John Walton Quote of the Day

John Walton’s take on Genesis 1, along with acute observations relative to the creation-evolution debate, is now available through InterVarsity Press. The IVP volume (the link includes 19 pages) is designed for a general audience. Those versed in the primary sources await the publication of his proposals with footnotes and all by Eisenbrauns. I have issues with some of Walton’s exegesis (go here [with a link to Chris Heard’s excellent discussion], here [Walton’s response on-blog], and here), but have promised myself not to return to the subject until Walton’s full arguments are published. The IVP volume in any case contains a host of excellent observations. A key graph (19):

Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.

Walton makes an excellent point, though I note complexities below. The quote reminded me of an enthusiastic presentation I heard from a Muslim sent by the local mosque to describe Islam to an Adult Forum in the congregation I was serving, not long after 9/11. He quoted chapter and verse of the Quran in support of the view that the Quran is God’s Word because it anticipates modern science in several instances. 

It doesn’t, of course. Rather, the Quran offers a perspective on astronomy and biology in accord with science of its epoch.

Whether or not the Bible, the Quran, or some other text is God’s Word and in what sense has to be decided on other grounds.

I offer two observations analogous to that of Walton, observations which, if precise, are game-changers for those who believe the Bible is flawless in terms of what it teaches, but not necessarily the last word on subjects that stand outside of its principal focus (the focus of biblical teaching is: who are we, coram Deo, and what then shall we do):

(1) Biblical narrative does not give us a single instance in which God reveals to one of its protagonists, or to an author of the narrative, a knowledge of past history beyond that which could have been known from sources of the kind that existed at the time.

History-writing, accounts of the life and times of forbears of ages past, paradigmatic narratives set in a particular historical framework - these biblical genres conform to possibilities, conventions, and expectations of a given point in time, conventions which were not always remembered or respected by later interpreters within the Bible itself. For a believer, the interplay is understandable in terms of the humanity through which God has chosen to reveal his divinity.  

(2) The Bible does not give us a single instance in which God reveals to one of its narrative protagonists or one of its authors answers to questions about the composition of its components (authorship, dating, genre identification, and social location of biblical books and sources thereof) beyond those which conformed to conventions and expectations of the time.  

A corollary of Walton’s thesis and theses (1) and (2) is that science, history, and “higher-criticism” (which deals with the questions of authorship, dating, genre identification, and social location of texts) as narrowly defined for the purposes of this discussion are not subject-matters which lead to answers we need to know “in order to be saved.” If they were, one would expect that the Bible as norma normans (the norm which norms all other norms) of faith and practice, would be a comprehensive guide on said subjects.

If science, history, and “higher criticism” as narrowly defined for the purposes of this discussion were so God-awful important, God would have revealed what we need to know on the subjects within the Bible’s pages.

Walton is using the term “science” in accordance with a commonplace usage: science has to do with knowledge about the way the universe is configured, physically speaking; with knowledge about the contribution of male and female in the sexual act to the possibility of life developing; things like that.

Questions like: Why is the universe configured at all? What is the purpose of sexuality? When does life begin (as in, from what point forward should the life of a human being be considered of inestimable worth)? are not scientific questions on this definition.

The disjunction Walton assumes is undeniably useful, though I don’t think physicists, biologists, and psychologists “obey” it in real life. I’m glad they don’t. As soon as I chat up a physicist, it doesn’t take long, because of shared interests, for the conversation to head in the direction of chaos theory, the big bang, intelligent design, and so on. With a biologist, the conversation inevitably turns to a discussion of some of Stephen Jay Gould’s ruminations (a biologist who loved to engage the deeper questions). With a behavioral or evolutionary psychologist, it’s a blast to talk about freewill and determinism. For a believer and even for an unbeliever, a sense of how freewill and determinism fit together is ultimately not a scientific question, but a profoundly existential question, explored with verve by Forrest Gump. As in:

You died on a Saturday morning. And I had you placed here under our tree. And I had that house of your father's bulldozed to the ground. Momma always said dyin' was a part of life. I sure wish it wasn't. Little Forrest, he's doing just fine. About to start school again soon. I make his breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day. I make sure he combs his hair and brushes his teeth every day. Teaching him how to play ping-pong. He's really good. We fish a lot. And every night, we read a book. He's so smart, Jenny. You'd be so proud of him. I am. He, uh, wrote a letter, and he says I can't read it. I'm not supposed to, so I'll just leave it here for you. Jenny, I don't know if Momma was right or if, if it's Lieutenant Dan. I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happening at the same time. I miss you, Jenny. If there's anything you need, I won't be far away.  "

     My momma always said, 'Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.'"

Likewise, when people talk about science, history, or the authorship, dating, genre identification, and social location of texts, don’t be fooled. Unless they are superficial people, the subjects are gateways for them into a space in which they can address deeper questions, including the question, what is the meaning of life.

As it should be. That being the case, the subject matters of science, history, and “higher criticism” however defined will always be of intense interest, a battleground of ideas that lead straight into a discussion of the deepest questions human beings can pose.

The discussion of Walton’s IVP volume is lighting up the blogosphere. Here are discussions I’ve run across: Andrew Vogel; Jason (from whose review I culled the above quote), Art Boulet; Scot McKnight (interview with Walton), Michael Kruse, James Spinti, Doug Magnum, and T. C. Robinson. That is just a sample! I hope someone will assemble a full collection.

Bibliography

John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers’ Grove: IVP Press, 2009)

Comments

[Jed Paschall]

Dr. Walton was my ANE and Genesis professor at Moody. I was there as he was completing his Genesis commentary ( even after hearing and reading countless discussions I still don't think I am entirely sure what he means about God assigning "functions" in Gen. 1).

