Genesis 1-11, Part 1: Introduction

Thursday, 12 June 2008

Yesterday I met with Kyle Meador and his friend David at Umberto's Pizza (other great people were eating next to us, like Steve Denton and Terry Hall ). Kyle is about to embark on a study of Genesis 1-11 at Rivendell , and he wanted to talk about various aspects of the text. It was a great conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as he moves forward.

In light of that, I thought I would do my own study of Genesis 1-11 and post my thoughts here in the coming weeks. I'm not sure how in-depth it will be, or how many segments it will entail, but we'll see.

Preliminary Thoughts

First, it is important to point out a couple of things what Genesis 1-11 is and is not. Though the stories in these chapters are definitive (they help define the foundation for a people and an understanding of the world and God's relation to it), they are not systematically doctrinal in the terms of laying down point 1, point 2, point 3 of a system of belief. They are stories, and stories--like all good art--in some sense are determined by the "eye of the beholder." This is not to say that they don't (and didn't) have set meaning for doctrinal use, but basically I'm saying that there can be more than one interpretation of these stories which are all methodologically and doctrinally valid.

Second, we must deal with our own doctrinal and traditional baggage. The stories in Genesis 1-11 are stories with which many of us are familiar. Most people from nations affected by Christendom know the stories of Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, and the tower of Babel. Or I should say, we know the traditional versions and interpretations of these stories. Tradition is important, and I'm not saying that we should jettison all of our baggage, but I do think we should check it and see how much of it is needed. We might find that some of it actually gets in the way of our journey and should be discarded. it would be terrible to miss a trip to some exotic paradise because we couldn't bring ourselves to part with a certain pair of socks.

In terms of Scripture study, tradition has a way of allowing us to read into a text content and meaning which isn't there in fact. This can cause serious problems when the tradition takes precedence over the text, denying the text itself. Many times this takes place unconscously--we are so used to the traditional interpretation that we actually think we are reading something we are not. For example, when I was teaching a Life and Teachings of Jesus class I had my students break into groups and read the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. When they were finished I asked each group to tell me what they read. The group from Matthew was certain that they had read about shepherds visiting the baby Jesus (which is only found in Luke) and the group from Luke that they had read about wise men or a star locating Jesus (stories only found in Matthew). Interestingly, both groups were convinced that there were 3 wise men in the story...something which isn't anywhere in the Bible! These are our traditional views of the birth of Jesus found in Christmas cards and such (complete with wise men on camels).

As we read Genesis, we need to examine our baggage, our assumptions, about what the text says.

Third, we need to recognize contextual issues. These are ancient texts written by and for an ancient audience. They did not have our modern word-views, both in terms of cosmology (the way they viewed reality as a whole) and in terms of community (the way they understood human interaction and relationships). This can be difficult, especially when terminology is used in our translations which cause us to connect with our own modern views. For example, when we read "the earth" in Genesis 1 we think "planet earth," a large blue ball orbiting the sun. The ancients would not have understood this concept at all, and when "the earth," ha-aretz in Hebrew, is used they would have just thought of visible dry land. As a matter of fact, that's what eretz means: land. Israel today is called ha-aretz Yisrael, the land (not earth) of Israel. This is a significant difference, and I will attempt to deal with these issues.

Contextual issues in the Scriptures can also be troubling when they present us with a situation that may not be acceptable or comfortable in our own culture. For example, in terms of marriage the ancients had arranged marriages (there was no dating despite how many youth pastors might say there are dating guidelines in the Bible), they often married when they were very young, often married relatives (cousins), and had a male dominated, honor-shame society in which women were considered property and were defined by the ruling male of their family (typically father or husband). Many of these issues trouble us today, but we should not attempt to rationalize away (or ignore) these components in the text to make ourselves more comfortable.

Fourth, and lastly, after we have approached the text in such a way we can begin to ask the question, "what does this mean for us?" The process of interpretation or seeking out of the text (midrash) can happen with a more methodologically solid foundation. It may be that this is the point where we decide to keep our traditional interpretations of the text, or maybe new understandings come into play. This is best done in a group setting with communal implications--but since this is the internet we'll have to do the best we can. Please feel free to use the discussion boards for more interaction.

(image for this post from the Library of Congress exhibit Illuminating the Word: St. John's Bible)

Comments

Add New

RSS