"The Lost World of Genesis One" by John H. Walton

[Manwë Súlimo]

NOTE: THIS ISN'T A DEBATE THREAD. A few comments here or there is permitted, but please don't turn it into a full-on debate.


I ordered this book awhile ago and started reading it only to stop due to procrastination. I'm going to reread it now, and this time I'm going to post a summary of what Walton talks about chapter by chapter. This will help me internalize it more and also educate others.

Walton is a professor of the Old Testament and "Lost World" attempts to instruct us on how we should interpret the controversial first chapter of Genesis. Walton is huge on proper contextual understanding. His view on the proper interpretation is laid out in 18 propositions. To begin with, I'll talk about his first proposition:


PROPOSITION ONE: Genesis is Ancient Cosmology

Genesis One is an example of ancient cosmology. That means that the actions of God in the beginning of the universe are presented through the cultural norms of the day. "Genesis does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their scientific understanding of the cosmos (pg. 16)”. When God revealed Himself to the ancient world, He didn't deem it important to refine their current understanding of scientific principles. He permitted His actions to be conveyed to future generations to be enveloped in ancient and (in many cases) outmoded scientific statements. God's goal was not to impart scientific knowledge.

This view is in stark contrast to "concordism" - the approach that the Bible has modern science embedded in it or it dictates what modern science should look like (pg.16). Concordists will try to find scientific truth and understanding while they read the Bible. Walton says that we can not do this. Genesis One, he says, is ancient cosmology and trying to read modern science into it simply makes the text say something that it never intended to say. Concordism, says Walton, also assumes that the text should be understood in reference to current scientific consensus, which would mean that it would neither correspond to last century's scientific consensus nor to that which may develop in the next century (pg 17). Indeed, a concordist simply doesn't understand what science is. Science is in a constant state of flux as we discover and reject theories as they are produced. Therefore reading modern science into the text will simply undermine Scripture in the future as our scientific understanding is refined as time progresses. Dr. Walton believes, and I agree, that it makes better sense that "God communicated his revelation to his immediate audience in terms they understood (pg. 17)".

Furthermore, a serious concordist will face many issues in other parts of the Bible. If the Bible is revealed scientific truth and not culturally descriptive, then how would the concordist explain the ancient authors' belief that the seat of emotions and intellect is in the liver, the kidneys, the intestines, the heart, and so forth? We sometimes say "My heart warns me against it" or "I love you with all my heart" as simply metaphorical, but the ancients were describing their belief in physiology. They were not being metaphorical. How, says Walton, can the concordist save the Bible's reputation when it gives such unscientific statements?

Dr. Walton goes on to say that in our attempt to understand Genesis One, we must ask ourself several questions:

1) What is the level and nature of God's involvement in the world?
2) What is God's relationship to the cosmos? Is he manifested within the cosmos? Is he controlling it from the outside?
3) Is there such a thing as a “natural” world?
4) What is the cosmos? A collection of material objects that operate on the basis of laws? A machine? A kingdom? A company? A residence?
5) Is the account of creation the description of a manufacturing process or the communication of a concept? (pg. 19)

Walton immediately answers question 3 in his first proposition. He says that in ancient Near Eastern cultures, there was no concept of a natural or a supernatural world. There was no distinction. He says that this dichotomy is unique to our times that we live in (I believe that this idea came from the Enlightenment, but I'm not sure).

Because the ancients did not see this distinction, they say deity pervading every aspect of reality. Nothing happened independently of some deity. They did not intervene, because that would assume a distinction between the natural and the supernatural. There were no miracles, because they had no understanding of natural laws. What we would call miracles, they would only see as evidence of deity activities. Every event from a baby being born to a volcanic eruption was seen as a sign of the divine activity. Because they had no conception of natural laws and because we can not find revealed truth about natural laws or science in the texts that they write, the Bible does not and can not answer many of the questions that we ask today.

Walton concludes his first proposition by warning against what he calls "cultural imperialism". He says that we can not shoehorn our modern worldview into ancient texts. He says that there are other ways besides our own to see the world and we would do well to accept this. Let Genesis One speak for itself. Context, context, context.


I'll try to do proposition two tomorrow.

[RBerman]

Meh. The context of Genesis 1 is the Hebrew Scriptures, which demonstrate the character of God through factual accounts of his activities. Everything Walton says here (according to your summary) could be as easily applied to Exodus or Matthew, if one was of a mind to discount some section of the Bible as something like what we call "history" today; his arguments seem quite similar to the ones the liberal school has been pushing since at least the days of Schleiermacher. Not what I'd hope to hear from someone associated with Moody and Wheaton.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Not quite. Genesis is a radically different genre from Ezekiel or Matthew. Anyways, this is just the first of 18 propositions.

