on the biologos website john walton responds to vern poythress’s review of “the lost world of genesis one”. i reviewed walton’s book here. poythress recently wrote a review for world magazine where offers some critiques and reservations of walton’s work. i think walton answered those criticisms well. the most pertinent point that walton makes, i think, is the lack of interaction with ancient near eastern sources by poythress in his review. any serious critique of walton’s work, which is based on ancient near eastern backgrounds, has to deal with the primary material. it will be interesting to see if poythress responds.
currently reading
shows
john walton responds to vern poythress
4 February 2010 — art15 Responses to “john walton responds to vern poythress”
Leave a Reply
-
-
Recent Comments
Jonathan Bonomo on fight!!! art on fight!!! Matthew D. Schultz on fight!!! Mandy on evolving in monkey town by rac… Adrian on evolving in monkey town by rac… email me
squads
-
4 February 2010 at 8.51 pm
I am very close to agreeing with Walton, but while the primary purpose of Genesis 1 might be functional, I don’t think that it rules out material creation entirely.
4 February 2010 at 10.23 pm
The problem with Walton’s thesis, so far as I can tell (and perhaps more specifically with Beale’s adaptation of Walton’s views) is that the question of “what it meant” is being obscured by other considerations on what the text means to us (regarding evolution/creation.) Ancient Jews read genesis very much so as functional and material, it was a material creation story, their cosmology was an ancient one, and they believed very real events occurred in some primordial past.
4 February 2010 at 10.27 pm
I wonder if Walton’s desire to absolutely distinguish between material and functional origins is not itself somewhat falling back on the belief that Genesis 1 must reflect accurate scientific knowledge. What I mean is, in a very different way than ever before, Walton is attempting to harmonize Genesis 1 with science by suggesting that ancient Israelites did not believe the earth was materially created in the biblical timeline, that the biblical timeline picks up sometime during the much larger timeline of earth’s history. Thus, the humanity of Genesis 1 and the man and his wife of Genesis 2 are simply the first hominids to exist as God’s image bearers. Israelites would have then entertained the idea of the existence of hominids that were not God’s image bearers, from whom the image bearing humans descend. Does it sound to anyone else like Walton is still trying to harmonize Genesis 1 with science? Why can’t Israel have held a belief latently expressed in Genesis that would conflict with the evolutionary science we know today?
5 February 2010 at 8.35 am
Joseph,
I think your criticism is basically correct. Your solution is a much better one as well, IMO. Why not just say that the Israelites had the same cosmology as the other ANE people groups living at the same time. Oh yes, because this might mean that the bible has scientific errors and no good Christian within any evangelical/fundamentalist tradition is allowed to say such things. Tenured professors like Walton have to be even more careful lest they find them selves “inquisitioned.”
5 February 2010 at 3.58 pm
Joseph,
I think what you suggested becomes an issue if we believe Genesis One is not only representing incorrect science but teaching it as well. Many of us (I believe) are comfortable with Scripture being situated in different epochs of history, but if Scripture attempts to purport incorrect scientific or anthropological truths, what else may it purport incorrectly. It is one thing to use a faulty culture, and another to express it as inspired didactic literature.
Andrew
8 February 2010 at 9.41 am
What Joseph said. The rigid distinction between material and functional smacks of a concordist view in its own right.
I prefer to rejoice and stand in awe of the concordances that obtain between the cosmology of Gen 1 and modern science, but within the context of expecting that God spoke to ancient Israel through a pre-scientific cosmology.
@Nick: it is not just evangelicals who are loathe to say the Bible has scientific errors. Down through the ages believers Jewish and Christian have chosen to speak of elements in scripture accommodated to the presuppositions of the biblical author’s day rather than to those of our day as consonant with God’s chosen modes of revelation. Since what the Church has to say about Scripture partakes of doxology, to say that the Bible has errors is grating. It would be like me when I officiate at a wedding, rather than hoping and believing all things of the bride and groom, speaking with great objectivity about the faults and shortcomings of each one. Inappropriate.
