John Walton has been kind enough to respond
to my earlier
post in which I challenged some of his conclusions on Genesis 1. Below the
fold, he defends his conclusions with verve, and provides further supporting documentation.
Enjoy!
The Goal and
Purpose of Genesis 1: John Walton Responds
The reason that Genesis 1 has been understood
as material for so long is because our world has been so entrenched in a
material ontology that it cannot think that there is even another possibility.
On the meaning of ברא bara’, it is important to make the connection to the ontological
argument. IF it is true (and I believe
the evidence is substantial) that the ancient ontology is functional rather
than material, then in their minds the line between existence and non-existence
is a functional line rather than a material line. If existence is defined
functionally, then to bring something into existence (=create) is a functional
act. The ontology preceded the lexicography. In light of the ontology, the lexical data
take on new significance as the objects of בראbara’ are
examined. My raw
data chart for ברא bara’ may serve as
a point of departure (go here). The chart will be explicated in my forthcoming
Eisenbrauns monograph.
So, why can't Genesis 1 be both functional
and material? Of course it CAN be both,
but each one would have to be demonstrated, not assumed. Material cannot be the default simply because
we have come to think in material terms most naturally. So consider the following:
1. I have given evidence that the initial
verb is functional; several of the other verbs (separating, naming) are
functional and integrally a part of the functional ontology of the ANE; the
literary context is functional (1:2 does not begin with no material, but with
no functions; 8:22 clearly restores functions in the aftermath of the flood
that most all agree was undoing creation and presenting re-creation); the
cultural context is functional, the textual assessment throughout the chapter
is functional ("it was good"-- known to be functional when contrasted
to what is not good in ch. 2); and the theology is functional (temple and rest
in temple). It is difficult to detect
any material interest at any level. With
the pervasive functional perspective, the burden of proof lies on the person
who wants to incorporate a material aspect.
Of course there IS a material phase (just as
there was in "creating" a temple)--but the question has to be what
part of the story is told in Genesis 1? One could say that a material phase preceded the creation of a temple,
but the actual creation of the temple would have been in the seven day
dedication, which is functional in orientation. It would be like the tension we feel between the descriptor
"person" rather than the dehumanizing "carbon unit." Notice also the rhetoric connected with labeling
in the discussions of abortion ("fetus" vs. "baby").
2. Of the seven days, three have no material
suggestion at all (day 1 [light was not viewed as something material in the
ancient world, and it is day and night that are being created since they are
what is named]; day 3, day 7); Day 2 has a potentially material component, but
nobody believes that a solid dome actually exists, so if that is material it makes
for some problems (some say that the רקיע raqiʿa is not the dome
but the space created by the dome, but then it is likewise not material). Two
days have material components (4, celestial bodies, 6, people) but the text
addresses them only in functional terms. This leaves only day 5. So how
can we say that the orientation of the text is material? Why should we assume that it must, should or
could be seen as a material account? We
need to ask what makes US so interested in seeing it as material? Does it not take on the appearance of special
pleading? Consequently, you can see that the semantics of ברא bara’ is only one small part of the argument.
My 2003 Lecture
at Calvin College
People should not just work off my 2003
lecture online because my thinking has had a lot more development since
then. At that point I was not yet
analyzing in the context of ontology. The treatment in the chapter on Cosmology in Ancient Near Eastern
Thought is a more helpful presentation the information.
Just a side note -- someone on the blog
brought up my lecture at Calvin and suggested that I got taken to task. It must be understood, that I had a
relatively small time slot and my main topic was the Chaoskampf motif. I took about ten minutes at the end of the lecture
to present the Genesis 1 theory and apologetically presented it only as
conclusions without the time to present the supporting evidence. Of course people had questions and I fielded
them to the best of my ability as time allowed. One of my respected colleagues there expressed doubts by asking what I
would do with עשה ʿasah, since that
seemed much more material. As you might
imagine, the study of עשה ʿasah is far more complicated
than ברא bara’, and all I
could say was that having done the study, I did not find that it jeopardized
the position. Full data to come in the
Eisenbrauns monograph.
