Glenn has clearly articulated the motivation for concordist interpretations
of creation narratives in the Bible. The motivation (but not the
concordist solution) resonates with me too. We've got to be able to tell
people why we take the Bible so seriously (by "seriously" I do not mean
that we deny the humor in the Bible, but rather that we consider the Bible
to be of unsurpassed importance, to convey God's truth).
Glenn asked:
>... theistic evolutionists generally teach that the Bible
>stories are not real history. So why should someone ...
>believe them if they admittedly aren't real?
>...how do you get someone to go to the source
>who doesn't think it is the source and thinks it is highly flawed?
The following is from "Creation in the Bible," an essay by Richard J.
Clifford, S.J., published in _Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common
Quest for Understanding_ edited by Russel, Stoeger, and Coyne (1988,
Vatican Observatory).
"Ancients often reported creation as drama ...Ancients devised new stories,
or wove variations into existing ones, when they wished to explain fresh
elements of their world. It is not always easy for moderns, for whom a
story typically is either entertainment or illustration, to regard story
itself as a carrier of serious meaning. Moderns expect a creation theory
with its empirical reference to be able to explain all the data, to be
compatible with other verifiable theories and data. Failure to do so makes
the hypothesis suspect. There is a drive toward complete and coherent
explanation. The criterion of truth for ancient cosmogonies, on the other
hand, is dramatic, the plausibility or usefulness of the story. In one
sense it is no less empirical than the scientific account (it draws upon
observation), but its verisimilitude is measured differently." (pp. 156-157)
I'm trying to learn to measure the verisimilitude of the Bible's creation
stories in that different manner of which Clifford speaks. I'm trying to
appreciate how the Old Testament creation stories, in sharp contrast to the
cosmogonies of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, showed true aspects of
God's character and will, aspects that fit with the more complete
revelation of God's character and will given to us in the person of Jesus
Christ, and frankly fit better with the unity of creation that science
itself shows us.
When people (like my own sons) ask for evidence that Jesus existed I can
give them factual, historical evidence independent of the Bible (as well as
evidence within the Bible). Similar kinds of analytical (modern-style)
evidence is available to support my belief in Christ's resurrection, though
that is less in amount than is available to support the mere existence of
the man Jesus of Nazareth. When people ask why I consider Genesis 1-11
important and true (true in Clifford's sense), my short answer is that
Jesus considered the Jewish Bible to be important and true. My long answer
would probably be more like the answer some believing Jews would also give:
the Biblical authors' writings appear inspired with truth about God, about
people, and about the meaning and purpose of life. Clifford concludes his
essay:
"Granted the diversity between ancient and modern world views, do the
biblical accounts of creation still hold meaning for moderns, who
distinguish sharply between scientific explanation and religious
interpretation? They do. The biblical authors' multiple versions of the
creation event show their interest lay not in providing a factual chronicle
but in affirming the divine intent of graciousness and in expressing God's
majestic power over all things." (p. 167)
Chuck Austerberry
cfauster@creighton.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 10 2000 - 16:25:14 EST