Audio Lectures by Father Thomas Hopko - The Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia
Written Observation by Fr Symeon Elias - The Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A.
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation, Jan. 17, 1961.
Audio Only may be streamed or downloaded. MP3 file.
Audio Only may be streamed or downloaded. MP3 file.
Apr 20, 2010
| Darwin and Christianity - Part 7: The Genesis Account (part 1)
In his continuing series on Charles Darwin and Christianity, Fr. Tom begins a reflection on the creation story as told in Genesis.
|
49:04
|  |  |  |
If your are a Biblical literalist, or a Christian fundamentalist, take the time, just ten minutes to listen to this introduction and if it rings true remain for the rest. What is true fundamental Christianity but what is truly Christocentric and HIS real story on every page of the Sacred Texts. Accepting the literary history of the Bible does not in any way diminish its reality as "God Breathed." In fact seeing the miracle of the multiple settings in which its books were composed, adds to the recognition of its inspired status. What is the scripture? In Father Tom's words, "a record of God's Mighty Acts in history, but they are not science, and they are not myth." Can you grasp the wisdom of this statement? "They are not science, and they are not myth"?
The concrete assertion as to the reality of scripture that it tells about things that "you can know" is fundamental to any dialogue with secular humanists of all stripes. The Bible contains no mythology, it is not an ideal of "spirituality" nor a shadow of what is real, nor is it some sort of moralistic story, or some kind of expression of anthropomorphic desire to know God. - I paraphrase Fr Tom. "The Scriptures definitely says that there is a reality to the cosmos and a reality to human history. And these can be studied, they can be known, that's called science." As true Christians the truth of natural science and history can only add credibility to what we already know, IF what we know is truly Christian.
The concrete assertion as to the reality of scripture that it tells about things that "you can know" is fundamental to any dialogue with secular humanists of all stripes. The Bible contains no mythology, it is not an ideal of "spirituality" nor a shadow of what is real, nor is it some sort of moralistic story, or some kind of expression of anthropomorphic desire to know God. - I paraphrase Fr Tom. "The Scriptures definitely says that there is a reality to the cosmos and a reality to human history. And these can be studied, they can be known, that's called science." As true Christians the truth of natural science and history can only add credibility to what we already know, IF what we know is truly Christian.
The Only thing I found strange about this presentation was Father Tom's insistence that Genesis does not specifically state that God created out of nothing = creatio ex niholo. He of course is absolutely correct that the Genesis texts do not specifically state it. However, it is also true that it does not specifically preclude it. In fact, there is more evidence that the concept was implied than otherwise. The Hebrew Scriptures are very "concrete" based. What I'm saying is abstractions are foreign to their primitive language. Anthropology, and what we might call Paleopsychology, Linguistics, Philosophy and probably ten other disciplines would teach that Language and thought, that is conception of thought parallel the structure of language. What Father Tom is proposing is really a Greek conception, a western conception, forced upon the Hebrew author. As if that Hebrew author held in his head the Greek abstraction of the ephemeral ether of pre-creation held by the Greek Gnostics. For the primitive Hebrew the Heavens and the Earth were all of reality. For that ancient Hebrew/Sumerian "revelator" to record the words, "First, God Created all I know" which for him has to be the meaning, since the narrative includes the Earth, Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars, Sky, Atmosphere, Water, Ground, Animals etc., etc. I have to ask Father Tom, "What was there in the mind of that primitive Hebrew, writing in paleo-hebrew, that was left to exist, once you remove the earth, sun, moon, planets, and stars, etc?
But more importantly, my question is what purpose is served in "marking the fact" that is does not specifically say, "out of nothing" when that would have been very strange language indeed for the writers to have uttered at that point in history. I question this especially since other Bible texts make this clear that God created "out of nothing" and since this very thought is what sets Christian Ontology apart from every previous and contemporary pagan ontology. So, why the emphasis? It does nothing to make Darwinism more enlightened. Nor does it make belief in Darwinism or the Genesis story more sympathetic.
What does "in the beginning mean"? When was it? What was it? Taken in the literal meaning of all the languages in which the Genesis account comes to us, it starts, "In the Beginning." There is no reason to presuppose that BEING existed prior to that statement. (Again, an abstraction contrary to the primitive Semite mindset and language.) Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. "IN ARKAY" in the first action, in the first principle, in the first power, at the beginning of TIME, at the first BEING. - God Made, heaven and earth. Yes it does not say, He created out of nothing, but it is implied. In the ancient Hebrew was there a word or phrase that could express, "made out of nothing?" No, nor was there a concept of some ephemeral ether - a Greek abstraction. בראשׁית ברא rê'shı̂yth = The first principle and thing, the beginning, bârâ' = to create, to shape, to form. This phrase does not preclude the idea of something from nothing, whether the writer held that concept or not, so there is no contridiction when later Biblical writers confirm that God did create "ex niholo" that is out of nothing.
But more importantly, my question is what purpose is served in "marking the fact" that is does not specifically say, "out of nothing" when that would have been very strange language indeed for the writers to have uttered at that point in history. I question this especially since other Bible texts make this clear that God created "out of nothing" and since this very thought is what sets Christian Ontology apart from every previous and contemporary pagan ontology. So, why the emphasis? It does nothing to make Darwinism more enlightened. Nor does it make belief in Darwinism or the Genesis story more sympathetic.
What does "in the beginning mean"? When was it? What was it? Taken in the literal meaning of all the languages in which the Genesis account comes to us, it starts, "In the Beginning." There is no reason to presuppose that BEING existed prior to that statement. (Again, an abstraction contrary to the primitive Semite mindset and language.) Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. "IN ARKAY" in the first action, in the first principle, in the first power, at the beginning of TIME, at the first BEING. - God Made, heaven and earth. Yes it does not say, He created out of nothing, but it is implied. In the ancient Hebrew was there a word or phrase that could express, "made out of nothing?" No, nor was there a concept of some ephemeral ether - a Greek abstraction. בראשׁית ברא rê'shı̂yth = The first principle and thing, the beginning, bârâ' = to create, to shape, to form. This phrase does not preclude the idea of something from nothing, whether the writer held that concept or not, so there is no contridiction when later Biblical writers confirm that God did create "ex niholo" that is out of nothing.
I point this out, because I don't believe that you have to nullify the fact to make the case as Father Tom does for a very long period of what we today call "pre-history." Father Tom lays out the Creation story with the clear biblical evidence of its "pre-history" quality, told in "types and shadows." He points out that the first chapters of Genesis are in fact a radical "demythologizing" of that early period. The Genesis story of creation is a direct assault on the foundations of all of the anthropomorphic paganisms of the time, not a product of the same. He explains that this wisdom has been held by the Church through her Tradition, both in scripture, in the Ikonography of the Church and in the songs and prayers of the Church from antiquity. The writers (plural) of Genesis were cutting the legs out from under the common paganisms of the day, where man had substituted the "creation" for the "creator" in their worship. (So again to introduce the abstraction of some "mystical waters" upon which God acted, something that existed before "creation" is yet one more 'mythology.')
The systematic confounding of all the contemporary pagan beliefs of the period as a purpose (one of the purposes) for the oral traditions, later written tradition of the אלהים = 'ĕlôhı̂ym and the יהוה = yehôvâh traditions was a new thought for me. Yet, it is so obvious. (Thank you Father Tom for teaching me something.) Of course I was aware as are all exposed to basis textual critique of Genesis that these two creations stories rest side by side, one believed older than the other, one naming God = Elohim and the other naming the Lord God = Yehovah or the self existent Elohim. The convention in Greek and English translations was to call the first simply God, and the second, The Lord God. I had often wondered, what was the motivation to place these two traditions, which obviously tell two versions of the same basic story together and this understanding of the demythologizing of prehistory is so obvious! No Genesis is not part of the common history of creation mythologies, but rather the demythologizing of that period. Yes, Genesis is HISTORY, just not modern history. Yes, it tells of the creation of life by THE ONE GOD, who even here is clearly represented in the three persons of the Holy Trinity.
I'm jumping ahead in Genesis but:
What is demonstrated by this lesson is that we have yet one more "mythology" from which to free the period and that is the new mythology of Biblical Literalism. Anyone with A.B.C. knowledge of the text (including the Biblical literalists) know that the literal text's "difficulties" create insurmountable obstacles if taken literally. Everything from the scientific assumptions of the period in which it was written to the difficulty of Adam and Eve, having two sons, one who murders the other, and the surviving son leaving and taking a wife in a foreign land. When it is pointed out that even in the telling of the story of the 'literal Adam and literal Eve' the first man and first woman that other populations "according to the literal reading of the text" already existed, the literalist is left without explanation. Who were they? How did they come to be? etc. This is History told in a language to cut the foundations from the common paganisms of the day, to retell the fundamental fact that there is a God of history who is Creator and he is not the sun (that was worshipped) nor the moon (that was worshipped) nor any other elemental power, (which were also worshipped). It clearly states and makes plain the thing that is unique about the human and to whom the human owes "thanksgiving" for those unique attributes.
The systematic confounding of all the contemporary pagan beliefs of the period as a purpose (one of the purposes) for the oral traditions, later written tradition of the אלהים = 'ĕlôhı̂ym and the יהוה = yehôvâh traditions was a new thought for me. Yet, it is so obvious. (Thank you Father Tom for teaching me something.) Of course I was aware as are all exposed to basis textual critique of Genesis that these two creations stories rest side by side, one believed older than the other, one naming God = Elohim and the other naming the Lord God = Yehovah or the self existent Elohim. The convention in Greek and English translations was to call the first simply God, and the second, The Lord God. I had often wondered, what was the motivation to place these two traditions, which obviously tell two versions of the same basic story together and this understanding of the demythologizing of prehistory is so obvious! No Genesis is not part of the common history of creation mythologies, but rather the demythologizing of that period. Yes, Genesis is HISTORY, just not modern history. Yes, it tells of the creation of life by THE ONE GOD, who even here is clearly represented in the three persons of the Holy Trinity.
I'm jumping ahead in Genesis but:
What is demonstrated by this lesson is that we have yet one more "mythology" from which to free the period and that is the new mythology of Biblical Literalism. Anyone with A.B.C. knowledge of the text (including the Biblical literalists) know that the literal text's "difficulties" create insurmountable obstacles if taken literally. Everything from the scientific assumptions of the period in which it was written to the difficulty of Adam and Eve, having two sons, one who murders the other, and the surviving son leaving and taking a wife in a foreign land. When it is pointed out that even in the telling of the story of the 'literal Adam and literal Eve' the first man and first woman that other populations "according to the literal reading of the text" already existed, the literalist is left without explanation. Who were they? How did they come to be? etc. This is History told in a language to cut the foundations from the common paganisms of the day, to retell the fundamental fact that there is a God of history who is Creator and he is not the sun (that was worshipped) nor the moon (that was worshipped) nor any other elemental power, (which were also worshipped). It clearly states and makes plain the thing that is unique about the human and to whom the human owes "thanksgiving" for those unique attributes.
This episode was simply excellent, as I suspected it would be. This is obviously Father Tom in his element doing what 40 years of teaching has honed his mind and personality to do. I have only one criticism of this presentation. Father Tom says as most writers and teachers on the subject, that Genesis contains two creation stories, we know that is correct but not quite the whole story, since it actually contains three stories explaining how this "pre-history" period was "peopled." One account simply says that God created man, male and female he created them. The next account names the first two Adam and Eve, etc. However the next account says, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." We don't get a pass on that one. Even though it may be challenging, we don't get a pass on that one. We have no reason to dismiss it and pretend that it is not describing something real. I think this is more a mystery because both Christians and Jews dropped the Book of Enoch, for whatever reason, I'm not sure. Whether Enoch was written to make sense of this short passage, or represents another tradition I'm not sure. But reading the competing books of Enoch (the competing versions) I have a hard time grasping why it was not held. At least it makes sense of this passage and also explains a lot of the "spiritual warfare" in which we live and struggle. After all Saint Paul says that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." The book of Enoch goes a long way to explain why and what this spiritual battle is.
No comments:
Post a Comment