"Is the Bible True" or "Is The Bible a Collection of Myths?"

How is the Bible True if it is Mythic?

Often I here the comment from someone questioning the Bible in a way that I don't consider questioning it. Now don't get me wrong, I question the Bible a lot. In fact, much of Relevancy22 is dedicate to questioning the Bible. But the questions I raise are questions I ask myself about life and God and why it is the way it is. Or, I may question my approach or my interpretation of the Bible in a way that may differ from my past conservative Christian heritage. Questions that I now consider quite healthy and appropriate to undertake.

However, I don't question the Bible in the sense of treating it as a compendium of narratives that is only human without divine intervention. Nor do I question the Bible in the cynic sense of disbelief that it is simply a piece of human literature. No, I don't come to it as one refusing to see its pages pregnant with the Spirit of the Lord.

And though I may question how my faith reads of God in the bible and learns from His Spirit in the narratives of the bible I reserve the right to read its script within the holy vernacular (or conversation) of God-speak to us by its many forms and ways and means. This doesn't mean that some sections of the Bible aren't written in mythic form. But it also doesn't mean that there aren't other sections written historically, poetically, as music, or prayers, or odes, sonnets, and songs. Remember, the bible is literature displaying all its ancient forms.

The list can go on and on but it is a list that contains a vast matrix to the person and story of God Himself. The story of His love and grace and mercy and forgiveness to us today as much as to those personages of the past. Hence I do not treat the Bible so simply as a mythic read.

Question: "Is the Bible true?"

Me: "Yes."

Question: "In what sense is the Bible true?"

Answer: "In many ways."

Question: "Is the Bible a myth that points to something that is more true than it is literally true?"

Answer: "Yes. But there's the catch isn't it? In what ways do we read of God and tell of God and think of God that might box us in away from God?"

  

The Story of Joseph Campbell

Now there was a man by the name of Joseph Campbell who made a living investigating the myths that human society lives by. Myths that are self-empowering as much as they can be self-defeating. Myths that can destroy our community with one another as much as they might re-invigorate our communities with one another.

Here's his story:

Joseph John Campbell (March 26, 1904 – October 30, 1987) was an American mythologist, writer and lecturer, best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion. His work is vast, covering many aspects of the human experience. His philosophy is often summarized by his phrase: "Follow your bliss." - Wikipedia

To this study Dr. Campbell made some life-long observations. Observations that are not necessarily disagreeable when you think through the Christian faith in these terms. A faith that can be "mythic" to some people. But for myself, a faith that is very much historically rooted in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ as an actual person.

Jesus was more than a man. Jesus was very God Himself come in flesh and blood to minister, live, and die as the our sin-sacrifice. And afterwards, to be bodily raised from the dead, and then seen and declared for 40 days as alive by those who ate and talked with the glorified Christ-man:

Acts 1:1-9

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Promise of the Holy Spirit

1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

4 And while staying[a] with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with[b] the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

The Ascension

6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

---

Now if the Christian faith is mythic in this sense of the definition than fine. I have no problem with calling myself or the Christian faith mythic. But unlike a Greek mythology the Christian faith is more a God-pronounced metanarrative or histor-ology than myth-ology.

And though many conservative Christian groups build a lot of importance on particular interpretations of cornerstone biblical texts that are actually a form of ancient mythic text-stories this does not mean that the spiritual or ontological truth within those mythic texts are untrue. For example....

I consider Genesis 1-11 to be written in mythic form. Of course this is where we find the creation narratives of mankind, its sin, judgment, flood, and restoration. Moreover, I may wish to read these mythic narratives from a Christian evolutionary perspective realizing that I will not find any scientific statements written herein by ancient (non-scientific) societies.

But this is not to say that God did not create the world. A world that became broken by the freedom given to it, and requiring a restoration of fellowship that only God can give to it. Here we may have broad agreement despite whether we read Genesis 1-11 as a literal historical account or as an ancient Near-Eastern mythic history (a style which most of the ancient wrote in during this time).

But I do not read Genesis 1-11 in the agnostic or atheistic understanding of its ancient "human-myths." No. Though I might subscribe to some of the Bible's literary narratives as mythic this does not discount for me its very real, very true, theistic implications. That is where I and those like Joseph Campbell will disagree with one another.

It is a disagreement in substance more than it is a disagreement in kind.

---

Let's go a bit farther here now. Because when I read of some of Dr. Campbell's broader teachings it gives me pause to reflect on my faith and the community of those I am in Christ with. That is, Campbell's observations are not necessarily untrue.

