Christmas brought me a few books that should serve as blogging material. First up is The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. Walton argues that if Genesis 1 is read carefully with the ancient Near East context in mind, it becomes clear that the creation story is a functional account (how things work together in an ordered system) rather than a material account (the physical origin). He then argues that scientific accounts of physical origins do not conflict with the Bible because the Bible has nothing to say on the matter.
A couple of things shake out of his analysis that should be of particular interest to an LDS audience. First, is Walton's conclusion that the Hebrew word translated as "create" (bara) does not refer to creation ex nihilo. Although he still believes that ultimately God did create everything out of nothing, Walton argues that the text itself does not teach or imply such a thing. He lays out the reasoning of the ex nihilo interpretation as follows: Materials for creation are never mentioned in association with the word (bara), therefore they must have been created out of nothing. Walton argues that this line of reasoning depends on the assumption that material creation, rather than functional creation, is what is described.
[Genesis 1] does involve creative activities, but all in relation to the way that the ancient world thought about creation and existence: by naming, separating and assigning functions and roles in an ordered system. [p. 46]
This is within striking distance of Joseph Smith's interpretation. Although his reasoning took a somewhat different path, Joseph also rejected creation ex nihilo based (at least partly) on his analysis of the same Hebrew word, as recorded in the famous King Follett discourse:Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory.
Second, Walton argues that the creation of the cosmos should be understood as God creating a temple. (I hardly need to mention the role of the creation in LDS temple worship.) Interestingly, he says that when the text says that God "rested" on the seventh day, this is actually a reference to God taking up his place within his temple, and would have been recognized as such by ancient Israelites because in ancient Near Eastern culture, God(s) rest in, and only in, a temple. He then goes on to write things that will look familiar to anyone who as done any reading of what LDS scholars have written about ancient temples (eg. Hugh Nibley's Temple and Cosmos) [1] . For example,This close connection between cosmic origins and temple building reinforces the idea across the ancient Near East that the temples were considered primordial and that cosmic origins at times were defined in terms of a temple element....
We can draw the connection between temple and cosmos more tightly when we observe that temples in the ancient world were considered symbols of the cosmos. [p. 79]
According to Walton, in effect, God finished setting up the functions of his temple and then settled in to get down to business. This leads Walton to propose that Genesis 1 is essentially a seven-day inauguration ceremony of God's temple (the cosmos), which he has set up around the needs of humans, and in which he dwells and conducts his business.Given the relationship of the temple and the cosmos, the creation of one is also the creation of the other. The temple is made functional in the inauguration ceremonies, and therefore the temple is created in the inauguration ceremony. So also the cosmic temple would be made functional (created) in an inauguration ceremony. [p. 88]
Walton insists that he is not offering an alternative to a literal reading of Genesis 1. Rather, he says that this is a literal reading; it is how the ancient Israelites would have understood it. Making the switch from material to functional thinking is difficult, which Walton would probably say is a testament to the power our cultural environment has in shaping our thinking. Although he offers several analogies, I think of it like this: Imagine a baby blessing where the father, rather than making a general statement about the health and growth of the child, proceeds to name each major organ system and describe the function of each. Nobody would mistake this for the actual physical creation of the organ systems. (It occurs to me that we need not look outside of the temple for an example of functional language (eg. initiatory ordinances).)
Nevertheless, it is hard to read the creation account in the Book of Abraham, or consider the creation account in the endowment, without getting the sense that God (or his representatives) is depicted actually doing something. Yet even here Walton may have a partial solution. Early in the book he says that the ancients did not distinguish between 'natural' and 'supernatural' causes. There were no 'natural laws' which caused things to run on their own, with God stepping in from time to time. Rather, the ancients attributed everything to God. Whereas we might say that God used an earthquake caused by a shift in tectonic plates, or (to use scriptural history) that he used the empires of Assyria and Babylonia to accomplish his purposes, the ancients would simply say that God did it. So it shouldn't be surprising that a text written for another culture shows no concern for a distinction important to ours. On the other hand, we are not totally divorced from the ancient mindset. It is not uncommon for people to express a sense of providence in what seem like ordinary natural events.
There are additional nuggets of insight to be mined from the book, but I'll leave it at that for now. At under 200 pages, the book is an easy and quick read. It is also organized well; each chapter title encapsulates the main point of the chapter and there is a nice summary at the end, as well as answers to FAQs. The last couple of chapters wander a little off-topic by getting into how science is taught in public schools. I pretty much agree with his position, which is to leave discussion of purpose (or lack thereof) out of science classrooms, but it seemed a little out of place in this book.
I'll close with a quote from the introduction.The Old Testament does communicate to us and it was written for us, and for all humankind. But it was not written to us. It was written to Israel. It is God's revelation of himself to Israel and secondarily through Israel to everyone else. As obvious as this is, we must be aware of the implications of that simple statement.
Notes:
1. I don't mean to imply that all of these similar insights originated with LDS scholars.
Continue reading...
Posts