The Debate among Proponents of Young
Earth, Old Earth, and Evolutionary Creationism
Contrary to the statement made by John in the
original post, it is immaterial to me whether I "bypass the debate,"
for I have no vested interests in the debate. I am attempting to understand the text of Genesis as an ancient Near
Eastern text--wherever that leads. If
the conclusions reached in that attempt can be applied to the debate you mention
with helpful results, that is fine, but I have no intentions in this respect.
Alan Lenzi’s
Review of Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament
Alan Lenzi's review should be read more
carefully. He took me to task, not on my
data (though he disagreed with a few points as any competent reviewer should),
but on his conclusion that I was still trying to use ANE comparative studies
for apologetics. He acknowledged that I
had stated that it was not my intention to do so ("Although apparently
wanting to offer an alternative . . ."), but he concludes that I
"explicitly return to this dichotomy throughout the remainder of the
book." One of the main evidences he offers of this supposed methodological
flaw is from a chart in the book (p.40), where I mentioned apologetic use, from
which he concludes that was still pushing in that direction. Unfortunately, he misunderstood the
chart. The chart was presenting how comparative
studies HAVE BEEN USED, not how they SHOULD BE USED (noticing his
misunderstanding, the chart will be more precisely titled in the next
edition). It is equally unfortunate that
he then decided that the book should not be used in universities because of its
apologetics stance (a stance found primarily in his misreading of the
chart). He seems confused that I would
so contradict myself, when in reality, he has simply read the chart wrong.
Of course, I AM a confessional scholar, but
the book was not an attempt to present or vindicate that approach but to move
beyond it into common ground. I
appreciate his review as I would any serious review, and I respect Prof.
Lenzi's scholarship. But I was
disappointed that he seemed to draw his conclusions based on something that I
was not saying.
More
Observations on the Meaning of ברא bara’
John in an earlier
post cited BDB, but BDB is outdated both in information and in lexical
semantic theory. It is characterized by a diachronic approach to lexical
semantics that simply is unreliable. My
conclusions were based on the data of the nature of the direct objects that the
verb takes. If John or anyone else has a
different read of the data, I would be happy to hear it. It is difficult to contest my conclusion that
the objects are consistently functional.
John in the original
post says that "For Walton’s redefinition to be plausible, he would
have to show that all the ancient versions and the historical memory of the
Hebrew language itself, which continues to use ברא
Qal in reference to acts of creation, are fundamentally mistaken." That makes it sound that I am claiming that
bara does not refer to an act of creation. That would be a
misrepresentation. Of course bara is an
act of creation--the only question is, what aspect of creation does it address.
I would contend that functional creation was much more important in the ancient
world, and is much more significant theologically. I tried to present the data that indicated
that assigning functions is the ultimate act of creation. The fundamental mistake is that later
interpreters and translators who cannot think beyond a material ontology have
imposed their ontology on the text. You
will recall that I likened Genesis 1 to a cosmic temple dedication
account. What would the creation of a temple
be? The material phase would only be
staging. Even when the material phase
was entirely complete, it would still not be a temple. The temple is created in the dedication
ceremony when it is made functional.
John confidently asserts "bara in
the Qal in ancient Hebrew probably has the specific concrete sense of ‘shape,
form, fashion’ in Gen 1:27 and in Isa 43:1, 7; 54:16. A more generic “make’ is
plausible in all other occurrences of ברא." What is this "probably?" Present
the data across the spectrum of the 50 occurrences instead of making broad
undefended statements. Why should anyone believe a "probably"?