The rub is that for Campbell "Jesus was a myth." Whereas for myself - and my Christian brothers and sisters - we believe that Jesus is a true-true myth. Or, a very real, flesh-and-blood, Son of God, come to heal the sin gulf between us and God. 

The Functions of myth (from Wikipedia)

Campbell often described mythology as having a fourfold function within human society. These appear at the end of his work The Masks of God: Creative Mythology, as well as various lectures.

The Metaphysical Function - Awakens a sense of awe before the mystery of being

According to Campbell, the absolute mystery of life, what he called transcendent reality, cannot be captured directly in words or images. Symbols and mythic metaphors on the other hand point outside themselves and into that reality. They are what Campbell called "being statements"[29] and their enactment through ritual can give to the participant a sense of that ultimate mystery as an experience. "Mythological symbols touch and exhilarate centers of life beyond the reach of reason and coercion.... The first function of mythology is to reconcile waking consciousness to the mysterium tremendum et fascinans of this universe as it is."

The Cosmological Function - Explains the shape of the universe

For pre-modern societies, myth also functioned as a proto-science, offering explanations for the physical phenomena that surrounded and affected their lives, such as the change of seasons and the life cycles of animals and plants.

The Sociological Function - Validates and supports the existing social order

Ancient societies had to conform to an existing social order if they were to survive at all. This is because they evolved under "pressure" from necessities much more intense than the ones encountered in our modern world. Mythology confirmed that order and enforced it by reflecting it into the stories themselves, often describing how the order arrived from divine intervention. Campbell often referred to these "conformity" myths as the "Right Hand Path" to reflect the brain's left hemisphere's abilities for logic, order and linearity. Together with these myths however, he observed the existence of the "Left Hand Path", mythic patterns like the "Hero's Journey" which are revolutionary in character in that they demand from the individual a surpassing of social norms and sometimes even of morality.

The Pedagogical Function - Guides the individual through the stages of life

As a person goes through life, many psychological challenges will be encountered. Myth may serve as a guide for successful passage through the stages of one's life. - Wikipedia

Now as you can see Campbell's understanding of the functions of myth quite nicely dovetails with some of the ideas found with Christianity. The Christian faith will:

• awaken a sense of divine presence,

• perhaps provide some kind of explanation for why we are here, while

• validating and supporting our existential awareness of self, presence, and relationships,

• which may guide us through the various stages of life whether good or bad.

There is no refusal here. In fact, I remember reading through Greek mythology during my freshman year of humanities and simply loved the many stories I found because they so very well paralleled with my own tribalistic brand of Christian faith at the time. Those Greek myths gave me reason, purpose, awareness, wisdom, hope, and proverbial truth - even as my own Christian did.

Who'd of thought!?

But then again, this is the wisdom of God, is it not?

Comparing Attic Greek Myths with Ancient Hebrew Myths

And so I think it was more because I felt the rhythm of an ancient Greek Attic society hundreds of years before Jesus that was very much in tune with what I was also reading in the Bible as it was composed during that same ancient time in Hebrew society. A society returning from Babylonian exile that would recapture its faith under Nehemiah under his formidable bands of priests, teachers, and scribes. A Jewish society that dedicated itself to the preservation of its ancient faith through its many stories and legends and narratives from many hundreds, if not thousands, of years previous to itself.

And so, Joseph Campbell doesn't disturb me. However, his personal story disturbs me as one rejecting Jesus as the Christ and perceiving the Saviour of man as but a myth made up by societies requiring myths. It is that disbelieving faith-interpretation that disturbs me. A faith indwelling the soul of a skeptic who never became any more convinced of Jesus than that of a figure inscribed at the tip of a pen from the imaginations of societies wanting more from life than its own perception of reality.

Doubt is one thing. Disbelief another. For myself, Jesus is the reality of God come to mankind both then and now to disspell the disbelieving myths of our deceptive heart groaning in sin, burdened by disbelief, overspent in woe and suffering. The reality is that God has come to heal us, our hearts, our lives, with His renewing presence through His atoning grace on the Cross of Calvary. It is this kind of faith-reality that so many Christians have testified to through Christ their Saviour from the first century till now.

