Followers

Showing posts with label John Walton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Walton. Show all posts

Sunday, March 31, 2019

Cosmologies of the Ancient Near East



Great Hypostyle Hall within the Karnak temple complex

Alice C. Linsley

I am often asked to offer an opinion on the popular work of Dr. John Walton (Wheaton College) and will do so briefly in this post.

John Walton's conclusion that Genesis 1 reflects a seven-tiered Babylonian temple imposes a later period onto a narrative that has both a Babylonian layer and a much earlier Nilotic layer. I believe his understanding of the cosmos as a celestial temple is correct. However, the temples that Abraham knew were pillared Sun Temples at high elevation near sources of water. These were the pattern for the temples built by the Horite Hebrew at Nekhen on the Nile (4000 BC) and the temple built by Solomon (c. 950 BC) in Jerusalem.

The Babylonian temple had seven tiers because the number seven represented the number of visible celestial bodies: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. The architecture was intended to express a celestial reality on earth. The temple became the archetype of the heavens above, a common architectural phenomena among ancient populations as Mircea Eliade demonstrated in his book The Sacred and the Profane.




The celestial bodies were sometimes depicted as bowls from which curses and blessings were poured out on the earth. The worst possible curse involved seven bowls or a seven-fold pouring. Cursing or "incantation bowls" such as the one shown above have been found in Mesopotamia and Egypt. This Egyptian cursing dates to 3000 B.C.

The bowls are mentioned in Revelation 15:7 as containing God's wrath. The Greek word for wrath is orge, the same word that appears in Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

Clearly, biblical populations conceived of the cosmos in different ways. Further, scholars recognize that the conception of the cosmos changed over time. The one consistent theme is that heaven and earth are connected. This connection is expressed in the story of Jacob's ladder and Paul’s mystical experience of being taken to the third heaven. By Paul's time Jewish thinkers conceived of heaven as having seven tiers similar to the stepped temples of Babylon. Dr. Walton interprets the seven days of creation in this light. He focuses on this cultural context, which is not the context of Abraham and his ancestors.

It is misleading to generalize the cosmology of the Ancient Near East based on a single period and cultural context. Not all biblical populations viewed the earth as flat, or as a bowl like dome (raqiya or rakiya) above. Some viewed the cosmos has having multiple layers of the firmament and other layers beneath the earth. Generally, the cosmos has been perceived as 3-tiered: the realm above (heaven), the plane of earth's surface (between the east and west), and the "deep" under the earth.

 The Apostle Paul speaks of being taken to the "third heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12. In the Second Book of Enoch, chapter 8, the third heaven is described as the heaven "whereon the Lord rests, when he goes up into paradise."

It is likely that Abraham was influenced by the Nilotic cosmology in which the plane of earth was what was visible from the eastern horizon to the western horizon. As a Hebrew, Abraham would have conceived of the cosmos as the earth and the visible firmament that stretched from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun. Among the ancient Hebrew the sun was the emblem of the Creator (Ra/Ani) and his son (Horus/Enki). The sun was believed to inseminate the earth and to overshadow those divinely appointed to rule.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows forth his handywork...Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." (Psalm 19:1-6)

The Hebrew also conceived on earth resting on pillars. Genesis 1 is layered with both Babylonian and earlier Nilotic elements. The young earth had many active volcanoes. Some were above the surface (extrusive) and others were beneath the surface (instrusive). Many volcanic eruptions took place under the sea. According to Genesis 1 God separated the dry land from the sea as one of the first acts of creation. We can imagine a great sea with steam rising from deep underwater fissures in the earth. Now imagine volcanoes rising up from the sea. These are the "pillars of the earth" described in Psalm 72, Job 9:6, and I Samuel 2:8.

Job 9 speaks of God "Who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble." I Samuel 2:8 - "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s and he had set the world upon them." Among Abraham's Nilotic ancestors the original volcanic mound that emerged from the sea was called TaTJaNuN which means the "twin pillars of God in the water."

Pillars were used to mark sacred places, royal tombs, and the entrances to temples. In the Ugaritic creation story the twin mountains likewise are indicated by the sign T. The mountains Trgzz and Trmg emerged from a universal ocean and held up the firmament. The temples that Abraham knew were pillared Sun Temples.




The twin pillars at the entrance to Solomon's temple (shown above) cast back to the Nilotic conception of the Earth (ki in Akkadian) as a pillared temple for the Sun. It may be that "ra-ki-ya" refers to the place above earth were the Creator Ra was thought to dwell. It certainly is related to the concept of vastness or an expanse (Ancient Egyptian rahbo - vast; Akkadian rabum, great, vast).

