Can an honest, intelligent person hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis? Is it even remotely possible that this ancient book is accurate?
As we begin to look at what history has to say concerning God, it's necessary to at least acknowledge the debate over Genesis. Future articles will explore Genesis more in depth, including the issue of what a "day" means and whether the Garden of Eden is literal or allegorical. However, it is necessary to at least point out that one does not need to write off Genesis - including a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis - in order to remain rational, sane, and intelligent.
Authorship
Central to the controversy is the question of authorship. Who wrote Genesis? Traditionally, Genesis has been understood as the work of Moses. Indeed, in the narrowest sense, the Torah (or Pentateuch) refers to the "Five Books of Moses." Until the Enlightenment, the tradition was more or less universally upheld.
The Enlightenment inspired a wave of biblical textual criticism that called this tradition into serious question. The outcome of this, insofar as the Pentateuch was concerned, was that it was the product of several scribes identified as J=Jahwist, E=Elohist, D=Deuteronomistic, History, P=Priestly Code. The theory of J,E,D,P authorship has also been questioned and analyzed at great length. It must be pointed out, however, that the evidence supporting this multiple-scribe theory is driven, in part, by literary analysis and certain consequent suppositions. There has been no hard evidence strong enough to overturn the traditional association of Moses with the Pentateuch. More than likely, Moses utilized records handed down to him from previous patriarchs such as Abraham. In addition, Moses' work was probably edited later by scribes such as Ezra, who most scholars believe had a major part in the assembling of the Jewish Scriptures in their final semi-canonized collection. However, no one has convincingly disputed the traditional belief that Moses was the central figure in writing the Pentateuch, including Genesis.
It can also be said rather safely that, given the attestation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the meticulous practices of Jewish scribes, that the Genesis of antiquity pretty closely resembles the Genesis we have today. In other words, Genesis as it was written by Moses is essentially the same Genesis we have available today.
Genesis Under Fire
The book of Genesis can be divided (broadly speaking) into two parts: Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50. The latter part is clearly history. One can see this in its literary form and based upon the corroboration of archaeology and other known historical events. (This is not to suggest that all of Genesis 12-50 has been confirmed. Such would not be possible given the scarcity of records in ancient history. But Genesis 12-50 is consistent with and plausible in light of what we know concerning ancient history). It is the first part of Genesis (chapters 1-11) that have come under the greatest scrutiny and have inspired the most intense controversy.
Future articles (planned for 2007) will explore the specifics of Genesis 1-11 (Creation, the Flood, etc.) but it is important to understand the single most significant element to the controversy.
Any analysis or evaluation of Genesis 1-11 will be determined according to one's presuppositions of God's existence. A perfect example of this is Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. In Letter, Harris writes: "[M]more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue."
Look carefully at that quote. He is obviously arguing that it's impossible for the cosmos to be created after the Sumerians invent glue. Fair enough. Any rational person would go along with that. Game over then........right? Well.......not quite. The argument destroys fundamentalist Christianity or any literal understanding of Genesis only if Harris' premise (that the Sumerians did in fact invent glue 7,000 years ago) is correct.
The problem with dating events, societies, cultures, and people of ancient history is that it is not a precise science. For one thing, the calendars (to the extent that ancient societies even used them) were varied and flawed. So, we can't go back and establish when the Sumerians invented glue with the same degree of certainty that we can say Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Dating ancient events, peoples, etc. requires estimating based on a modern template.
What about that modern template? Modern science's dating methods - from archaeology to earth science - depend on NATURALISTIC uniformatarianism. In other words, modern science estimates ancient artifacts according to assumptions that preclude, among other things, supernatural intervention. Should we necessarily fault science for this? Of course not. Science can't calculate the supernatural, and must work with what it has in front of it.
The problem emerges when science uses naturalistic assumptions to "PROVE" that the supernatural doesn't exist. You, the reader, may say: "Wait! Science doesn't do that. Science doesn't take a position on God." Well then, what about Sam Harris' cheap shot about the Sumerians and their glue? While honest, disciplined scientists may not take these types of shots, authors like Harris or even ordinary people do so all the time. They cite the findings of naturalistic science to try to disprove God.
You can't have it both ways. If science wants to stay neutral on God, then it must also stay neutral on the book of Genesis. A person who understands this and seeks to follow it with integrity will not cast aspersions on elements of the Judeo-Christian faith, unless they are verifiably wrong and grossly harmful to society.
The proper response of secular science to a Christian holding onto Genesis should be: Outside of God's intervention in the world, we estimate the earth to be roughly 4.5 billion years old. We understand that these calculations do not take into account the possibility of God's intervention, which would impact our calculations considerably."
Accordingly, a Christian can be smart, honest, and fair-minded and say: "Genesis is true if God is real and if Genesis accurately reflects God's revelation to the human race." Why? Because if God is real and He has intervened in the natural universe like the Bible claims He has, then modern science's naturalistic presuppositions and calculations would be thrown off. Specifically then, the Sumerians invented glue prior to when Genesis records God creating the universe only if the presuppositions and calculations of modern science are correct. We cannot know with certainty that this is the case.
Therefore, as a person looks at history for evidence for or evidence against God, the considerations outlined in this argument MUST be kept in mind. Much of how we understand and measure history depends on whether we are initially predisposed to believe in or reject the possibility of God -- whether we are open to the supernatural or fixated exclusively on the natural.
It's sad that more people can't approach Genesis with this understanding. The book of Genesis may, in fact, be true. Modern science cannot say with certainty whether it is or isn't. And neither can Sam Harris. If more people accepted this, there would be a lot less yelling and a lot more harmony and understanding.
As to the truth of Genesis....well...this all puts things ultimately where they belong - in God's court.
