Retorts

Bible and Science

Re Simon Pollard's Viewpoint "The Bible is not a Science Textbook" [August], of course he is correct. How could it be otherwise? It is scarcely likely that Genesis 1, for example, was ever intended to be taken as a literally historical account of creation, and certainly not a scientific account. Among the first principles of biblical exegesis is to ask: Whom is the writer addressing and why? What is the context, eg, the historical-philosophical milieu? Essentially, we must ask what is the theological intent of the writer. Having examined these issues, we may then begin to ask, with some carefulness, what it may mean to us today.

What puzzles me about the whole curious, muddle-headed controversy over the literality of the Genesis creation account and other parts of primeval history described in Genesis 1-11 is the almost supine silence of biblical scholars. It is obvious that creationists won't be dissuaded from their literal interpretations by scientific arguments because their minds are already made up, but, out of their claimed respect for the scriptures, perhaps they might be willing to hear an argument from scholarship, but one doesn't hear much from this quarter.

Take Genesis 1, which is clearly a symbolic construct, and was so intended by its author (Hyers 1984²; Hamilton 1990¹). After the opening statement in verse 1 ["In the beginning God created the universe" -- literally, "the heavens and the earth" but this is an example of a hendiadys, a figure of speech in which a single idea is presented in two words linked by a conjunction], it is explained that the earth was "without form and void" or "a desert and a wasteland". The rest of the chapter explains, using parallel sets of activities, how God corrected the formlessness and emptiness. This is best visualised as follows:

Darkness, water and earth are formless (chaos). God takes these formless cosmic elements, structures them, and fills them. Written, inter alia, to combat a polytheistic milieu, this construct says that God is sovereign over all elements, forces and beings. There is no place for resident divinities. This arrangement of the chapter is deliberately schematic. It is hardly to be equated with a linear, sequential account of geological history and changing life over time as creationists would have us believe. The parallel symmetry of days 1-3 with days 4-6 is concluded with a cessation of work activity -- God is portrayed as working on six days and resting on the seventh. An audience accustomed to their own work week would identify with that model -- simple to recall, and easily orally transmitted.

To insist that the Genesis creation account must be taken as a literal historical-scientific account of origins is not only bad science, it is bad theology. And there is so much more in Genesis 1 and the succeeding chapters than is apparent from a superficial reading.

I suspect that most scientists have never consulted the range of commentaries that exist to explain and illuminate this ancient theology so I can only suggest that, if anyone is interested, those of Westermann (1984) ³ and Hamilton (1990) ¹ are representative.

But to give some examples using Genesis 1 again, it's worth pointing out the deliberately polemical nature of the account. This is nicely pointed out by Hamilton (1990, pp 127, 128) ¹ who notes the strong anti-mythical thrust. Recalling the proliferation of astral deities in most Mediterranean religions, in which the sun, moon and stars are divine, Genesis 1:4ff is saying that these luminaries are not eternal: they are created, not to be served, but to serve. Further the words sun and moon (which in Semitic languages are names of deities) are avoided; instead, the expressions "greater luminary" and "lesser luminary" are used. Also, the order of their mention -- sun, moon and stars -- is the reverse of that in the Babylonian Enuma elish, in which priority is given to the stars, followed by the moon and sun in that order. In Genesis 1, the stars, so important in astrology, scarcely get a mention -- "He made the stars too"!

Comparisons of Genesis with contemporary Mediterranean theologies are instructive. To give one further example -- wheras cosmologies of nations surrounding Israel exclusivised gods and kings, Genesis 1 democratises humanity when God says "Let us make man in our image ... male and female he created them". This is inclusive, meaning all humans. Kings and commoners, male and female all have extra status. None is excluded from the admonition to procreate and "have dominion" (stewardship) over creation.

There is so much more that could be said in explanation of the theological intentionality of the early (and later) chapters of Genesis. Suffice it to say that it is easy for scientist and Christian alike to be superficial in their understanding of the Bible. Over the years, I have learned that this is a book to be respected.

Dr Dennis P. Gordon, NIWA

¹ Hamilton, V. 1990. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. xviii +522 pp.

² Hyers, C. 1984. The Meaning of Creation. Genesis and Modern Science. John Knox Press, Atlanta. ix + 203 p.

³ Westermann, C. 1984. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. English edition, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis. xii + 636 pp.