For one of my classes this summer, I am reading Kenton L. Sparks’ Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible in which Sparks meticulously draws comparisons and outlines the relationships between the content, form and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures with other texts from periods and people groups predating, consonant with and following the potential dates of authorship of the various biblical texts. While I am barely into this text so far, I have come across some very interesting information.For example, remember the “genealogy” of Genesis 5? In this section of Genesis, 10 persons, from Adam to Noah, are outlined, including their respective lengths of life. As Sparks points out, the “genealogy” in Genesis 5 is oddly out of place in Mesopotamian literature of the time, for the genealogies of other peoples did not include time frames. Rather, they were simply genealogies that outlined the descendency of families and tribes. However, and interestingly, there was a genre of literature that did include chronological information–“king lists.” For example, consider the following Mesopotamian/Sumerian kings list:
Name Length of Reign
- Alulim-------------28,000
- Alagar-------------36,000
- EnmenluAnna-----43,200
- EnmengalAnna----28,800
- Dumuzi------------36,000
- EnsipaziAnna------28,800
- Enmeduranki---21,000
- Ubar-Tutu--------18,600
Obviously, as compared to the “genealogy” of Genesis 5, the chronology listed above is quite exaggerated. However, as Sparks notes, the “chronology” was not based upon a belief in an actual passage of time, but rather represented the identification of the personages with specific astronomic values. He goes on to show, in a later chapter of this book, that the Hebrew “genealogy” functions in a quite similar manner.
Finally, one of the most interesting correlations between the earlier Mesopotamian “king list” and the “genealogy” found in Genesis 5 surrounds the seventh member in each list. According to Sparks, the seventh figure in this particular Mesopotamian king list (Enmeduranki) is recorded to have not died, but “ascended into heaven.” Interestingly enough, the seventh figure in the Genesis 5 list, Enoch, is claimed to have “walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him.” According to traditional interpretations, Enoch’s is an example of one being translated directly to eternal life without passing through the experience of death. Therefore, not only do both lists recite the occurrence that one of the people from the lists “went to heaven,” but moreover, the precise “ordering” of the individual is identical between lists.
Obviously, issues like this raise important questions about the Scriptures, not least of which is the concept of “inspiration.” It would seem that those who hold to a very “strong” or “direct” conception of inspiration would have serious problems with this information. Of course, protagonists of a strong view of inspiration could claim that the relationship is merely coincidental and that while the Sumerian king lists are obviously exaggerated in their recording of the length of lives of the kings, the Hebrew “genealogy” records accurate information. Obviously, there is no way in which to completely overrule this possibility. However, as Sparks notes, the correlation between the Sumerian king lists and the Hebrew “genealogy” is quite strong and provides for few other conclusions than that the latter is derived from and mimicks the former.***
While some may see this information as destructive to the Scriptures and their role in faith, I disagree wholeheartedly. In my understanding, the relationship between these two documents reveals that the Scriptures, rather than being magically transcribed, were written by real people within a real sitz em Laben that responded to revelation in a honest, embodied way. To attempt to remove the Scriptures from their larger historical context (which would be done if one were to deny the obvious similarities between the Sumerian king lists and the Hebrew “genealogy”) would be ultimately to deny that the Scriptures functioned in any meaningful capacity for the people by whom they were originally written and would represent nothing more than a literary narcissism on the part of the modern interpreter.
Of course, acknowledging the existence of correlations comes at a cost. It forces us to leave behind materialist interpretations of the texts, and stretches us to move beyond the blinders of our modern, hermeneutical prejudices in an attempt to understand and engage with the understanding and worldviews of the various writers of the Scriptures. While definitely a challenge, I believe such an approach will actually make the Scriptures more enriching for the reader, for entering into the sitz em Laben of the original writers will allow us to create an existential connection with them that is not possible when interpretation proceeds exclusively from the paradigms of the modern reader.
*** EDIT: In my original post, I noted, "so strong, both in content and form, that the probability that the latter is not directly related to the former is 4.5 x 10-11, a big number, to say the least." In reviewing my material, I inadvertantly misapplied this statistic. In Sparks' usuage, the probability is applied to the Hebrew utilization of certian numerical sequences (probably derived from astronomical data) and not derivation from the older Sumerian king list. My apologies.
