The Lost World of Genesis One (17 page)

AS DISCUSSED IN CHAPTER THREE when we explored the word
bard , the word literal can have different meanings to different
people. Mostly people use the word to express that they want to
understand what the text "really says." The question is, what criteria make that determination? Certainly the meanings of words
and the grammatical and syntactical framework are of importance. But grammar, words and sentences are all just the tools of
communication. Usually our search to find out what a text "really
says" must focus on the intended communication of the author
and the ability of the audience to receive that same intended message. Words, grammar and syntax will be used adequately by a
competent writer or speaker to achieve the desired act of communication. The same words can be used in a straightforward manner, or be used in a symbolic, metaphorical, sarcastic or allegorical
way to achieve a variety of results.

As readers, we want to know how the author desired his communication to be understood. I referred to this in chapter three as
the "face value" of the text. If a communication is intended to be metaphorical, the interpreter interested in the face value will want
to recognize it as metaphor. If the author intends to give a history,
the interpreter must be committed to reading it that way. In other
words, interpreters have to give the communicator the benefit of
the doubt and treat his communication with integrity.

Interpreters have come to Genesis 1 with a variety of approaches. Increasingly those who are uncomfortable with the
scientific implications of the traditional interpretation have promoted a variety of ways to read the text so as to negate those
implications. For example, some have suggested that the text is
only theological-indicating that God is the Creator and the
sabbath is important. Others have indicated that the text has a
literary shape that makes it poetic and should not be taken as
any sort of scientific record. While it is easy to affirm that important theology is the foundation of the account and that it has
an easily recognizable literary shaping, one can still ask, is that
all there is? Those who have championed the "literal" interpretation of the text have objected that these approaches are reductionistic attempts to bypass difficult scientific implications and
claim that by pursuing them the text is so compromised that it
is, in effect, rejected.

In the cosmic-temple interpretation offered in this bookwhich sees Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins-we find
a different sort of resolution to the problems faced by the interpreter. I believe that if we are going to interpret the text according
to its face value, we need to read it as the ancient author would
have intended and as the ancient audience would have heard it.
Though the literary form of expression and the theological foundation are undeniable, I believe that study of the ancient world
indicates that far more is going on here than that.

Scholars in the past who have compared Genesis 1 to other
ancient literature have sometimes suggested that the biblical text intends to be polemical-to offer a view in opposition to that of
the rest of the ancient world. Again, it cannot be denied that
Genesis offers a very different perspective than other creation
texts in a number of ways. Here there is only one God, and there
is no conflict to overcome. Since Genesis allows only one God,
the account does not explain other gods being brought into existence and thus it breaks the close association between the components of the cosmos and the gods. All of this is true, and could be
viewed as polemic. But it must also be noticed that the author of
Genesis 1 is not explicitly arguing with the other views-he is
simply offering his own view. His opposition to other ancient
views is tacit.

The view presented in this book has emphasized the similarities between the ways the Israelites thought and the ideas reflected
in the ancient world, rather than the differences (as emphasized in
the polemical interpretation). While we can never achieve deep
levels of understanding of how an ancient Israelite thought, we
can at least see some of the ways they thought differently than
we do. In this small accomplishment we can identify ways that we
may have been inclined to innocently read our own thought patterns into texts whose authors did not share those thought patterns. If the Israelites, along with the rest of the ancient Near
East, thought of existence and therefore creation in functional
terms, and they saw a close relationship between cosmos and temple, then those are part of the face value of the text and we must
include them in our interpretation.

In contrast, a concordist approach intentionally attempts to
read an ancient text in modern terms. Concordist interpretations attempt to read details of physics, biology, geology and so
on into the biblical text. This is a repudiation of reading the text
at face value. Such interpretation does not represent in any way
what the biblical author would have intended or what the audi ence would have understood. Instead it gives modern meaning
to ancient words.

The rationale for this sort of reading involves several factors.
First, these interpreters identify the ultimate author of Scripture
as God. Therefore they feel justified in suggesting that reading
the text scientifically yields God's intention even if the human
author knew nothing of it. How do they determine the divine
author's meaning if not through the human author? Their answer
often derives from the idea that "all truth is God's truth." Therefore if we believe that physicists, biologists, geologists and other
scientists have a bead on truth, that truth can be attributed to the
divine author. Thus they might conclude that if the big bang really happened as a mechanism for the origins of the universe, it
must be included in the biblical account of the origins of the universe. So concordists will attempt to determine where the big
bang fits into the biblical record and what words could be understood to express it (even if in rather mystical or subtle ways). In
this way the concordist is looking at modern science and trying to
find a place for it in the biblical account with the idea that science
has determined what really happened, so the Bible must reflect
that. Other concordists rewrite science so that the correlation
with the Bible can be made comfortably. In this way, concordism
can be seen to be very different than wrestling with the face-value
meaning of the text.

The problem with concordist approaches is that while they
take the text seriously, they give no respect to the human author.
The combination of "scientific truth" and "divine intention" is
fragile, volatile and methodologically questionable. We are fully
aware that what we call "scientific truth" one day may be different
the next day. Divine intention must not be held hostage to the ebb
and flow of scientific theory. Scientific theory cannot serve as the
basis for determining divine intention.

God has communicated through human authors and through
their intentions. The human author's communication is inspired
and carries authority. It cannot be cast aside abruptly for modern
thinking. The human author gives us access to the divine message. It has always been so. If additional divine meaning is intended, we must seek out another inspired voice to give us that
additional divine meaning, and such an inspired voice can only be
found in the Bible's authors. Scientific theory does not qualify as
such an inspired voice.

We have neither the right nor the need to force the text to
speak beyond its ken. This is not only important on a theoretical
level, it is observable throughout the text. As mentioned in chapter one, there is not a single instance in the Old Testament of God
giving scientific information that transcended the understanding
of the Israelite audience. If he is consistently communicating to
them in terms of their world and understanding, then why should
we expect to find modern science woven between the lines? People who value the Bible do not need to make it "speak science" to
salvage its truth claims or credibility.

The most respectful reading we can give to the text, the reading most faithful to the face value of the text-and the most "literal" understanding, if you will-is the one that comes from their
world not ours. Consequently the strategy we have adopted for
reading the text as ancient literature offers the most hope for
treating the text with integrity. We are not trying to bypass what
the text is saying, nor to read between the lines to draw a different
meaning from it.

Concordist approaches, day-age readings, literary or theological interpretations all struggle with the same basic problem. They
are still working with the premise that Genesis 1 is an account of
material origins for an audience that has a material ontology.
Modern inability to think in any other way has resulted in re course to all of this variety of attempts to make the text tolerable
in our scientific naturalism and materialism.

Our face-value reading in contrast, does the following:

1. recognizes Genesis 1 for the ancient document that it is;

2. finds no reason to impose a material ontology on the text;

3. finds no reason to require the finding of scientific information
between the lines;

4. avoids reducing Genesis 1 to merely literary or theological
expressions;

5. poses no conflict with scientific thinking to the extent that it
recognizes that the text does not offer scientific explanations.