Scrivenings: John H. Walton

Showing posts with label John H. Walton. Show all posts

Is Flat Earth Biblical Cosmology merely an Infidel's Delusion?

Pictured below are rough outlines of how ancient people viewed the cosmos, as based on their own ancient writings and any images they left behind that scholars could examine. The general uniformity of such ancient views has been pointed out by scholars for some time, most recently by Paul Seely here, here, and here.

In 2009 I composed a paper on the topic of “The Cosmology of the Bible” for publication in the book The Christian Delusion. Subsequently, a group of Christians at the blog Triablogue responded to that book and my chapter by composing an ebook that they titled, The Infidel Delusion. And since then another work has appeared on the web, this time by Ben at War on Error in which he defends the consensus view that biblical authors assumed a flat earth.

Benʼs response covers 100 or so questions raised in The Infidel Delusion and on Triablogue by Steve Hays, Paul Manata, and Jason Engwer.

I suggest reading the chapter with which the discussion began, “The Cosmology of the Bible” in The Christian Delusion, before one reads The Infidel Delusion, or Benʼs response to the Infidel Delusion.

My chapter compares ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Hebrew descriptions of the cosmos, which in all cases was flat with God living overhead (not light-years away). I point to the words and works of leading scholars of ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, and also feature the views of Evangelical Christian scholars who accept the truth of such a consensus such as John Walton who teaches O.T. at Wheaton College and is author of The Lost World of Genesis 1: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, and a forthcoming tome from Eisenbraunʼs in which he examines biblical cosmology more fully than he has in previous works.

Even Dr. Beale, a defender of biblical inerrancy and professor of N.T. at Westminster Theological Seminary, made the following admission concerning biblical cosmology in his book, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Crossway Books, 2008):

“Do certain descriptions of the cosmos reflect only language expressing the ancient mythological worldview, which was built into the substructure of the biblical writers’ thinking through acculturation… ? Perhaps. I have discussed this with some ancient Near East scholars, and the best assessment they give me is that sometimes the cosmological language is purely phenomenological… sometimes it expresses the cosmic temple notion, and sometimes it reflects the socially constructed mythological geographical assumptions and understanding of the parts of the cosmos.” p. 195-196

So, Beale admit that “perhaps” the scholars who study ANE cosmologies are right. He also admits:

“Ancient Near Eastern concepts may have contributed to the theology of sacred space in the building of Israel’s tabernacle and temple. Examples include the eastward orientation, the placement of important cultic objects, the designation of areas of increasing holiness, and the rules for access to the Holy Place and Holy of Holies… circumcision and sacrificial offerings.

“Another option is that biblical writers unconsciously absorbed mythical worldviews about the cosmos, reproduced them in their writings, and believed them to be reliable descriptions of the real world and events occurring in the past real world—creation account, flood narrative, etc.—because they were part of their socially constructed mythological reality. If this is the case, which [I think] is unlikely, it would be impossible not to see ancient Near Eastern myths about the cosmos as inextricably intertwined with Israel’s theology, which would be a very difficult predicament for those [like me] who believe in the inspiration of Scripture.” p.216-217

My chapter focuses on the “very difficult predicament” that Beale is referring to.

If the cosmological assumptions of the authors of the Bible were incorrect, then one may wonder what other assumptions held by biblical authors might also be incorrect.

Is Genesis 1-11 with its tales of creation-flood-tower of Babel, history or myth? What about the last book in the Bible, the book of Revelation? Is it history or myth? Does the Bible begin and end with mythology rather than history?

And what do Christians mean when they say the Bible is “inspired?” Inspired in what way? Are there clear traits or agreed upon boundaries as to how one can determine exactly which writings, past, present and future, are “inspired” or not? And in what ways?

Christians, Jews, Muslims (as well as, conservative, moderate or liberal factions within each religious tradition) interpret verses, chapters, books, letters, even the canon differently. Which way is the “most inspired?”

Or is the “inspiration” of a written document something that can only be seen and acknowledged through the eyes of each discrete theological system of interpretation, which of course disagrees with the next theological system of interpretation?

Addenda

Ben, who composed the Response to Triablogue had this to add after I asked him what he thought each of the Triabloggerʼs believed concerning the question of biblical cosmology:

“It is difficult to tell what Steve Hays really believes about many topics since he is typically too busy incoherently attacking the arguments of his opponent (and attacking his opponent directly) at the expense of being educational about things he knows or things he personally believes. I think weʼd have to be innocent Christian inquirers in order to get that kind of thing out of him. He seems to actually believe that there is a high probability that most ancient people had relatively accurate views about cosmology and that it would be almost impossible for most of them to take seriously any of their primitive imagery used. Jason Engwer seems open to the probability that the consistent use of primitive imagery does indicate that at least some of the Bible authors probably believed in what their imagery implies, but for the sake of the inerrant Bible didnʼt mean it somehow. Thatʼs probably the closest an inerrantist is going to get. Paul Manata doesnʼt comment enough for us to know what he believes. Others from Triablogue did not contribute to TID or post on the topic as far as I know.”