11 comments:
First, let me say that I am not a "direct" inspiriationalist. However, I am concerned that you are capitulating to modern hermeneutics insofar as you are using the historical critical method. I am afraid that everyday Sally and Joe cannot intelligently read their Bibles because they simply dont have the time, money, or intellectual skills to read about these behind the text issues. Thus, the Bible is in the hands of specialists and not the Church, which is, of course, a result of modernity.
Tim, I understand your concerns here. I think I echo them, but in an inverted way. Because of historical/critical methodology, I think it is no longer feasible (and perhaps it was never appropriate) to simply tell people, "believe what the bible says." After all, since we are all prone to historical/critical perspectives (and much of the laity, as you point out, are not equipped to read with this in suspension, if such is even possible), unless people are instructed into more healthy forms of reading/interpretation, they will read Genesis like a history book, Revelation like "foretelling prophecy," etc. like modern textual criticism would tell them to. Therefore, if this kind of information (as in the post) is presented to one who has been told to believe everything the bible says, and this understanding has been mediated through a hermeneutical belief that the bible is history as modern people understand history (etc.), the bible has suddenly been completely undermined in their minds, for the fact that Methuselah probably didn't live to be 900+ years old is enough to bring the whole thing toppling down (because of a false presupposition that has been taught to them, not only by historical/critical modern perspectives, but also by their pastors, youth group leaders, etc.).
Second, on a more philosophical and theological level, I am also concerned you are creating a historical gap between the text and the reader (thus a specialist is needed). This distance then becomes an obstacle to be overcome to find the "true meaning" as it lies behind the text or back in history. If Christians are separated from the meaning of Scripture by history (or any kind of gap) then can we ever get at any meaning at all since our inquiry will necessarily be guided by our contemporary historical/economic/linguisitic/etc situation?
I'm not sure I understand in what way what I've posted has created a "gap" between contexts. I am intrigued by the idea you've raised, though, so could you more fully explain what you mean? Thanks!
Tim, you are forcing me to reveal some information that I'd rather not tell about you ...
Tim--
However, I am still concerned that history and "behind the text" issues get more primacy that the text itself. I think people should be trained to read Scripture well, and when this happens we can tell them to "simply" believe what it says. I think people should be trained to read theologically. Granted this is not easy, but it doesn't require the tedious historical critical work that even the greatest interpreters were without (e.g. Augustine, Aquinas, etc). I think I can figure out that Genesis was not written as a scientific treatise without going behind the text, for example. Theological exegesis requires moral transformation in order to understand Scripture. I am concerned that in your view any joe blow can pick up the text and "get it" without having to change the way he or she lives.
Actually, the point I am writing against is the view within evangelicalsim today that any "joe blow" CAN pick up the text and "get it." Sola Scriptura, so called, has been convuluted so far, IMO, that most Christians in the West truly believe that one can simply pick up the texts and interpret it, that such should be applicable to Christians and non-Christians alike. However, this "easy" approach to Scripture, coupled with propositional beliefs about "inerrancy," simply sets up the untrained interpreter to be overwhelmed, hermeneutically and rhetorically, by those who can utlize historical/critical arguments to undermine the Christian's often uncritical beliefs about Scripture. I completely and enthusiastically agree that the laity should be trained to read theologically, not according to the rules and methodologies of historical/criticism. However, when the evangelical church's conception of "inerrancy" itself assumes and legitimizes the categories of historical criticism (even though it rhetorically rejects them), it is difficult to see a way forward that does not involve a complete reorientation to how the church views and approaches and interprets the Scriptures (something to which I do not think you would be opposed).
On the "gap" issue: I don't want what the text meant to be the only meaning or even the primary meaning of Scripture. In other words, I don't first need to find out what it meant before I can understand it thereby creating a historical gap between Scripture and reader. First, to close this gap requires much conjecture and historical reconstruction (e.g. reconstructing the Johanine community or the church at Corinth to cite some easy examples), which, of course, is always hypothetical. Thus, it is simply impossible to ever get at what the text "really" meant in a definitive way. Second, these constructions and conjectures are likely to end up controlling the text itself thereby silencing it. Thus, what we have in the canon becomes ancilliary to historical research and history no longer serves the text. I hope this clarifies some.