---

In conclusion, let me leave with you Rob Bell's response to Pete Holmes in a recent interview. Rather than be drawn into an argument about the veracities of the Christian faith, Rob, in Christ-like style, simply responds to Pete's questions and leaves undone the further task for Pete to discover for himself all that wasn't said in his interview with Rob.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

April 16, 2015
rev. April 17, 2015

Is the Bible True?

Pete Holmes Interviews Rob Bell

publ. April 15, 2015

The Anvil of God's Word

“Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith’s door,

And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;

Then looking in, I saw upon the floor,

Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

“‘How many anvils have you had,’ said I,

‘To wear and batter all these hammers so?’

‘Just one,’ said he, and then with twinkling eye,

‘The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.’

“And so, I thought, the Anvil of God’s Word

For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;

Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,

The Anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone.”

—Attributed to John Clifford

Rethinking Biblical Stories: "Is Jonah (and the Whale) Satire or History?"

Pieter Lastman, Jonah and the Whale (Google Art Project)

 

Satire or History? (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/11/05/satire-or-history-rjs/

 

by RJS

Nov 5, 2013

Comments

 

One of the more interesting books of the Old Testament is the book of Jonah. Children from preschool on study this tale. It is short, shorter than most of my posts (a mere four chapters, 1200 words in the NIV – substantially shorter than this post).  It contains foolish disobedience, a great fish, a storm, obedience, repentance, more foolishness … what more could you want in a Sunday School lesson or as material for a sermon series? Even chapter four, although a little less familiar to many, makes for an excellent lesson. No adventure, but a worm, a foolish prophet, and a message from God about the value of people and his compassion.

 

The book of Jonah deserves the attention it gets. This is an important book in scripture. The question I would like to raise is not one of value, or of the truth of the message, but one of genre. Is the genre of the book of Jonah history or or is it satire?

 

The arguments I’ve heard for the book of Jonah as history are four-fold.

 

(1) There is no obvious indication in the book that it is not intended as history.

 

Many feel that the default position should be history except in the presence of direct and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. The same argument is made for the opening chapters of Genesis and for Job – although I have not heard it made for the Song of Songs.

 

(2) The book provides details. “The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai.” It uses the names of real places (Joppa, Nineveh, Tarshish).

 

If it is story, some ask, why did the author use real places or potentially identifiable people? Jonah of Amittai is mentioned very briefly in 2 Kings 14 although he plays no significant role:

In the fifteenth year of Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel became king in Samaria, and he reigned forty-one years. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher.

The same argument was raised concerning the book Job, which specifies a location “In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job.” And Job is mentioned in formulaic fashion in Ezekial 14. Some will claim that this rootedness in a historical time and location determines the book as history and precludes other options. The plain sense is preferred.

 

(3) The only reason to doubt Jonah as history is a desire to sidestep the miraculous element. The creator God is certainly capable of the miraculous.

 

A justifiable reaction against the attempt of many to remove the supernatural from the Bible. Our faith is rooted in the existence of the supernatural and in the reality of the resurrection, of Jesus first and of all in the age to come. But the argument for an all powerful God does  not make this particular book history rather than satire.

 

(4) Jesus refers to Jonah in his teaching. For some this is the trump that settles the matter.

 

        Matthew 12:38-41

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.

Matthew 16:1, 4 makes a similar, shorter, allusion – a wicked generation will be given only the sign of Jonah.

 

Luke 11

As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. … The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and now something greater than Jonah is here.

The context is the same in each reference. The sign of Jonah is found in the fact that he was in the fish for three days and three nights, and yet was returned to the land of the living, so the Son of Man would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

But it isn’t this simple. The answer to the question of genre is not as easy as these arguments suggest. None of them provide a conclusive argument against the book of Jonah as satire, with a message for the reader even some 2500 years later.

 

John Walton in the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary has some interesting observations placing the book of Jonah in its ancient Near Eastern context. (It is not entirely clear whether Walton views Jonah as history, and if so how much history he sees in the book. The omments here should not be taken as assigning any particular view to Walton himself. Nonetheless his insight into the ancient Near Eastern context is enlightening.) According to Walton:

In current trends within critical scholarship, Jonah is commonly labeled as parody or satire. The former typically lampoons a piece of literature, while the latter targets people (specific or stereotyped categories) or events as Jonah does. Satire can be either an enactment or a written composition in which vice, folly, or incompetence is held up for ridicule. The closer to reality a satire can be, the more effective it is. By definition it targets real people and tries to use the mannerisms and words that they use. Satire exaggerates reality, but is based on reality. 

