Last time out saw Enns ask the provocative question,
Or, we could hear him out and see if what he says makes sense.
For Enns, Abraham -- whose story begins in Genesis 11 -- holds the key to understanding Genesis's earlier chapters. Here is a man who was called by God from "Ur of the Chaldeans". He was not an Israelite, but a Babylonian, and therefore steeped in its culture. Enns highlights the fact that
When we keep this historical context in mind, the creation and flood accounts in Genesis can be seen in a better light. Abraham would not understand a God who spoke to him in scientific terms, and so it is unreasonable for us to expect the creation account to be a piece of scientific literature. Therefore the reason Genesis looks like other ANE documents is that this way of thinking was normative at the time. Abraham thought like a Babylonian, so it should come as little surprise that God spoke to him as a Babylonian.
So how and why is Genesis different to the Babylonian myths Abraham would have grown up with? Enns suggests that
God didn't transfer Abraham out of the mythic world and into a completely foreign scientific world. He simply "transformed the ancient myths so that Israel's story would come to focus on its God, the real one". Creation was no longer the result of divine feuds (as in Enuma Elish) but the product of the One True God's desire, who spoke things into being.
Enns proceeds to drop another bombshell on our assumptions:
It is worth reading that paragraph again, because it represents the heart of Enns's argument, and challenges the Western man's mind to its very core.
Enns relates his argument back to his Incarnational Analogy, which suggests that we think of Scripture as we think of Christ - both divine and human. The Bible as the word of God is God's words in human words. It "does not imply disconnectedness to its environment. In fact, if we can learn a lesson from the Incarnation of God in Christ, it demands the exact opposite". The accounts in Genesis should not embarrass us because of their similarities to the "myths" surrounding them, but we should instead be thankful that God is a God who stoops down low to our imperfect ways of understanding, and speaks words that make sense to the hearers. In light of the Incarnation,
Why is it that God can’t use the category we call “myth” to speak to ancient Israelites?A witch! A witch! Burn 'im!
Or, we could hear him out and see if what he says makes sense.
For Enns, Abraham -- whose story begins in Genesis 11 -- holds the key to understanding Genesis's earlier chapters. Here is a man who was called by God from "Ur of the Chaldeans". He was not an Israelite, but a Babylonian, and therefore steeped in its culture. Enns highlights the fact that
The Mesopotamian world from which Abraham came was one whose own stories of origins had been expressed in mythic categories for a considerable length of time. Moreover, the land Abraham was going to enter, the land of the Canaanites, was likewise rich in its own mythics.
When we keep this historical context in mind, the creation and flood accounts in Genesis can be seen in a better light. Abraham would not understand a God who spoke to him in scientific terms, and so it is unreasonable for us to expect the creation account to be a piece of scientific literature. Therefore the reason Genesis looks like other ANE documents is that this way of thinking was normative at the time. Abraham thought like a Babylonian, so it should come as little surprise that God spoke to him as a Babylonian.
So how and why is Genesis different to the Babylonian myths Abraham would have grown up with? Enns suggests that
The reason the biblical account is different from its ancient Near Eastern counterparts is not that it is history in the modern sense of the word and therefore divorced from any similarity to ancient Near Eastern myth. 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.
God didn't transfer Abraham out of the mythic world and into a completely foreign scientific world. He simply "transformed the ancient myths so that Israel's story would come to focus on its God, the real one". Creation was no longer the result of divine feuds (as in Enuma Elish) but the product of the One True God's desire, who spoke things into being.
Enns proceeds to drop another bombshell on our assumptions:
...the question is not the degree to which Genesis conforms to what we would think is a proper description of origins. 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 flood was local or universal. The question that Genesis is prepared to answer is whether Yahweh, the God of Israel, is worthy of worship...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. Rather, Genesis makes its case in a way that ancient men and women would have readily understood - indeed, the only way.
It is worth reading that paragraph again, because it represents the heart of Enns's argument, and challenges the Western man's mind to its very core.
Enns relates his argument back to his Incarnational Analogy, which suggests that we think of Scripture as we think of Christ - both divine and human. The Bible as the word of God is God's words in human words. It "does not imply disconnectedness to its environment. In fact, if we can learn a lesson from the Incarnation of God in Christ, it demands the exact opposite". The accounts in Genesis should not embarrass us because of their similarities to the "myths" surrounding them, but we should instead be thankful that God is a God who stoops down low to our imperfect ways of understanding, and speaks words that make sense to the hearers. In light of the Incarnation,
We must resist the notion that for God to enculturate Himself is somehow beneath Him. This is precisely how He shows His love to the world He made.And so it ends (no pun intended). Has Peter Enns convinced you? Have your assumptions been rattled? Have any of your honest questions been answered? Is the notion of the Bible as God's word either clearer or muddier?
No comments:
Post a Comment