[RonC]

Walton is a scholar who merits our respect. I have read his earlier work (though not this fairly recent book). With regard to Genesis 1, I have never found that he clearly addresses the Divine proclamation regarding the essence of creation which is found in verse 31. Is it too much to ask you to cite where he addresses this verse (if he does at all) in this book you are citing. I have found this to be a major flaw in his work on Genesis... even in his wonderful OT Background Commentary he does not address this divine proclamation at all...

Thanks,
RonC

[Manwë Súlimo]

Walton is a scholar who merits our respect. I have read his earlier work (though not this fairly recent book). With regard to Genesis 1, I have never found that he clearly addresses the Divine proclamation regarding the essence of creation which is found in verse 31. Is it too much to ask you to cite where he addresses this verse (if he does at all) in this book you are citing. I have found this to be a major flaw in his work on Genesis... even in his wonderful OT Background Commentary he does not address this divine proclamation at all...

Thanks,
RonC

I don't recall what he said about verse 31 in my first read through, but I'll get there eventually in this one.

What interests you in that specific verse?

[John Reece]

What interests you in that specific verse?

[seanD]

Since there were no chapters in the original text, why should we assume the Genesis creation is a myth, but that there is a magical dividing line that ends at chapter 13 and beyond, including the other books of the Torah. Why does his interpretation only apply to section Genesis 1-12 only?

[seanD]

Not quite. Genesis is a radically different genre from Ezekiel or Matthew. Anyways, this is just the first of 18 propositions.

He said Exodus.

[rogue06]

[Manwë Súlimo]

Since there were no chapters in the original text, why should we assume the Genesis creation is a myth, but that there is a magical dividing line that ends at chapter 13 and beyond, including the other books of the Torah. Why does his interpretation only apply to section Genesis 1-12 only?

Because one part is an obvious example of ancient cosmology and some parts are meant to be historical accounts. The "magic dividing line" are the genres of the literature written.

[seanD]

Because one part is an obvious example of ancient cosmology and some parts are meant to be historical accounts. The "magic dividing line" are the genres of the literature written.

Genesis 1-12 is the same book as Genesis 13 and beyond. Unless you're arguing there were two different writers -- one who wrote Genesis 1-12 and another writer who wrote everything beyond, including the other four books, to argue that everything in Genesis 1-12 is myth, and everything else is history makes no sense. The genre in all five Torah books are the same -- the assumed historical chronicle of the Jewish people from creation to their trek into the land promised to Abraham's descendants. So if Genesis 1-12 is myth, then there's absolutely no honest way you can conclude that any other parts of the Torah, especially the fantastic supernatural acts of God saturating all books, aren't myths also.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Why do you assume that there must be one genre per book?

[fm93]

Genesis 1-12 is the same book as Genesis 13 and beyond. Unless you're arguing there were two different writers -- one who wrote Genesis 1-12 and another writer who wrote everything beyond, including the other four books, to argue that everything in Genesis 1-12 is myth, and everything else is history makes no sense. The genre in all five Torah books are the same -- the assumed historical chronicle of the Jewish people from creation to their trek into the land promised to Abraham's descendants. So if Genesis 1-12 is myth, then there's absolutely no honest way you can conclude that any other parts of the Torah, especially the fantastic supernatural acts of God saturating all books, aren't myths also.

Or, we could simply note the fact that the first few chapters bear clear elements of figurative language, whereas the other chapters do not.

Also, given the orality of the ancient Hebrew society, it's reasonable to assume that the content of Genesis originally consisted of a few oracles which Moses and later scribes eventually compiled into a full book.

[seanD]

Or, we could simply note the fact that the first few chapters bear clear elements of figurative language, whereas the other chapters do not.

Also, given the orality of the ancient Hebrew society, it's reasonable to assume that the content of Genesis originally consisted of a few oracles which Moses and later scribes eventually compiled into a full book.

Genesis 1-12 and Genesis 13 and beyond is the same book. There were no chapters separating them in the original. Other than the miraculous cosmological creation, there is no difference. The same mythological elements as you call Genesis 1-12 is found in all other Torah books. Exodus, with the plagues and the staffs turning into serpents, the raining down of Quayle, the earth opening and swallowing whole tribes, etc., etc.

Seriously, dude, why lie to yourself this way? If I had to do this much gymnastics to compromise my beliefs because of my doubts about the creation story, I would just quit being a Christian and become agnostic. I just couldn't continue to be this dishonest to myself.

[Manwë Súlimo]