It was common for pillars to be inscribed in memory of righteous rulers and holy ancestors as stained glass windows in churches are dedicated to royal patrons and "pillars" of the congregation. The entrance pillars of Solomon's temple were called Boaz and Joktan. Boaz was Solomon's holy ancestor on his father's side and Joktan was a holy ancestor on his mother's side.


Monday, March 23, 2015

Dr. John Walton on Genesis


"If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available) it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say." -- John H. Walton, Ph.D (From here.)


Dr. John Walton

In recent years, John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, has been both lauded and criticized for his interpretation of Genesis 1–2. In his 2009 landmark book, The Lost World of Genesis One (InterVarsity Press), he argued that to rightly understand Genesis 1—an ancient document—we need to read it within the context of the ancient world. Read alongside other ancient texts, he says, Genesis 1 is not about how God made the world, but about God assigning functions to every aspect of it. In 2013, Walton contributed a chapter in Four Views on the Historical Adam (Zondervan). There he argued that Adam was a historical person, but also that Adam’s primary function in Scripture is to represent all of humanity. For Walton, Genesis 1–2 is not concerned about human material origins, but rather about our God-given function and purpose: to be in relationship with God and work alongside him, as his image bearers, in bringing continued order to our world.

Read the full Christianity Today interview here.


What do you think?

Is Genesis 1-2, not about human origins?

Is Genesis 1-2 about relationships, function and purpose?

Is Adam a historical person in Genesis 1-2?

Does Adam represent all humanity in Genesis 1-2?

What is the original cultural context of Genesis 1-2?

What are the more important aspects of Genesis in Dr. Walton's thinking?

What are the first two Messianic references in Genesis?

I would be interested in readers' responses to these questions.


Related reading: The Themes of Genesis 1-3; Is Genesis Really About Human Origins?; Adam and Eve as Meta-Historical Ancestors; Adam Was a Red Man; Peter Leithart on John Walton's Lost World of Genesis One; The Dangers of Concordism; Facebook Conversation on Creationism


Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Peter Leithart on John Walton's Lost World of Genesis 1


John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis 1 promises a lot. It offers what Walton calls a “face-value” and “literal” reading of Genesis 1, but one that sidesteps the problems of attempting to reconcile science and the Bible. For Walton, creationist readings and concordist readings that attempt to correlate Genesis 1 with contemporary scientific theory both miss the point and read “modern” questions into an ancient text that was not designed to answer those questions.

Walton’s treatment of the “days” of Genesis 1 illustrates the cleverness of his solution: With young earth creationists, he claims that Genesis 1:1-2:4 describes a seven-day sequence, and that the days must be interpreted as normal 24-hour days (90-91). Yet he doesn’t think that Genesis 1 implies anything at all about the age of the material universe. Christians can rely on science to tell us how old the earth is.

The two main planks of Walton’s argument are, first, his claim that Genesis 1, being ancient cosmology, should be read like an ancient cosmology, and, second, the claim that ancient cosmologies present not a “material” ontology but a “functional” one. According to the “modern” materialist ontology, a thing is when it comes into material existence; on this view, to “create” means to bring something into material existence. According to ancient ontology, though, a thing is when it has been assigned and equipped to play a role in an ordered system; to “create” doesn’t mean to bring something into existence but to give something (that might already exist) its place in an order. For ancients, a thing is “by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system” (24).

Genesis 1, he argues, is concerned with function rather than with material origination. Walton believes that God brought material things into being (96); he doesn’t think, however, that this is what Genesis 1 is about. Overall, it’s about God’s organization of the world as a cosmic temple. More specifically, things are not made de novo in Genesis 1 but are assigned their proper position in that cosmic temple. The sun had been shining for a long time before the week of Genesis 1 begins; what happens during that week is not the formation of the ball of burning gas but the placement of the sun with the moon and stars in the firmament as signs, for appointed times, etc. Pre-existing heavenly bodies are given new functions in relation to humanity. Presumably too human beings of some stripe had existed for a long, long time, but they are assigned a new role as priests of God’s cosmic temple during the seven days of “creation.” That is what it means in Genesis 1 for God to “create” heaven and earth.

Read it all here.


Thursday, August 20, 2009

The Danger of Concordism


"If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available) it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say." -- John H. Walton, Ph.D (From here.)

Dr. Walton received his Ph.D from Hebrew Union College and is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College.


Related reading:  Review of Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate; Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology