But it only makes that point if the story is true. This is not a situation where we might use a fictional story to illustrate a moral principle, as in Aesop's fables or Jesus' parables. Fictional stories can be excellent vehicles for presenting general truths, but they are not so useful for explaining how various traditions came to be established, or for justifying the correctness of specific beliefs. It does not make sense to say that Israel viewed the P account as an explanation for the importance of keeping the sabbath, but that they did not view the story as true.
|
JR then notes MB's interesting theory about Genesis 1:
Quote:
The P story of creation was likely adapted from an ancient Israelite liturgy or hymn of praise to God. Its use of repeating phrases suggests refrains such as are found in hymns and liturgies. Each of the following is repeated seven times: “God said, `Let there be ...'”, “And it was so.” “And God saw that it was good.”
“There was evening and there was morning ...” is repeated after each day of creation. Moreover, the six days of creation suggest six stanzas. If a liturgy does lie behind the first chapter of Genesis, we should imagine it being sung or chanted, perhaps antiphonally with a cantor and one or more choirs.
The recognition that the P story is likely to have been a hymn or liturgy has an immediate implication: we do not expect hymns to provide accurate factual information.
|
JR suggests that that's rather grossly overinterpreting the style of Genesis 1.
Quote:
|
Here, again, does not the conclusion seem out of all proportion to the evidence provided? A few repeated phrases does not transform a straightforward historical account into a hymn or liturgy. The repeated phrases are more simply understood as being for emphasis. Furthermore, what is written in Genesis 1 does not at all read like a hymn. It reads like a very specific accounting of actions taken by God. Borg suggests that the repetition of “evening and morning” and the six day structure suggest six stanzas. To me, by contrast, they suggest six days, each one marked by the passing of an evening and a morning.
|
JR also asks why this stylistic feature never suggested to theologians in past centuries that Genesis 1 is not literal truth. He then continues with dissecting the "profound truths" that MB proposes that Genesis 1 has.
In the comments, tamakazura proposes stylistic similarities with Egyptian pharaoh Akhnaton's Hymn to the Sun. JR responds by considering how much praise is in the text. Hymns often have a
lot of praise, while Genesis 1 has very little -- it's an account of what God had done. So JR concludes that Genesis 1 was not a hymn.
It also must be pointed out that being forced into some literary mold need not imply that something is fictional. That literary mold may make it hard to tell fact from fiction, however.
Commenter 386sx:
Quote:
|
I look at “profoundly true” the same way I look at my neighborhood Burger King®. When you go to Burger King, you can “have it your way”, whatever you want. (Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, etc.)
|
JR responded:
Quote:
|
Excellent analogy! When I first read Borg's discussion of Genesis, my first, somewhat cynical, thought was that “profoundly true” was just a euphemism for “false.”
|
Thus, the likes of MB want to consider Genesis 1 fiction while continuing to seem to believe that it is "true".
10-31-2010, 02:16 AM
Reading the Book of Genesis