Ben added:

“This is the closest Hays comes to conceding some ground.”

“This is where Engwer gets closest.“

Christian Scholars Who Are Also Theologians And Biologists That Support Evolution Are Gathering Momentum On The Web…

Evolution and Christianity around the Blogosphere. Christians who are also pro-evolution are speaking up on the web more often than ever before.

John Waltonʼs Latest Book Is Helping Educate The Next Generation Of Evangelicals

I have already mentioned the Evangelical and O.T. scholar John Walton, who has studied ancient Near Eastern cosmological views, and who teaches at an Evangelical Christian college. But I think it apropos here to add a few paragraphs from Waltonʼs latest work published in 2010 (not the scholarly tome that Eisenbraunʼs is publishing in the near future, but something simpler that Walton wrote in order to help Christian educators teach their pupils about the Bible):

To quote Walton in the above work:

“The Bible tells about creation in relationship to how people thought about their world in ancient times. The ‘waters above’ are not the clouds, mist, and fog, and the ‘firmament’ is not invisible. In the ancient world they believed that the rain was held back by a solid sky.… In the ancient world everyone believed that since water came down (in the various forms of precipitation) there must be water up above the sky. If the water is there and doesnʼt come down all the time, something must hold it up. As a result, everyone in the ancient world believed that the sky was solid and held back heavenly waters.” -- John H. Walton & Kim E. Walton, The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible (Crossway Books, 2010)

One may also note that the publisher is the same (Crossway Books) in the case of Bealeʼs book, The Erosion of Inerrancy, and in the case of Waltonʼs book published two years later, The Bible Story Handbook.

Evangelical Christian educators have praised The Bible Story Handbook:

An excellent resource-Craig Williford, President, Trinity International University

Not only teachers of children but anyone who uses Bible stories to teach others should examine his or her use of narrative passages by the guidelines in this book.-Starr Meade, Author of Keeping Holiday and Training Hearts, Teaching Minds

Wow! What a resource!… a timeless gift for the teaching ministries of the Church of Jesus Christ.-Scottie May, Associate Professor of Christian Formation and Ministry, Wheaton College; co-author, Children Matter

It is a description of a method, with abundant examples, that may assist congregations to become ‘hermeneutical communities’ exercising responsible use of Scripture.—Linda Cannell, Academic Dean, North Park Theological Seminary

A monumental work, well worth the attention of every educator—including parents—who wants to teach the Bible to children.… Every church—and every teacher of children—should have a copy and make reading it a top priority.—Don Ratcliff, Professor of Christian Education, Wheaton College; author, ChildFaith: Experiencing God and Spiritual Growth with Your Children

I highly recommend this excellent book for those who want to teach the Bible insightfully to children and to adults. They help us all to take the text seriously, letting it speak as God intended.—Perry G. Downs, Professor of Educational Ministries, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

I recommend this book to everyone who understands the importance of clearly and accurately communicating God’s Word, especially to the youngest of God’s family—Diane Jordan, Director of Childrenʼs Ministry, College Church, Wheaton, IL

So I guess ancient Near Eastern scholarship continues to influence Evangelical scholars and is now trickling down to the next generation of younger Evangelicals who are reading the educational materials produced by those scholars.

A Review of Nick Petersʼ (ApologiaNickʼs) Tekton Tickler Book Review (or Book Snap) of John Walton's “Lost World of Genesis 1”

John Waltonʼs book, The Lost World of Genesis One

This week a new conservative Christian blog, titled Tekton Tickler, features a post by Nick Peters in which he reviews John Waltonʼs book, The Lost World of Genesis One. Nick appreciates the new vistas that Waltonʼs research has opened up, as if Walton has flung open the door to a new united creationist front, a “mere creationism” in which both young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists can finally live together in Edenic peace. Of course Walton is also popular with theistic evolutionists, as can be seen from the fact that Waltonʼs most recent videos on the meaning of Genesis 1 appear on the Biologos website.

Aside from showing enthusiasm for Waltonʼs work, Nickʼs only nagging criticism appears to be that “I [Nick] was left wondering how exactly I was to see the days of Genesis 1 in his [Waltonʼs] view… I found his position on that to be unclear.”