Thanks for the clarification and further elucidation. I think I see better what you are saying. I agree that what the text "meant" does not encapsulate the fully meaning of the text. I also agree that definitively and absolutely determining the original "meaning" of the text is, in fact, impossible. But as in the above, my comments (and admittedly I failed to specify this in my post) are focused on the state of the evangelical church's current assumptions and approaches to the texts. Not only do many interpreters, both "professional" and lay, believe that determining the orignal meaning of the text is possible, but they further believe that this is, in fact, consonant with the superficial readings of the text, both historically/critically AND theologically. Therefore, while I agree that the historical/critical considerations should not dominate our understanding of the text, there is still--I believe--a necessary role that historical/critical studies have to play in developing our theological methodologies of interpretation.
Thanks, as always, for the discussion!
Exist,
As I read your post and discussion with Tim I was reminded of Dr. Stone's feeling that we learn Hebrew so that we are disoriented in our encounter with the text and we have to see it again for the first time. It's easier to work around our bias. I think that proper historical research can do the same thing. It reminds the reader that the text is prior to her/him and it is the text that shapes the reader, not the other way around.
With that said, a couple of comments. First, how did the guy come up with 4.5 x 10-11, I mean come on. This is a made up number. Not that I disagree with the connection, but where does the guy get the number?
Second, I find it interesting that you confrontations are so much with the overly evangelical or whatever you want to call them. I am surrounded by the opposite end of the spectrum where I may have to convince some that the Bible is on a different level than the Sumerian list you cited. Here the Scripture text is reduced to the purely historical occurrance. I guess the problem that you write about is a blind subjectivity, whereas there is also a blatant subjectivity from the opposite pole. Either way, the text seems to be robbed of all its intended meaning.
Mofast--
As I read your post and discussion with Tim I was reminded of Dr. Stone's feeling that we learn Hebrew so that we are disoriented in our encounter with the text and we have to see it again for the first time. It's easier to work around our bias. I think that proper historical research can do the same thing. It reminds the reader that the text is prior to her/him and it is the text that shapes the reader, not the other way around.
This is an interesting way to look at this issue. Thanks for sharing that.
With that said, a couple of comments. First, how did the guy come up with 4.5 x 10-11, I mean come on. This is a made up number. Not that I disagree with the connection, but where does the guy get the number?
While I'm not entirely sure how he arrived at the number, I would suppose that it has to do with the number of direct and indirect correlations between the two texts and the reasonble certainty that one can ascribe to their relatedness. THis may be a terrible example, but think of the knock-off designer watches. While one could, potentially, maintain that the resemblence between ROLEX and POLEX is merely coincidental, after a while the similarities become so great (similar name, identical style, they are both watches, etc.) that maintaining the probability of coincidence simply becomes absurd.
However, this still does not answer your specific question about the number. Given the fact that I barely passed Stats class in college, I would suggest that the number, like all numbers, is purely arbitrary, if for no other reason than to spite my college teacher...
Second, I find it interesting that you confrontations are so much with the overly evangelical or whatever you want to call them. I am surrounded by the opposite end of the spectrum where I may have to convince some that the Bible is on a different level than the Sumerian list you cited. Here the Scripture text is reduced to the purely historical occurrance. I guess the problem that you write about is a blind subjectivity, whereas there is also a blatant subjectivity from the opposite pole. Either way, the text seems to be robbed of all its intended meaning.
This, like Tim's alternative perspective, has caused me to reevaluate the way in which I responded to my studies. Obviously, a much more nuanced response is warranted. Thanks for the interaction!
This is way out my league...
But I found something that might be of interest to you, if you are willing to read it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/sumerian.asp
I'd love to hear your response...
Thanks Exist,
Austin
Austin--
But I found something that might be of interest to you, if you are willing to read it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/sumerian.asp
I'd love to hear your response...
