Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive
Commentary on Genesis 1-11.
By Joseph Blenkinsopp,
New York
and London: T
and T Clark International, 2011, xii + 214 pp., $100.00 paper.
Joseph
Blenkinsopp, with a brilliant mind and admirable ability to write,
is a Catholic scholar of considerable merit. He is Emeritus Professor
of Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. His research is obviously
familiar with rabbinic, patristic and medieval literature and he quotes with
ease from the works of Homer, Hesiod, Plato, Shakespeare, Donne, Cowper,
Nietzsche, and Barth.
The author adopts a format that assumes
creation cannot be restricted to an event, nor to two versions of an event.
He sees the biblical record as descriptive of an allegorical sequence:
creation - uncreation - recreation. He utilizes speculative discussion rather
than systematic exposition. His view
of Genesis is best summarized by his statement: “… the Biblical text is a
relatively late Hebrew-language version of a literary mythic tradition of
great antiquity” (page 132). He relies
heavily on the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, also called the JEDP theory, in
which: J=Jahwist, E=Elohist, D=Deuteronomistic History, and P=Priestly Code. He sees these
as the “sources” of the patchwork literary quilt of the Hebrew Bible. Blenkinsopp never explains or defends this
theory but simply assumes that his readers know it and accept it as
foundational.
|
Blenkinsopp, then, assumes Genesis to be
composed of fragmented myths about Creation, the Flood, early man, and Hebrew
origins. He contends these legends were orally assembled, and redacted through
the centuries after being adapted from Mesopotamian mythology. He suggests the Pentateuch may have reached
its final form as late as the Post-Exilic Period (538-432 B.C.).
The author is willing to allow for any
interpretation of Genesis chapter one except “a straightforward chronological
reading of the chapter” (page 20). He insists that the “ex nihilo” view of
creation, though accepted by Judaism and New Testament Christianity, is not the
preferred interpretation from a “linguistic and exegetical point of view” (page
30). The author finds it necessary to remind his readers that science assures
us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the catastrophic extinction
of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago “led eventually to the emergence of
mammals, including humans” (page 5).
There is not even the whisper of an acknowledgement that many Biblical
scholars and competent scientists dispute this evolutionary tale; there is not
in the bibliography a single entry that would indicate that Blenkinsopp
has read any defense of a literal six-day creation; to be fair he does mention
“creation science” (page131); nor would he be comfortable with a framework
hypothesis for Genesis one and two. Such omission must be intentional
considering the author’s acumen and ability.
Given Blenkinsopp’s view of God, which could be charitably described as
open theism, it is probably inaccurate to describe his view as theistic
evolution.
Speculative discussion
serves Blenkinsopp’s purpose better as he promotes Genesis
1 – 11 as mythology; his view is that the Bible has no
more credibility or reliability than any other ancient Near Eastern (ANE)
mythology. He is clearly conversant and
comfortable with a plethora of mythologies and indicates they all have a
contribution to make in understanding human origins and specifically the
question of evil.
Blenkinsopp includes a
litany of speculative mythology including Adam’s “first” wife as Lilith or
perhaps a serpent-goddess. He is certain that there is no connection between
“Adam” and sin but finds perhaps an allegorical explanation of the nature of
death. His ethical concerns consist of how humanity can deal with a damaged
world “into which we, like the first parents, have been thrust” (page 19).
He also is very much
exercised over the long-term detriment of the concept of original sin and how
that has adversely affected the advance of feminism. Blenkinsopp leaves little
doubt about his dismissal of original sin; he laments, “This unfortunate
tradition of denigration, in which male fear of the female played, and
continues to play, a significant part, was perpetuated in Early Christianity”
(page 79). The “traditional” view of original sin offends “our modern
sensitivities” (page 80).
The author concludes, that Genesis 1 – 11, while not inerrant nor
infallible, can provide us with “often surprising resources for understanding
our place in the world, opening up new perspectives, and suggesting fresh
points of entry into a revelation and worldview that can free us to go beyond
our mundane formulations and taken-for-granted assumptions” (page190). What that revelation might be or what value
that worldview might have, Blenkinsopp is perhaps reserving for another book.
There may be some value in
such a book in a study of ANE mythology; its rambling format makes it less suitable
for reference. The book could be useful
for graduate students to observe the clear incompatibility the Graf-Wellhausen
Hypothesis with the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.
David
Pitman
Temple Baptist College, Cincinnati, OH
No comments:
Post a Comment