Satire and parody are both known in the ancient world and in the Bible. … In similar ways, most would agree that the book of Jonah wants us to laugh at the prophet’s incongruity and senselessness even as we are appalled by his behavior and attitude. (p. 104)

In many respects this addresses the first two objections listed above. A good satire will be intentionally realistic – and the closer to reality, the more effective. If the book is a satire we should not find a clear indication of this for that would negate the satire (contra argument one) and we should expect to find realistic details placing the story in time and place (contra argument two).

 

Concerning the fish Walton notes that ancient literature refers to fantastic creatures sent from the gods. The epic of Gilgamesh for example refers to the “Bull of Heaven” sent by Anu.

The Bull of Heaven is particularly interesting in that it is sent in response to the hubris of the hero with the intention of teaching him a lesson. Jonah likewise acted against deity (by fleeing) and was subsequently confronted by a cosmic creature ordained by deity. In Gilgamesh the Bull of Heaven is not symbolic or allegorical. It is considered real, but as a supernatural creature would not be classed alongside any standard list of zoological specimens. A similar understanding may be possible for the fish in Jonah. (p. 105)

If the book is satire it will use the forms of the time – and this would include the cosmic creature ordained by deity. This is an accepted form of the day and age. Contra argument three, the reason to see the fish as a cosmic creature comes not from a desire to remove the miraculous but from the appreciation of the forms common in ancient Near Eastern literature.

 

Walton also comments on the length of time, three days and three nights.

A person is considered truly dead after three days in the grave or in the netherworld. In the Descent of Inanna the goddess goes down into the nether world and tells her servant that is she has not returned in three days, she should lament for he and make petitions to the gods for her return. With this idea in mind, Jonah’s three days and nights in the belly of the fish in the realm of death indicates that Jonah is at the threshold of death. (p. 109)

The idea of Jonah on the threshold of death also comes in his prayer in chapter 2. The sign of Jonah refers to this return from death after three days in the fish. Certainly there is no other way in which Jesus is justly compared with the foolish, selfish, and superficial prophet Jonah. Something greater than Jonah is here is quite the understatement.

 

I will also note that as Christians we celebrate the crucifixion on Good Friday (the preparation day before the Sabbath) and the resurrection on Sunday morning (very early in the morning on the first day of the week) so we don’t exactly attach great literal significance to the three nights in the heart of the earth. Why then, we insist that the story of Jonah must be history for the allusion to be valid I am not sure.  John notes a special Sabbath and thus would likely have three nights, but the church through the centuries has not chosen this chronology, but rather the Friday to Sunday observance.

 

Chapter four of the book really nails the genre as satire (or parody) in my opinion.

3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened. 

4:1-3 But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

Walton notes that this description of God is practically creedal in the Old Testament … gracious, compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. Yet Jonah takes it as a negative. God doesn’t do what any “good” God should [do, by wiping] out the Ninevites [and] destroying their city. Really, God’s compassion is reason to wish for death? As satire the focus is on the attitude of Jonah, and perhaps by extension all those who prefer to delight in God’s wrath and judgment (on others of course) rather than his mercy and compassion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can God speak through myth?

http://rachelheldevans.com/bible-myth

by Rachel Held Evans
July 10, 2012
Comments

Today we continue our discussion of Peter Enns’ excellent book, Inspiration and Incarnation, as part of our series on learning to love the Bible for what it is, not what we want it to be.

As we move to Chapter 2—“The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature” — I am struck afresh with just how perfect this book fits with our theme. In it, Enns focuses on three specific problems/questions raised by the modern study of the Old Testament and uses those specific problems/questions to engage in a broader conversation about the nature of Scripture. According to Enns, many evangelicals have assumed a defensive posture when it comes to confronting the linguistic, historical, and archeological evidence that shows the Bible to be “firmly situated in the ancient world in which it was produced,” for fear that such “situatedness” detracts from its divine nature.

Rather than ignoring or lamenting the evidence, Enns suggests we allow it to teach us something about how the Bible ought to be read and interpreted. “The problems many of us feel regarding the Bible may have less to do with the Bible itself and more to do with our own preconceptions,” he writes. “I have found again and again that listening to how the Bible itself behaves and suspending preconceived notions (as much as that is possible) about how we think the Bible to behave is refreshing, creative, exciting and spiritually rewarding.” (p. 15)

Last week, we discussed Enns’ incarnational analogy— in which he posits that just as Jesus assumed the language, culture, and life of a first-century Jewish teacher, so the Bible belonged in the ancient worlds that produced it. “It was not an abstract, otherworldly book, dropped out of heaven,” Enns writes. “It was connected to and therefore spoke to those ancient cultures.”