I am surprised at John’s confidence when he
says: "According to Walton, when Gen 1:21 says that ‘God created the great
sea monsters,’ “the point need not necessarily be physical manufacturing as
much as assigning roles (Genesis, p. 70). But this is strained." John has chosen ONE passage--I dealt with 50,
and this passage fit the profile of the others (thanks to Rob for offering
statements to that effect). You can't simply
take one and deal with it independently. The fact is that Gen. 1:21 would be one of the occurrences that was
ambiguous on its own.
If that were the only usage I had, it
certainly would be strained. But I did
not build my case on one passage. Only
the other occurrences show clearly the inclination of the verb to refer to
functions. John then follows with his
statement, "Physical manufacture is the primary sense of ברא." What is the basis
of this conclusion? John has not offered
the evidence that should give him or his readers confidence in his opinion.
My Forthcoming
Monograph
A full monograph entirely devoted to Genesis
1 with all of the ANE data and Hebrew lexical work has been on contract and in house
at Eisenbrauns for two years. It was
presented at a Midwest regional SBL meeting and I went right to book contract
rather than start with articles. It is
just caught in the logjam at the publisher and so has not yet appeared. Furthermore, a majority of the points that I
make in presenting my position regarding functional creation are well-documented
in the footnotes in Ancient Near Eastern Thought (though my conclusions on ברא bara’ were the
result of my own study).
I hope this helps clarify some points.
Bibliography
John H. Walton,
Genesis (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001);
“Genesis and Cosmology” (lecture, 2003, go here);
Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2006)
The 2006
volume is reviewed by Alan Lenzi here.
If the ANE ontology was functional, where/when did we switch to a material ontology?
Do we have later interpretations of Genesis 1 with a functional ontology? Or did the switch to material ontology happen so early that we don't have any functional interpretations of the creation story?
Posted by: Ben | May 05, 2008 at 02:33 PM
For those of you wondering.
The manuscript is in-house here at Eisenbrauns. We are hoping for a Fall/Winter 2008 publication date. We do not currently have the item priced or available for pre-order. But, I assure you, it will be Eisenbrauns pricing, not Brill pricing : )
James
Posted by: James | May 05, 2008 at 02:49 PM
I am very happy to hear about the monograph. As important as popularization is, it's still important to communicate with colleagues in established and scholarly forums! I look forward to reading all of the nitty-gritty details.
I will have some more to say later.
Posted by: Alan Lenzi | May 05, 2008 at 02:55 PM
I wonder when we talk of function, are we talking about purpose. They would be synonymous with one another, at least, in my understanding anyway.
When God creates he is giving purpose to what He creates. This agrees with the term "image" (tselem), with what is lost in the fall, and with the preacher in Ecclesiastes (all is vanity and chasing after the wind ... all is purposelessness)
Posted by: Geoff | May 05, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Now I'm really curious about what you think of his argument now, John. I do hope you'll share some thoughts.
Posted by: Mike | May 05, 2008 at 07:03 PM
For those unfamiliar with my review of Prof. Walton's book, it is not really pertinent to the issue of the meaning of ברא bara' highlighted in the original post here at John Hobbins’ blog. So what follows is a tangent, initiated by Prof. Walton, in the broader conversation.
Prof. Walton says that my main problem with his book is its apologetic purpose; he also says that in this I have misunderstood and therefore misinterpreted his book.