Gen 1 contradicts core beliefs that were central to those reflected in the cosmologies of ancient Israel’s neighbors. At the same time, Gen 1 connects cosmic time with sacred time (the Sabbath) in a way that makes the text a prophecy of doom and judgment on non-Sabbath keeping humanity, on humanity that is unable to see the world as God sees it, very good. If one listens to Gen 1 carefully, it remains one of the vital and challenging texts in all of scripture
8 February 2010 at 11.43 am
John,
To extend your analogy…we aren’t in the wedding ceremony, and the honeymoon is long over. Rather we are in the midst of marriage counseling session after decades of a struggling loveless marriage, on the verge of divorce.
The evangelical/fundamentalist world is largely estranged and splinted from within; in both doctrine and praxis. Not to mention its inability to speak to an unbelieving world in meaningful sentences. We have lost internal cohesion and external connection; death sentences for the church in the West unless we can somehow turn the tide.
Instead of humility; special pleading, grandstanding and sanctimony have become our (Christians) domain of choice in a large swath of evangelicalism and I think we may be seeing the results of our sins, to be frank. As in Europe so now in North America, society is quickly becoming post Christian and I we have no one we can blame but ourselves.
In the counseling session analogy, it isn’t the time to pick on faults either, here we agree. Nitpicking does no one any good. I don’t want to be unfair to scripture in any way. But maybe its time for the bride (the church) to be honest about who they are and what has happened in her faltering marriage. Maybe if the bride would really be willing to be vulnerable, especially on the things we hold so dear,we wouldn’t be facing all these issues. That is, in my estimation, the key problem – the church fears vulnerability and covers it over with half-truths, poor explanations, bad science and often outright lies. If Jesus isn’t angry with the church in the West, he isn’t paying attention.
In the same way, it’s time, IMO, for the evangelical world to realize that much of the scorn we receive from the unbelieving world has nothing to do with the cross, and has everything to do with our poverty of stewardship. This is why the world hates us, not because we love Christ but because we say dumb things and then cover them over with “It is Written” as if such epitaphs could cover the gaping holes our lack of wisdom leaves. Whats wrong with saying scientific errors? Rabbits are not ruminates, the sun does not rotate around the earth, and Solomon didn’t make two trips to Ophir. These constitute errors; scientific and numerical (and there are others) but so the hell what?
Errors of number and science in the bible are no more shameful than the fact that my Lord and Master Jesus Christ, God of the universe, had to be potty trained. His humanity is not a mark on his deity, nor are errors in the scriptures a mark on God’s voice speaking through them.
Maybe it is just me….but I doubt it. I think the Western Christian world is in a “shape up or ship out” point of her history. And unless we want Western Spirituality to be a footnote in a baker academic book, we might want to reevaluate many of our approaches.
And of course, maybe my insistence on error is wrong; perhaps there is a better term. I am willing to listen, but in the meantime I am just trying to be honest with the phenomena of scripture, the best I can; warts and all.
Thanks for the engagement John,
Nick
8 February 2010 at 8.12 pm
Joe, John, and Nick,
What do you think of this proposition: “Walton’s material/functional distinction is just a safer way of saying order out of chaos.”
10 February 2010 at 10.56 pm
Nick: I sort of see your point. However, I think framing our understanding of Scripture with tags like inerrant or errant misses the whole “function” (to borrow Walton’s term) of the Text. Moreover, it allows modernism and the scientific method to determine the rules of the game.
11 February 2010 at 12.00 pm
Brandon,
I guess I see Walton’s move as being a little too concordantist leaning for where I am.
Genesis 1 can have accommodation, functional/material splits, temple imagery, chaoskampf, historicized myth, etc. I am fine with all that. All of these may be relevant ways of seeing the text and some have a lot of merit, (specifically, IMO, the last two)
One can also approach it from a variety of views; YEC, OEC, Day/Age Theory, Gap Theory, Theistic Evolution, and a few others. None of these methods works, IMO, as they all (even theistic evolution which I sometimes label myself with for communications sake,) fail to grasp the intent of the text towards its original audience. In fact, ironically enough, the least scientific of the above views is probably the most textually aware; near sided as it is.
In the end of the day, however, I read Genesis 1 in the following way.
1.) It declares 6 literal days of creation and a rather odd cosmology from the ancient world.
2.) This cosmology is just wrong, from a scientific perspective
3.) It doesn’t matter because God wasn’t writing an almanac anyway. So the theological message of the text remains even when the cosmological message is wrong.
I’ m sure that leaves some gaping logical problems that many people might drive their own theological mac trucks through, but it really settles a lot of issues for me.
Pax Christi…Nick
11 February 2010 at 10.28 pm
Nick,
Walton seems to agree with the gist of what your saying. For instance, he writes,
“Old World Science” is just a way of talking about views of the world in pre-scientific ancient times (e.g., earth in the center of the universe). Again, Old World Science was characteristic of Israelites as well as all the peoples around.
Clearly he realizes Old World science is technically wrong. So what. The Spirit’s work is to move our hearts through the theological message of these chapters. Thus it makes sense for Walton to highlight that part of the text and not go hunting for errors.
And I find it highly disingenuous, if not slanderous, to claim Walton is censoring his ideas for fear of “inquisition”. How do know that? Do know him personally? Where’s your proof?
12 February 2010 at 12.31 am
Brandon,
I think you may have read a little too much into my previous post. No where have I ever claimed that Walton is censoring his ideas to avoid the hammer of Wheaton (or anyone else, for that matter?) I have no such knowledge, nor have I attempted to imply such ideas in any of my statements.
My statement about tenured professors is not one specifically about Walton, but about evangelicalism in general and how we treat things like academic freedom in our seminaries. In fact I had a very different person in mind,whose tenure became meaningless once what he had written before tenure became politically inopportune for the school; but you should have a pretty clear idea whom I am speaking of at this point.
I have no idea if Walton “moderated his views,” in fact I assume the opposite – that his book rightly reflects his views.
However, this I do claim to be the case. If tomorrow Walton, Beale, or anyone at a conservative seminary decided to declare themselves “theistic evolutionists” or to agree that the bible contains error, or if they converted to roman catholicism or if they breeched a host of other “thou shalt nots” that conservative western Christendom has established as markers of “the true faith:” that their second move better be to begin looking for employment elsewhere.
Hence my statement has little to do with Walton, and everything to do with the Wheatons of this world.
Pax Christi…NIck
12 February 2010 at 9.35 am
Nick,
Sorry if misread your second post, I though you were implying Walton. But I guess not. I agree the kind of iron hand oversight is a problem in conservative schools. But two thoughts. First, all Evangelical seminaries need “some” guard rails or checks and balances so that they stay Evangel-ical. Guarding the faith, like Paul did, against false teachers is worthwhile.
Second, while most conservative Evangelicals are too contrastive for my taste there is signs of sea change. Many on Wheaton’s faculty are egalitarians (and women) and interdisciplinary approaches to Christianity are emerging (e.g. psychology, science, etc). I attended Moody Bible Institute, which is far more conservative, and I knew several “theistic evolutionists” on faculty.
At the same time I realize the unfortunate set of events with certain individuals, like the one you mentioned. From the looks of it you and I agree on evolution, the nature of Scripture, etc. I would just be careful not to be too militant and mean-spirited to our other brothers and sisters in Christ who dogmatically believe in Warfield’s doctrine of inerrancy and young earth creationism.
12 February 2010 at 5.31 pm
Brandon,
Fair enough, I’m sure I can be harsh at times. Probably part of my problem is that (having grown up in the rural south) I have seen repeatedly the abuses of fundamentalistic approaches and how they harm peoples lives. It becomes much more difficult to find perspective coming from such places.
In my wifes family, for instance, at one time all faithful Christians, but now the only one I think might still be a believer is her father (and her, of course.) The attrition rate then in her immediately family alone is 8 out of 10. While not attributable to fundamentalism alone, it has underwritten the very reasons why their faith couldn’t respond to the challenges of thought the world poses. In short I think yhat many of the stances of fundamentalism are actually causing the decay of Christian faith in our country.
So in the same way that seminaries (as you say) have to keep the evangel in evangelical, I wonder if the church ought to start worrying recognizing the “mental” in fundamentalism and calling it for what it is – unbiblical and often silly.
Oh, and seriously theistic evolutionists are moody? I wonder which dispensation they locate the Cambrian extinction in?
Just kidding with that last one brandon.
Pax Christi…Nick
12 February 2010 at 5.34 pm
corrections
…I wonder if the church should start recognizing…
…should read “theistic evolutionists are *at* moody?…