This week, with Chapter 2, we get an up close look at the ancient world that produced the Bible, particularly the ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature shaped much of its content.

A Reality Check

Enns first highlights the impact of Akkadian Literature, which likely predates the biblical text and which includes creation and flood accounts remarkably similar to those we find in the Bible. (If, like me, you had a mini faith crisis in Intro to Ancient Literature after reading Enuma Elish or Gilgabmesh, you will know exactly what he’s talking about.) He also notes the similarities between The Code of Hammurabi and the laws found in Exodus; between Hittite suzerainty treaties and Deuteronomy; and between the Egyptian instructions of Amenemope and the book of Proverbs.

He then points to archeological finds such as the Tel Dan inscription and the Siloam Tunnel Inscription to highlight the likely historicity of King David and Israel’s monarchs as well as similarities in how ancient people reported historical events. I won’t get into detail here, but I strongly encourage those unfamiliar with ANE texts to study this chapter, which will serve as something of a reality check regarding the context in which the Bible was written and the worldview it shares with the sacred texts of other ANE cultures.

These similarities raise some important questions: 

• Does the Bible report historical fact, or is it just a bunch of stories culled from other ancient cultures? 

• What does it mean for other cultures to have an influence on the Bible that we believe is revealed by God? 

• If the Bible is a “culturally conditioned” product, what relevance does it have today? 

• Can we really say that the Bible is unique? Can really say it is the word of God?

“The problem...is that showing how at home the Bible is in the ancient world makes it look less special in some respects—less unique,” writes Enns. “What can we say about the uniqueness of the Bible when, in so many areas, it bears striking similarities to the beliefs and practices of other nations?” (p. 32) According to Enns:

“The newfound evidence for the cultural settings of the Bible led many to conclude that the Bible is essentially defined by these cultural factors. The ‘context of Scripture’ became the primary determining factor in defining what the Bible is....

The conservatives’ reaction was also problematic in that it implicitly assumed what their opponents also assumed: the Bible, being the word of God, ought to be historically accurate in all its details (since God would not lie or make errors) and unique its own setting (since God’s word is revealed, which implies a specific type of uniqueness)....

Conservatives have tended to employ a strategy of selective engagement, embracing evidence that seems to support their assumptions... but retreating from evidence that seems to undercut these assumptions.” (47)

In the midst of all this, “the doctrinal implications of the Bible being so much a part of its ancient contexts are still not being addressed as much as they should,” says Enns. He proposes a new way forward, beyond the liberal/conservative divide that involves adjusting our expectations about how the Bible should behave.

Enns proceeds to do just that by helping the reader adjust his/her expectations regarding: 1) the creation and flood accounts, 2) customs laws, and proverbs, and 3) monarchy.

Genesis and Myth: Creation & the Flood

Today I want to focus on the creation and flood accounts, because they provide perhaps the best (and most controversial?) example of what it means to adjust one’s expectations when it comes to reading Scripture, a critical part of learning to the Bible for what it is, not what we want it to be.

As Enns notes in the book, it’s become almost impossible to discuss Genesis as myth without making people angry, as the word “myth,” in everyday use, has come to mean something other than a literary genre. The distinction between myth and history, says Enns, “presupposes—without stating explicitly—that what is historical, in a modern sense of the word, is more real, of more value, more like something God would do, than myth. So, the argument goes, if Genesis is myth, then it is not ‘of God.’”

Enns clarifies the fact that myth is an ancient, pre-modern, pre-scientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories. He then raises the question: “Why is it that God can’t use the category we call myth to speak to ancient Israelites?”

He writes:

“The reason the opening chapters of Genesis look so much like the literature of ancient Mesopotamia is that the worldview categories of the ancient Near East were ubiquitous and normative at the time. Of course, different cultures had different myths, but the point is that they all had them...What makes Genesis different from its ancient Near Eastern counterparts is that it begins to make the point to Abraham and his seed that the God they are bound to, the God who called them into existence, is different from the gods around them....

The biblical worldview described in Genesis is an Ancient Near Eastern one. But the ordering of the world (e.g., the separation of water from land) did not result from a morbid conflict within a dysfunction divine family, as we read in Enuma Elish. It was simply this amazing God who spoke.” (p. 53, 54-55)

In other words, the author is making a theological point, not a scientific or historical one.