Let’s start with the first claim: He says, He [Lenzi] took me to task, not on my data (though he disagreed with a few points as any competent reviewer should), but on his conclusion that I was still trying to use ANE comparative studies for apologetics. That's true, I think Prof. Walton, despite his statements to the contrary, actually wrote an apologetic book. I should note, however, that this conclusion is not isolated from some of the disagreements in “data,” that is, some of the disagreements I have with Prof. Walton’s interpretations. To the contrary, some of these flagged Prof. Walton's apologetic intention. Here’s one of the details in data / interpretation that I found “problematic” or “unacceptable”: Prof. Walton says Mesopotamian ritual is based on “common sense and experimentation” (p. 136) while biblical ritual is based on revelation (“ritual procedures were not the result of revelation in anything like the sense that is found in the Pentateuch [instructions from Sinai], p. 137). He knows the texts well, and I think he would agree with me that the cuneiform scholarly texts and incantations frequently talk about the fact that they were revealed by the gods (šiptu ul yattun; ša Ea iqbû; pirišti / nişirti ilī). (If anyone needs more evidence, my recent monograph on secrecy shows how similar the Mesopotamian and Biblical mythologies of revelation actually are.) Why then does Prof. Walton make the generalization about Mesopotamian ritual when it is contradicted by the ancient texts themselves? I think the answer lies in Prof. Walton’s theological need to differentiate the Bible from its environment. In other words, there’s an apologetic agenda in this judgment about Mesopotamian ritual. So it’s true, I take Prof. Walton to task for his apologetic intent, but this judgment is rooted in particulars of the text, both explicit (as noted) and implicit (see my review where I discuss Prof. Walton’s telling use/lack of use of the term “myth” and his treatment of historiography.)
By the way, is there some rule that says a guy will get fired at Wheaton if he calls the Priestly account of creation a myth? Enuma elish is a myth. Why withhold the label from Genesis 1?
Before I sound like the evil agnostic who is trying to throw the believer out of the academy, my problem is not just with the book’s apologetic intent. Apologetic books are written all the time; and a person has every right to defend their faith. Rather, I have a problem with how Prof. Walton’s book clouds / hides the apologetic intent. Prof. Walton purports to be looking for common ground between confessional and critical scholarship. In other words, he wants to move beyond the impasse. So he presents himself as charting a middle course. Maybe that was his intention. I’m not calling him a liar. But I just don’t see evidence in his interpretations to back up the rhetoric. This really is a fundamental flaw in the book, in my opinion, because the text's agenda is submerged below the stated purpose; and this is something I think students will have a hard time discerning.
One can say I am reading against the author’s intention. But the text is what is central to this discussion. I didn’t have access to the author until today. And scholars don’t judge one another’s ideas based on intention; rather, on presentation. Texts are a matter of public record.
Prof. Walton, however, believes I have completely misunderstood him. He locates my problem, despite the evidence I mention in an earlier paragraph, specifically as follows: One of the main evidences he [Lenzi] offers of this supposed methodological flaw is from a chart in the book (p.40), where I mentioned apologetic use, from which he concludes that [I] was still pushing in that [apologetic] direction. Unfortunately, he misunderstood the chart.
See my review page four (bottom) for my initial take on the chart. The following assumes that discussion.
The chart on p. 40 is labeled figure 2, "Roles for Comparative Study." The text that points the reader to this chart is located on p. 38 just under the third major heading of the chapter, “Integrated Role” (of the Comparative Approach). The other two headings in the chapter are “Comparative Study and Critical Scholarship” and “Comparative Study and Confessional Scholarship.” I read this chapter then as Prof. Walton’s attempt to criticize both sides of the debate (critical vs. confessional) and find a middle course between them for the comparative method. This, I think, is outlined in the third section, “Integrated Role.” The chart on p. 40 is explicitly attached to this third section (p. 38) AND it is the very last thing in the whole chapter. It therefore has discursive prominence--- it looks like the capstone to the discussion. So one can understand why I have aligned the chart on p. 40 with the author’s attempt to find a middle course between the so-called extremes.
Prof. Walton says, The chart was presenting how comparative studies HAVE BEEN USED, not how they SHOULD BE USED (noticing his misunderstanding, the chart will be more precisely titled in the next edition). If this is really the case, then the chapter’s structure is very problematic. And the chart should be explicitly aligned with the confessional approach to comparative method. I would suggest a more thorough revision will be necessary to convey the author’s intention. But as it stands now, I don’t think I have misunderstood the text. The text may not represent the author’s conscious intention, but that’s not my fault.
As stated earlier, my main problem with the book is its hidden apologetic agenda. This judgment is not solely based on the chart on page 40 but several other interpretations and implicit judgments throughout the book, as noted above and in my review. There’s a lot one can learn from Prof. Walton’s book. My disagreement here and in the review, which could have used a little more tempering, does not diminish the respect that I have for his immense learning. I look forward to his forthcoming monograph.
Posted by: Alan Lenzi | May 05, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Thanks, Alan, for clarifying your views, and for backstopping your earlier remarks in light of new evidence on the other thread.
I think it's only natural that a scholar approaches the data out of cultural loyalty of one or more kinds. It's wise, I think, to describe these loyalties to readers with care, and unapologetically. I tend to reconnoiter the cultural loyalties of a work I'm reading by looking at the footnotes. An intersecting set of loyalties is usually evident in a matter of minutes. I think it's important to learn how to read every work of scholarship, not only as an attempt to deal with the data responsibly, but as a confessional work of some kind, even if the confession is as limited as: "I'm a student of a student of W. F. Albright, and the leitmotifs of my research, its particular pietas, are largely explicable in that light."
So much of scholarship is about filial devotion of some kind. I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
Posted by: JohnFH | May 06, 2008 at 09:30 AM
Thanks to Alan for clarifying his comments. There would still be a lot for us to discuss, but this is probably not the forum for it. Perhaps what can be said is that we appear to have different definitions of apologetics. There is a great difference between trying to "prove the Bible right" (a traditional approach to apologetics) and trying to understand and clarify real distinctions between the Bible and the ANE world, which all would admit exist. It was my intention to address the latter, and I would not consider that to be apologetics -- simply responsible scholarship that either confessional or critical scholars can engage in. That individuals might have differences of opinion about the nature of those differences would be no surprise.
As Alan already mentioned, none of this deals with my interpretation of Genesis 1, which was not a subject of his critique (though it would be presumptuous to infer his agreement on that basis).
Posted by: John H. Walton | May 06, 2008 at 12:00 PM
not impressive because i was looking for the three main points in genesis ch 1 if you can send me than thanks
Posted by: jav | May 06, 2010 at 08:47 AM
I apologize if this comes off sophomoric but: You rock Dr. Walton! I haven't enjoyed a theo-thread so much in quite some time (many thanks to Dr. Heiser for linking this in his blog, the naked bible). Thank you all for sharing your wisdom with the world!
Posted by: Jonnathan Molina | September 13, 2010 at 01:11 PM
The meaning and range of "bara" can be easily determined by looking at other words used with it in parallel constructs. Isaiah 43:7, for example:
"Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created <01254> for My glory, Whom I have formed ,<03335>, even whom I have made <06213>."
In that verse are two other words which illuminate "bara". All one has to do is use a tool such as the Online Bible to find other verses which explain "bara". So simple, even a ploughboy can do it.
Posted by: Hansen | November 26, 2010 at 06:48 PM
Just in case someone overlooked it, Isaiah 45:18 offers another word which is equivalent to "bara" (01254):
For thus says the LORD, who created <01254> the heavens (He is the God who formed <03335> the earth and made <06213> it, He established <03559> it and did not create <01254> it a waste place, but formed <03335> it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.
In addition to
"I have created" (01254)bara
"I have formed" (03335) yatsar
"I have made"(06213) 'asah
from Isaiah 43:7, we now have
"I have established" (03559)"kuwn" from Isaiah 45:18.
“כי כה אמר־יהוה בורא השמים הוא האלהים יצר הארץ ועשה הוא כוננה לא־תהו בראה לשבת יצרה אני יהוה ואין עוד” (Isaiah 45:18 BHc)
“כל הנקרא בשמי ולכבודי בראתיו יצרתיו אפ־עשיתיו” (Isaiah 43:7 BHc)
It should be fairly easy to figure out what "bara" can mean or even does mean, considering the numerous words used in a synonymous manner.
Posted by: Hansen | November 27, 2010 at 06:53 AM
My guess, Hansen, is that Walton would note that in a passage like Isaiah 45, verbs which appear at first glance to speak about manufacture are actually speaking about the assignment of roles.
On my part, I see no reason to deny that the verbs are speaking about manufacture. It is purposeful manufacture, in view of a particular function or calling, but it is still manufacture.
Posted by: JohnFH | November 27, 2010 at 08:20 AM
There are four different words used in parallel constructs with bara <01254>. Yatsar
<03335>, for instance, is used in the Genesis account with reference to the forming of both man and animals (Genesis 2:7,8,19).
In Isaiah, it is used to describe the forming of "light" (Is. 45:7) and the "earth" (Is. 45:18).
In Isaiah 44:9,10 and 12 "yatsar" describes the work of one who makes tools of steel to use in the manufacture of idols.
Isaiah 29:16 uses "yatsar" in a passage which describes communication between the pot and the potter. Yatsar is used several times in Jeremiah 18. The NASB translates it as "potter". A potter is clearly one who manufactures things--pots.
While this is not an exhaustive review of the words used in parallel with "bara", it clearly illustrates that "bara" equivalents, in this case, "yatsar" sometimes are specifically used to describe the manufacturing process, particularly of idols and pots and man and animals. It is also used to describe the creation of the earth (Is. 45:18).
Posted by: Hansen | November 29, 2010 at 07:12 PM
In the interest of completeness, another word used in parallel with "bara" <01254> should be considered, the word "chadash" <02318>.
This word appears in English translation as "repair," "restore," "renew". "Create
"bara" in me a clean heart and renew "chadash" a right spirit within me," is one example
"Chadash" may have the meaning of repairing or renewing something which already exists. The word is used in an abstract sense to refer to the renewing of the spirit (Ps. 51:10) or the restoration of salvation's joy (Ps. 51:12). It is also used in more tangible tangible ways with reference to repairing the temple (2 Chron. 24:4,12).
After looking at all the passages where "bara" is used and considering the parallel terms used with it, I don't see the idea of functional assignment as preeminent, if it exists at all.
"Chadash" certainly adds to the range of "bara" but not in the sense of function rather than manufacture. Am I missing something? Is the ploughboy approach really inadequate or are the professionals indulging in sophistry?
Posted by: Hansen | December 01, 2010 at 01:19 AM
Hansen,
Thanks for posting your research. It's a start but keep in mind that linguists determine meaning by more complex forms of analysis - for example, a study of argument realization in the case of a verb, and componential analysis.
A problem with your approach is that your attempt to determine based on parallel pairs lacks methodological controls. I could easily reduce your argument ad absurdum by carefully selected counter-examples.
I happen to agree with the drift of your research, but if you want to take this further, you would want to compare your results with the very different results Walton has obtained - in part already published in his IVP volume.
Posted by: JohnFH | December 01, 2010 at 08:15 AM
John, Thank you for taking a few moments to reply. I wonder about the lack of "methodological controls" which might reduce my argument "ad absurdum". Could you provide an example or two to illustrate your point?
In this case, I'm more interested in the journey than the destination. Not a lot of people are qualified to critique the journey. I could run through the LXX equivalents of the Hebrew words used with "bara", but I'm actually more interested in what weaknesses the use of Hebrew parallelisms has in an approach like the one I took above.
Your observations are greatly appreciated.
Posted by: Hansen | December 01, 2010 at 09:09 AM
I didn't know what to even say when I read Walton's commentary on Genesis. I think William Lane Craig summed up Walton's views on Gen 1 best when he called them preposterous.
Posted by: Jeremy | December 05, 2014 at 08:50 PM
Jeremy,
Craig's conclusion might be right or then again, he might not even understand what Walton intends to say.
Please present arguments, your own preferably, for whatever conclusions you feel are warranted. The raw conclusions of an apologist and philosopher on an exegetical question have no weight whatsoever apart from the arguments behind them. What are they?
Posted by: John Hobbins | December 08, 2014 at 08:07 PM