My criticism of Nickʼs review is whether Walton has indeed opened the door to peace between creationists, or has Waltonʼs research into the ancient Near Eastern milieu of the Bible opened a whole new Pandoraʼs box of questions (at least for conservative Christians)?

Take for instance the lack of clarity that Nick finds in Waltonʼs view of the meaning of the “days” in Genesis 1. Itʼs not confusing once you take into account ancient Near Eastern ceremonies of earthly temple inauguration and the connection that was believed to lie between them and the creation of the cosmos. The inauguration of earthly temples took place over a certain number of days, whatever the culture deemed an adequate holy number. A connection was believed to exist between the inauguration of an earthly temple (in a certain number of days) and the creation of the cosmos (in a certain number of days). In the former case the days are indeed literal, but the “days” used to depict Godʼs creation of the cosmos [cosmic temple], need not be, at least not to modern minds, though the ancients may have imagined a closer mythical identification of “literal days involved in temple inauguration” with “literal days of creation” than we are wont to today.

At least thatʼs what some ancient Near Eastern temple dedication ceremonies, accompanied by a recitation of a creation story, seem to imply.

One might even say that the idea of a connection between the construction of an earthly temple and a cosmic temple (the cosmos) is a mythical motif shared by some ancient Near Eastern cultures.

An Additional Case of a Shared Mythical Motif Related to the Building of Temples

Speaking of shared mythical motifs, the notion of a god designing their own earthly temple is not unique to the Bible. Take the OT tale about King David having received special instructions directly from Yahweh on how to build His temple. It is not the earliest known example of such a tale. King Thutmose of Egypt lived before the day of King David, and an ancient inscription says that Thutmose received instructions directly from his god, an Egyptian deity, about how His temple should be built. It would appear that both are culture-centric stories that arose to add “divine” justification for the temples each of those kings built.

Opening Up Pandoraʼs Box Further…

What Else Does Walton Say About Ancient Hebrew Views of the World?

“The Israelites [like the nations around them] did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the clouds or high-flying birds. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of the deity as well as hold back waters.” (John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), p. 16.)

Waltonʼs interpretation of Genesis 1 does not deny that ancient Hebrews assumed the earth was flat. Read Waltonʼs view of Passages Evidencing ‘Old World’ Science in the Bible.

Walton also wrote:

“P. Seely has amply demonstrated that the raqia [often translated as ‘firmament’], structurally speaking, was perceived by the Israelites as a solid dome.” (John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary on Genesis, p. 110)

Having admitted that that was how the ancient Hebrew viewed the cosmos, Walton also adds that he finds it to be of little theological importance even if they did view the cosmos in such a pre-scientific manner. See Waltonʼs lecture, Genesis and Cosmology in which he explains in detail why none of what the Bible says about such matters is important. (If your computer has difficulty loading the lecture click briefly on a different lecture on that same page, and then click back on Waltonʼs.)

I disagree with Walton. I think it is important, because if the ancient Hebrews entertained grossly false prescientific assumptions in one area, then there is at least a chance they may have held incorrect assumptions in other areas as well. For instance, the Israelites shared with their neighbors not only the assumption that the world was flat, but a belief that internal organs (other than the brain) directed them (as Walton admits in his lecture above). They also shared with their neighbors the eastward orientation of their tabernacle and temple, the placement of important cultic objects within their temples, the designation of areas of increasing holiness, rules for access to the Holy Place and Holy of Holies, as well as practices like circumcision and sacrificial offerings. But how do we know that animal sacrifices and temple building are any truer representations of the spiritual cosmos than the flat earth view is of the physical one?

Like other nations, the Hebrews also feared the anger of their god and subsequent punishment if attention was denied him. The duty of kings and priests was to ensure such attention was maintained, for the safety and security of the nation.

In other words is it possible to prove that ancient theological assumptions were any more true than ancient cosmological assumptions?

See also these recent articles on ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew worldviews.

Also note that Prof. Walton sometimes says Mesopotamian ritual is based on “common sense and experimentation” (p. 136) while biblical ritual is based on revelation (“ritual procedures [in the ancient Near East] were not the result of revelation in anything like the sense that is found in the Pentateuch [instructions from Sinai”], p. 137). However, Waltonʼs sharp distinction is questionable because cuneiform texts and incantations frequently talk about the fact that they were revealed by the gods. For further evidence see Alan Lenziʼs monograph on “secrecy” that shows how similar the Mesopotamian and Biblical mythologies of revelation actually were.

By the way, as Alan Lenzi asks, “Is there some rule that says a guy will get fired at Wheaton if he calls the Priestly account of creation a myth? The Babylonian story of creation (= Enuma Elish) is a myth. Why withhold the label from Genesis 1?”