Enns reminds the reader that the worldview described in Genesis is a decidedly ANE one, portraying the earth as a flat disk supported by pillars, with water above and below, and a solid, fixed firmament. This is how Abraham would have understood the universe, how the writer of Genesis would have understood the universe, and how the first storytellers, readers, and listeners of Scripture would have understood the universe. It is therefore coutnerproductive to try and impose our own advanced (and yet, in the grand scheme of things, still limited) assumptions regarding cosmology onto the text.

To me, this is the money quote:

“We do not protect the Bible or render it more believable to modern people by trying to demonstrate that it is consistent with modern science.... It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal. The question that Genesis is prepared to answer is whether Yahweh, the God of Israel, is worthy of worship. And that point is made not by allowing ancient Israelites to catch a glimpse of a spherical earth or a heliocentric universe. It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance.” (p. 55)

Concludes Enns, “this is what it means for God to speak at a certain time and place—he enters their world. He speaks and acts in ways that makes sense to them. This is surely what it means for God to reveal himself to people –he accommodates, condescends, meets them where they are. The phrase word of God does not imply disconnectedness to its environment.”

And again we are reminded of Christ—the fullest and most complete revelation of God—who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but humbled himself and became like us. If God is willing to put on human flesh in order to communicate to us, why wouldn’t he be willing to speak human languages—complete with human literary devices and human words and human cosmological assumptions—to communicate?

I find this freeing....

In college I was trained to fight against this view of Scripture with every fiber of my being, and yet, when I began seeking a more intellectually honest faith, it was this view of Scripture that finally released me from gripping fear and doubt.

I had been asking questions that the Bible didn’t answer. I had been forcing onto it my own modern, Western assumptions. I had been trying to explain away every possible contradiction, every historical or scientific "problem," in order to force the Bible into my own predetermined paradigm. I believed that in order for the Bible to be God’s word it had to conform to my ideals of historical and scientific proofs. It was a bit like demanding that Jesus be fully human without getting thirsty, or without sleeping, or without assuming a language and ethnicity and gender.

And when the Bible didn’t perform as I expected it to perform, I nearly lost my faith.

This is why I am so thankful for scholars and like Enns who have helped me confront my own prejudices and learn to love the Bible for what it is, not what I want it to be. (Thanks, Pete!)

Next week we will discuss this a bit further, with some additional examples....

* * *

So, what do you think? Have you had to confront the similarities between the Bible and other ANE texts? What is your reaction when Genesis is described as “myth”?

 

* * *

Continue to -

Part 1 - How Are We to Understand

"Noah and the Flood?"

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/07/noah-flood-creation-genesis.html

 

 

Book Review: Genesis for Normal People

Genesis For Normal People

http://musingsonscience.wordpress.com/

by rjs5
posted April 24, 2012

Peter Enns and Jared Byas have a new e-book published through Patheos that is designed to introduce normal people (whatever this means) to the book of Genesis … the most controversial, misunderstood, and abused book of the Bible. Genesis for Normal People is written in an informal voice for Christians who have little if any formal training in biblical studies. It will rock the world for some because it presents the purpose and form of the OT in general and Genesis in particular from a point of view that is distinctly different from the approach the average Christian is familiar with. But this is an important lesson.

A running theme from Enns and Byas is that we have to learn to read the OT through ancient eyes … this is how we can best understand the message. No – it doesn’t mean this is the only way we can find God in scripture, but it does put meat on the bones. Here is a great example used to make the point in Ch. 1 The Genesis of Genesis:

It’s easier to understand what you are reading if you know when it was written and under what circumstances. Orwell’s Animal Farm might make sense as a cute (better, disturbing) story about talking animals. But knowing when it was written (1945) and the circumstances that led to it being written (a critique of Joseph Stalin’s oppressive Communist regime) will help you see that the book is actually an allegory. If you don’t catch that, you miss the whole point. In other words, knowing at least something about the historical context of a story—when a story was written and under what circumstances—makes you a better reader.

The same is true of Genesis.

Just because Genesis is in the Bible doesn’t mean we can read it any way we please. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the stories were written with twenty-first century readers in mind. Whether we say that Genesis was written by ancient Israelites or even by God to ancient Israelites doesn’t change the fact that Genesis was written a long, long time ago, in a language that is now essentially dead (Jews in Israel today speak a different form of Hebrew). Genesis is really old, and if we are going to read it well, we have to make adjustments in our thinking.