What I found most helpful in his teachings were his mastery of the ANE background of the Hebrew Bible, his identification of idolatry as the primary sin in Gen. 11, and his insistence on the culture-bound nature of God's revelation to Israel (especially as it pertains to cosmology and science).

The net effect of his insights for me personally were instrumental in averting the all too common crisis of faith that so many of us with Christian backgrounds face when presented with some of modern science's compelling claims about the physical universe and higher criticism's claims regarding the composition of the scriptures. I feel like I can navigate these perplexing issues, glean new understanding from them without the need to dismiss them off-hand, and at the end of the day maintain my my convictions that rest comfortably within confessional Christianity.

[JohnFH]

Jed,

That's a fine witness.

Thanks for excellent blogwork, by the way, including your fine series on mental illness.

[Alan Lenzi]

John, I just followed the link to Art Boulet's blog to see what all the Westminsterites were saying about this book. Holy cow, it's like a different century over there in the comments section! They're like in Inquisition mode 24/7. Why can't I avert my browser from such a spectacle!

[JohnFH]

Alan,

I agree. In particular, the notion that Genesis 1 is in error if God inspired it but did not incorporate within it anticipations of modern science insofar as modern science is accurate, is absurd.

After all, in terms of the original readership, it would have been ridiculous of God to have inspired the author of Genesis such that all "pre-scientific" and "legendary" elements were expunged.

If that had been done, no one at the time would have been able to make heads or tails of the narrative. It's as simple as that.

In terms of a contemporary readership, one might think that God expects readers who take certain findings of modern science for granted not to be alarmed that the book of Genesis does not anticipate those findings.

What bothers me about the thread is the number of people on it who seem to buy into an absurd standard of error when it comes to a text.

It is still true today that the points formulated in whatever anyone says or writes will be couched in terms of beliefs shared at the time between author and audience, beliefs which, to a future readership a century or a millennium down the road, will seem quaint and outmoded.

Insofar as we ARE that future readership vis-a-vis an ancient text, awareness of the outmodedness of a text's biology, geography, whatever, is not the end of the process of interpretation. It is the beginning.

The truth-value of a text, if it has any, is independent of its culturally contingent aspects. If not, then there is nothing we can say or write now that has any truth value outside of our particular time and place. Those who think in those terms are best left to their own devices. If they themselves decline to assign a potential truth-value to their words. why should we overrule them on that score?

[Alan Lenzi]

Articulate as usual. Thanks for responding to my expression of astonishment.

Re: this: >>The truth-value of a text, if it has any, is independent of its culturally contingent aspects.<<

You're starting to sound like an Idealist! :) One might also entertain the idea that an ancient text's truth-value is dependent on the degree to which its interpreters find some analogy with it, whether in its cultural contingencies or its larger narrative significance (in its time), in their own contemporary times, so that they can relate the ancient text meaningfully to their own situation. (Sort of reader-centered, but not without some controls from the text.)

For example, we want to know where we came from, just as we suspect the Israelites did. Genesis 1 is their answer, which in broad strokes (God established everything almost effortlessly), is still a theologically viable answer even in light of the speculations of modern cosmological thinking. . . . Anyway, thanks for posting about Walton.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Alan, for the conversation.

I very much like your phenomenologically-oriented description of "truth-value" in practice. It sounds accurate to me, though it sidesteps the truth-question as such.

And yes, I make use of a distinction we are familiar with from idealism all the way back to Plato, in order to distinguish between a kernel of truth and a husk of cultural contingency.

You sound like a Barthian whereas I come across as a Bultmannian! Yikes.

Famously, Barth responded to Bultmann's demythologization project by suggesting that, if the alternative is the kernel (some sort of existential experience for Bultmann) or the husk (the belief in resurrection, for example), he would take the husk, confident that he would get a kernel along with it (not necessarily the one Bultmann had in mind though).

I've always sided with Barth on that score. So I need to problematize my Bultmannian formulation along the lines you suggest.

[cristian]

Nice post John. That quote from Walton got stuck in my mind too when I read the free pages from IVP. I hope to read the whole book too.

I posted this useful info from a sermon by James Montgomery Boice on Genesis 1:
http://preachinggenesis.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/notes-on-genesis-1-part-i/

I found it useful myself.
Blessings,
Chris

[JohnFH]

Hi Chris,

That is a very fine quote you put up on one of your blogs. For those of us in your fan club, it would be nice if you created an RSS feed of your combined output.

[Alan Lenzi]

Barth . . . Bultmann . . . Blech!

[JohnFH]

Alan,

In philosophical hermeneutics, Bultmann would be closest to Heidegger and Barth would be closest to Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Emmanuel Levinas, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

It's possible, of course, that these dudes are too steeped in Western philosophy, heavily dependent as it is on the categories of the Jewish and Christian traditions, for your liking.

There probably is a sense in which someone like Bruce Lincoln covers the same ground.

[Alan Lenzi]

Just saw this. There was a time when I was really keen on getting into the work of all of the men you named. Philosophical hermeneutics sounded so exciting. But with time that enthusiasm and enticement faded. . . . Maybe it will return some day.

[cristian]

John - thanks for the nice words. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to create that RSS feed!

[buy sildenafil no prescription]

Side effects noted due to the intake of the http://www.bestsildenafilprice.com ">generic sildenafil are momentary. These side effects away as your body gets used to the dosage of this http://www.sildenafilcitrateprice.com ">sildenafil dosages. In some rare cases you may note the http://sildenafil.newgrounds.com ">sildenafil viagra sudden increase in heart beat, rashes on skin, http://www.webjam.com/sildenafilcitrate ">buy sildenafil online and problem in breathing. In this case we advice http://flavors.me/sildenafilcitrate ">order sildenafil to consult the doctor immediately.