I read the majority of the article, and I'm not entirely sure how to respond to it. First of all, I don't know that a atmospheric scientist is the best authority to tackle this complicated issue. Secondly, I was a little turned off by how he opened his essay. For example, consider the following quotation:
Although there are other, non-biblical, references to the antediluvian era, there is no other document in all of the extant records of the ancient world that provides the detailed and coherent information found in the book of Genesis. The Genesis account gives us a glimpse into that obscure portion of the history of mankind, and provides information for a chronology of that period. It has, nevertheless, been criticized by non-Christians as well as liberal theologians as being mythological, or at best symbolic and incomplete.
Although I will be the first to admit that total objectivity is impossible in approaching any subject, the author of this essay does not even attempt such, and clearly reveals that the purpose of his essay is to denounce the conclusions of "non-Christians, as well as liberal theologians," clearly an ad hominem argument.
Nonetheless, I read his paper, and despite all that he goes into, his reasons for inverting the relationship between the two documents is very telling about his methodology.
For example, consider Reason 1: "the Genesis account has more numerical precision and more detailed information..." Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what numerical precision has to do with proof that the Sumerian list was based upon the Hebrew text, nor do I understand why "more detailed" information equates to "more accuracy."
Reason 2: "The ages of the patriarchs are much more reasonable than the extremely long reigns of the kings of the Kings List, the account is much more realistic and true to life." This is clearly a methodological error on the author's behalf, for he assumes that 900 year life spans are "more reasonable" than extremely long lives. As an aside, to creatures who live about 100 years at most, 900 years is just as unreasonable as 26000. Besides, this assumes, wrongly, as I would assert, that these "chronologies" were meant to be taken in a modern, historical sense. Quite contrarily, as many of the king lists were used as propaganda to legitimate the rule of kings (by associating them with the "ancients" of the past--see Sparks), we should not expect that the ancient writers meant for the texts to be interpreted according to the categories of modern historical/critical methodologies. The author, however, improperly imposes this modern historical/critical assumption upon the text, and makes it the basis of his conclusion.
Reason 3: "and, the moral and spiritual qualities are immensely superior. For example, in the Sumerian account of the Flood (as given in the Gilgamesh epic) there is no reason given for the decision of the gods to destroy mankind. There are no allusions at all to a fault committed by man. The Flood appears as a capricious act of the gods rather than a divine punishment. In Genesis, however, God purposes to purge mankind because the thoughts and designs of men were continually evil, and the Earth was full of violence." Just like with his introduction, the author extends his personal biases onto the ancient texts, claiming that texts which have "superior moral and spiritual qualities" (which are, of course, determined by this author...) help to establish the issue of "accuracy." This is clearly nonsense.
All of this said, the author clearly rejects the accepted dating of the Sumerian king lists (c.a., 2000 BCE) and makes the wild assertion that the Sumerian king lists were actually based upon the Hebrew texts, even though he provides no explanation for how these documents would have come to bear upon the Sumerian writers (Sparks, contrarily, offers that the Hebrews came into contact with the Sumerian king lists during the exilic period which, he assumes, is the context for the composition of many of the "priestly" portions of the Pentateuch).
Obviously, I come from a biased perspective, so my critique is not objective by any means. However, this article seems like what I've come to see as common tactics of AIG to deploy PhD's (regardless of whether they are relevant to the field of discussion in question) to write articles that do not critically interact with the extant literature (notice Lopez's nearly non-existent footnotes and bibliography). After briefly searching the internet, I have not found a single place in which a critical authority has interacted with Lopez's offering. Usually, there are good reasons for non-interaction on scholarly issues, none of them good for Lopez's case.
This is an interesting way to look at this issue. Thanks for sharing that.
LOL. I've heard this answer many a time as the teacher shakes his or her head and moves on to the student with the right answer.
I just threw the Dr. Stone idea in there because the study makes the interpreter stop and reach some sort of Piaget's disequilibrium (hopefully). This would help to stop your fear that any joe picks up the Bible and hammers away at people, totally reading it subconsciously as if it were his words.
mofast--
I hope you know that was not my intention...
No, I didn't think that was your intention. However, that idea struck me as funny.
Here's the stuff from Dr. Stone.
Lawson's Laws
It's a good read and along the lines that you are talking about.
Thanks for your ideas. I agree that he is sort of out of his field of expertise on this one. I wonder if he origianlly wrote this during his undergrad studies???
I look forward to future studies and discussion.
God Bless,
Austin
Post a Comment