>I don't accept the equivocation of Adam and Eve presented in a Mesopotamian
context equals Adam and Eve were therefore Mesopotamian (as Dick would
suggest). I would point out to the many blue-eyed, fair skinned and fair
haired Jesus paintings that can be found. Just because a presentation of a
historical figure is placed into a foreign context does not mean that the
historical figure is FROM that context! Thus because I don't accept your
assumption I don't have to accept your conclusion!
Upon Ray's comment:
>The concordist position that 'Genesis complements the evolutionary
>record' actually conflates two complements. First, the Genesis text
>complements the context of the times. I think that places Genesis as
>legend (literary context) within Mesopotamian prehistory (social
>context). Dick Fischer pointed to the Ubaid as the social
>context for the stories of Adam and Eve. I agree.
Deserves further comment:
Unlike the portraits of a blue-eyed Jesus, the context of the stories
of Adam and Eve are Mesopotamia. The garden is watered by the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers, no? Furthermore, during the Ubaid (the wet Neolithic)
four rivers flowed into the northern edge of the Persian Gulf. What say
you of this?
Notably Bill commented on the second aspect of condcordism:
>I think it's fair to say that Genesis teaches about origins in a way that
allows -- even encourages -- evolutionary interpretation[see below]. But I
think it's a mistake to claim it teaches evolution as it is currently
understood by the scientific community. (And I know you didn't say that,
but I want to rule out any possibility that you will be misinterpreted) By
this I am not intending to claim that it teaches evolution as it will
someday be understood by the scientific community. That's not its intent.
Its intent is to teach about God's activity in creation in a way that can
be understood by all generations. Of necessity, that means it will not
agree in all details with the current scientific views of any era.
Which also deserves comment:
Concordism, of course, assumes God's creative activity. The play
that is concordism starts with the verse after Genesis 1.1. Why the
six days? Notably, the division of a continuum of creation time
into days is echoed in our modern investigation of the evolutionary
record, which breaks the continuum of evolutionary time into periods
of interest, such as the Pliocene. That is why I like a day to age
'match'. The point of view is aesthetic, not scientific. However,
the beauty of the perspective will be judged by criteria, such as
consilience, that are similar to the way scientific theories are judged.
Finally, Glenn wondered:
> ... how you concord a vision as presented in Genesis 1
with the evolutionary record. The order of events is so out of proper order
only by an ad hoc assumption of making overlapping days can the order be
correlated with the evolutionary record.
Inspires one to look through Adam's eyes:
Visions often present two facets: A view and a commentary upon
what is being viewed. Visualization and meaning. When I look at Genesis
1, I find some phrases that may be regarded as visualizations (of
a corresponding period of evolutionary history) and other phrases
that do not fit. If I put those 'phrases that do not fit'
together, I find that they have something in common. They'image'
the importance of the corresponding period. They are like meaning.
For example, the 'creation of plants' (day three), would be
a statement of meaning within the context of a creation day that
aesthetically corresponds to the formation of the earliest continents
(visualize as dry land) and the earliest evidence of life
(visualize as vegetative and bearing according to its own kind).
If you asked the question:
What is this purple gunk on these rocks?
while pointing to a bacterial growth in the Archean, I
suspect that
'These will someday become plants yeilding seed'
would be an answer that any discerning Neolithic would relate to.
Once routinized, a legend formed by this type of vision might
lose the original sense of what was visualized and what
was experienced as commentary. Thus, a modern reconstruction
of 'Genesis as vision' could not ignore the metaphor of 'Genesis
as archaeological artifact'. The artistic weighing used in
designating phrases as 'visual' or 'meaningful' recalls
a sense of the archaeological project itself, where artifacts
imply but do not articulate 'intent'.
Thus, the aesthetic perspective that Genesis 1 holds a 'two-tiered'
resemblance to the evolutionary record inspires two metaphors,
'Genesis 1 as vision' and 'Genesis 1 as archaeological artifact'.
These two metaphors, in turn, cohere to the two facets of
concordism, where Genesis 1 not only points to our modern
understanding of the evolutionary record, but also points from
a moment in prehistory where we, as humans, had just stepped out
a primordial way of being into revolt.
Ray