The purpose of Genesis for Normal People is to provide some of this background and context in an entertaining and readable fashion. This is not an academic treatise (although I do find academics to be “normal people” thank you). The book may satisfy some, enrage a few, but should whet the appetite for more in many others.

Is it important to know the context when reading the Old Testament?

Should Genesis, or any other book of the Bible, make sense without this context? If so, why?

Some may wonder if we need another book on Genesis – can’t we just get over this whole science-and-faith controversy and focus on the gospel? The Fall, perhaps, is important because Paul tells us it is (Romans 5, 1 Cor 15) – but is anything else in Genesis really all that significant for “normal people”?

Here I’ll skip ahead a bit to a point made by Enns and Byas in the beginning of Ch. 8:

Oftentimes we are taught to read the Bible the way we read a book like Aesop’s Fables or The Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh – as a collection of short, stand-alone stories. These stories may have some of the same characters, but there is no ongoing story line. We should not bring that way of reading to the Bible, where we are left with the “story of Noah’s ark” or the “story of Joseph” as stand-alone stories with moral lessons to be learned. These stories are part of a larger continuous story.

… Genesis is not a series of pithy short stories with moral lessons, but a series of vital stepping-stones in the story of Israel’s beginnings.

Genesis is a defining story without which it is hard to make sense of the rest of the Old Testament. The New Testament and the Gospel are likewise hard to interpret without making sense of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament.

This is a very important point. The context of Genesis, and for that matter, Exodus and the rest of the Old Testament as well, is important, not just for a better understanding of Genesis, but for a sound understanding of the Gospel of Jesus God’s Messiah. A key point made by Scot in The King Jesus Gospel and By Tom Wright in How God Became King is that the roots for the Gospel of Jesus Christ told in the New Testament are inextricably planted in the story of Israel in the Old Testament. The understanding of Genesis then is not a detail of minor importance secondary to the Gospel – it is the beginning of the story of Israel and the story of the Gospel.

We’ve lost the understanding of the story of Israel. We move from the Fall to Incarnation to Crucifixion to Resurrection with everything in between of secondary or tertiary importance. "The OT is a collection of pithy stories demonstrating the power of God and providing moral lessons for our life." This approach makes for bite-size Sunday school lessons and powerful motivational sermons. But it doesn’t do justice to the story of God and God’s people; and it allows many to dismiss the scriptures as a collection of unbelievable ancient myths and stories. We’ve out grown these – or so I’ve often been told.

I am interested to hear what others think – but I think this is an enormous problem in our church today. The bible as a collection of moral stories and miracles does not touch the heart or mind of a large segment of our society. I am not a “normal person” perhaps. I am, after all, an academic. But from my perspective this piecemeal approach and lack of coherent narrative plays a huge role in the move away from faith as an intellectually viable option in our colleges and universities. We fail to convince because we do not understand our story and we do not teach or preach the whole story.

We’ve out-grown the stories contained in the Old Testament because we don’t know how to make sense of them as the story of Israel and the story of Israel’s God. Here we come to a place where Genesis for Normal People can help. Enns and Byas make the case, as Enns did in The Evolution of Adam, that the construction of the Old Testament as we have it is born out of the experience of exile and return from exile, sometime after 539 B. C. Some of the sources are most definitely older. No one is claiming that the text was constructed out of thin air at this late date. But the Old Testament as we have it was shaped, edited, and compiled in response to the experience of Israel in exile. The OT is inspired of God and points to Jesus, God’s Messiah. This is, after all, the Gospel. With this context, many of the little bits and pieces can be brought into focus … and this includes Genesis.

Enns and Byas conclude in Ch. 1

So how we read Genesis depends on us knowing these circumstances, just like knowing Stalin is vital for us to understand Animal Farm. Knowing that Genesis as we have it in our Bibles is written as part of the Pentateuch, and that the Pentateuch is written as Israel’s constitution in light of the traumatic events of the Babylonian exile helps us read this story with ancient eyes.

The book continues with chapters working through the text of Genesis …

Genesis from 30,000 Feet,
Genesis 1: Yahweh Is Better
Genesis 2-4: Adam Is Israel
Genesis 4-5: Cain Is a Fool
Genesis 6: Everyone Is Annihilated
Genesis 10-12: Babylon Is Evil
Genesis 12-22: Abraham Is Chosen
Genesis 23-25: Isaac Is the Father of Israel
Genesis 25-35: Jacob Is Israel (Literally)
Genesis 36-50: Israel Is Saved
Conclusion: Now What?

The book is well worth the price (which is quite modest - http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Normal-People-Controversial-ebook/dp/B007T9R8DM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335363534&sr=8-1)… and should make a great conversation starter, for a conversation we need to have. This book should whet the appetite for more – whether you agree with Enns and Byas or wish to explore alternative ideas. I hope it comes out eventually in a form that will be easier to use in classes and group settings. You may disagree – but I find e-books, unless printable, of little use in such a setting.

What do you think?

Have you read – or been taught to read – Genesis as the foundational story of Israel and thus of the Gospel? If so how?

Do you think Enns and Byas and I are right – that we have tended to teach and view the Bible as a collection of short, stand-alone stories? If so, is this a problem?

Walter Brueggemann, "The Practice of Prophetic Imagination"

The people we later recognize as prophets, says Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann,

are also poets. They reframe what is at stake in chaotic times.

Hear a very special voice in conversation to address our changing lives

and the deepest meaning of hope this season.


Walter Brueggemann speaking at Eerdmans bookstore in Grand Rapids, Michigan, about

his new book The Practice of Prophetic Imagination: Preaching an Emancipating Word.

http://eerdword.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/walter-brueggemann-at-eerdmans-bookstore-video/

In the Room with Walter Brueggemann

(video, 62:53)

Walter Brueggemann Recites Psalm 146

A special cut from our interview with Walter Brueggemann. His reading of Psalm 146 (and his explanation of his understanding of the verse) is one you won't hear on the radio or in the podcast.

Are Conversations on Homosexuality Really Pointless?
A seminary student wants to engage in conversations about homosexuality among other faithful, as a catalyst for social justice.


Walter Brueggemann Quotes Franz Kafka
A fuller version of the quotation Brueggemann offered in our interview.

Walter Brueggemann on the Futility of the Theological Argument over Gays and Lesbians
Audio of the revered theologian explaining why the GLBTQ issue has such adrenaline in church communities and why a chance for theological discussion has passed.


AMAZON BOOKS

http://www.amazon.com/Practice-Prophetic-Imagination-Preaching-Emancipating/dp/0800698975

The necessary context of prophetic preaching, Walter Brueggemann argues, is "a contestation between narratives." The dominant narrative of our time promotes self-sufficiency at the national level (through militarism) and the personal level (through consumerism). Opposed to it is a countervailing narrative of a world claimed by a God who is gracious, uncompromising - and real. In previous work Brueggemann has pointed us again and again to the indispensability of imagination. Here he writes for those who bear responsibility for regular proclamation in communities of faith, describing the discipline of a prophetic imagination that is unflinchingly realistic and unwaveringly candid.

Editorial Reviews

"Walter Brueggemann's early work on prophecy and imagination has become foundational for a whole generation of preachers and scholars, including me. Here he returns to perhaps the most characteristic of all his myriad ventures, with unaltered vigor and razor-sharp edge. Prophets are not just provocateurs: they are those who profoundly love their people, deeply know their tradition, and can't but speak of what they both love and know. Brueggemann both loves and knows. That's what makes him a prophet. Would that we were more like him. Reading this book is a healthy first step."

 - Sam Wells, Duke University

About the Author

Walter Brueggemann is William Marcellus McPheeters Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Columbia Theological Seminary and the author of numerous books including, from Fortress Press, The Prophetic Imagination, rev. ed. (2001); The Word Militant: Preaching a Decentering Word (2007); and Like Fire in the Bones: Listening for the Prophetic Word in Jeremiah (2006).

Biography

Walter Brueggemann is William Marcellus McPheeters Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Columbia Theological Seminary. He is the world's leading interpreter of the Old Testament and is the author of numerous books, including Westminster John Knox Press best sellers such as Genesis and First and Second Samuel in the Interpretation series, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination, and Reverberations of Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old Testament Themes.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 192 pages
• Publisher: Fortress Press (January 1, 2012)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0800698975
• ISBN-13: 978-0800698973

Want to know more about Brueggemann?
Go to our friends over at Homebrew!
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2008/10/08/walter-brueggemann-on-the-prophetic-imagination-for-our-political-homebrewed-christianity-ep27/


Also, from an older transcript at American Public Media,
given on December 22, 2011 - http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2011/prophetic-imagination/transcript.shtml