Background for Genesis Essay – 2.2

Biblical Timeline for Genesis: Before reading the book of Genesis straight through, we will assign provisional dates to some of the events in its narrative.  In terms of the preceding blog in this series, we are now working with the Young-Earth Timeline, whose “time-zero” is the essentially simultaneous appearance of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden.  Assigning dates (as “years B.C.” or “years ago”) to prominent events on this timeline seems to be heuristically useful, albeit fraught with inevitable assumptions and approximations.

Assigning dates to some Middle Eastern events on a relatively short timeline does not rule out the possibility of assigning dates to events on anthropological or cosmological timelines, provided that there is no equivocation on the term “the first human.”  This term might refer (on a short timeline) to the first hominid with an implicit covenant with the God who created the heavens, the earth, and a right relationship with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Alternately, this term might refer (on a long timeline) to the first hominid that possessed a certain technically specified DNA type and that arose in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago.  (One notes in passing that the fallacy of equivocation occurs if one word is used in two different senses in the same argument, whose validity depends on that word having a constant meaning throughout the argument.)

The time interval for a renowned Biblical narrative - - from Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden; to Noah, his Ark, and the ensuing, cataclysmic Flood - - consists of the ten strongly overlapping generations from Adam to Noah.  Among these antediluvian patriarchs, Adam is generation #1; while Noah is generation #10.  Seven of these ten patriarchs lived to be at least 900 years old at the time of their deaths.  Only the 10th generation (Noah) was born after the death of Adam, thereby becoming the only antediluvian patriarch whom Adam could not possibly have met.  Upon data-mining pre-Chapter-12 Genesis, one finds that, from the creation of Adam to the death of Noah, there elapsed about two thousand years.  But Noah died 350 years after the Flood (Genesis 9:28).  Hence, the Flood occurred approximately 2000 – 350 = 1650 years after the creation of Adam, et al.  (The roughly one-year duration of the Flood itself is negligible compared to the overlapping lifetimes of the first ten patriarchs.)

Archbishop James Ussher calculated Creation (of all types) as having occurred - - very rapidly! - - in 4004 B.C.; the Flood as having inundated the earth in 2348 B.C.; and, hence, the time interval from Adam to the Flood as having been 1656 years, which is very close to the 1650 years estimated above.

The epic Flood experienced by Noah is presumably the same Flood mentioned in some written works (on clay tablets) from ancient Mesopotamian cultures.  In the Sumerian and other languages, there are poems about Gilgamesh, as well as a later Epic of Gilgamesh.  Gilgamesh, the King of Uruk, undertook a long and arduous journey to discover the secret of eternal life.  He met with Utnapishtim, who along with his wife were the only humans to have survived the Flood.  Utnapishtim gave Gilgamesh a gloomy report: No human will find eternal life, for the gods created man and death linked together, reserving eternal life for themselves (the gods).  Some of the best copies of the Epic were found in the library ruins of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal, whose name appears once in the Old Testament (in Ezra 4:10).

The first written compositions (poems) about Gilgamesh are thought to have been compiled sometime between 2100 B.C. and 1200 B.C., and we assume that these dates are the most extreme possibilities for the earliest “Flood-documentation date.”  We will further assume that the Flood set back civilization by either 1000 years (maximal literary catastrophe) or 100 years (minimal literary catastrophe) before the art of writing could have been revived, and an orally transmitted Flood-tradition memorialized.

On the above assumptions, the creation of Adam could have occurred as early as the year determined by the sum of three numbers: 2100 B.C. (Flood-documentation date) + 1000 previously elapsed years (maximal interval from the Flood to its documentation date) + 1650 previously elapsed years (from Adam to the Flood) = 2100 + 1000 + 1650 = 4750 B.C.  Similarly, the creation of Adam could have occurred as late as 1200 B.C. (Flood-documentation date) + 100 previously elapsed years (minimal interval from the Flood to its documentation date) + 1650 previously elapsed years (from Adam to the Flood) = 1200 + 100 + 1650 = 2950 B.C.

The estimation procedure - - as presented above - - places the creation of Adam in the interval between 4750 B.C. and 2950 B.C., bracketing Ussher’s value of 4004 B.C.  Rounding to the nearest 1000 years, we can say that the estimated range of years B.C. for the creation of Adam runs from 5000 B.C. to 3000 B.C.; while Ussher’s result is approximately 4000 B.C.  Alternately, we can say that the estimated range of “years ago” for the creation of Adam runs from about 7000 years ago to about 5000 years ago; while Ussher’s result is around 6000 years ago.  This time of creation for Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden is the time-zero for the Young-Earth Timeline.

The birth year for the patriarch Abram is thought by some scholars to have occurred sometime between 2200 B.C. and 1800 B.C.  Here we will use, in “our” dating system, the intermediate value of 2000 B.C., making Abram very slightly younger than the first known Gilgamesh literature (2100 B.C.).  In this approach, God called Abram around 1925 B.C., consistent with Abram’s being 75 years of age when he left Haran [the city, not the brother] in Gen. 12:4.  The subsequently re-named Abraham was 175 years old at the time of his death in Gen. 25:7.  Thus, on this view, Abraham died around 1825 B.C.

Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old, which in “our” dating system is 1900 B.C.  Isaac died when he was 180 years old; hence, in the year 1720 B.C.  (See Gen. 21:5 and 35:28.)   Jacob was born when Isaac was 60 years old; hence, in the year 1840 B.C.  Jacob died when he was 147 years old; hence, in the year 1693 B.C.  (See Gen. 25:26 and 47:28.)  Less is known about the lifetime dates of the sons (and two grandsons) of Jacob, most of whom ended up leading one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

One of Jacob’s sons, Joseph, then 30 years of age, took up service to the Egyptian Pharaoh.  Joseph presided over emergency grain storage in Egypt during a forecast seven years of plenty to be followed by seven years of famine.  (See Gen. 41:41-57.)  Lengthy negotiations between Joseph (incognito) and his brothers ensued regarding permission for the Israelites to enter Egypt and to avoid the famine in Israel.  (See Gen. 42:1 - 47:12.)  Thus, when Jacob entered Egypt at age 130 (Gen. 47:9), Joseph was likely 39 years of age, implying that Joseph was born when Jacob was 91 years old.  Thus, in “our” dating system, Joseph was born in 1840 B.C. - 91 = 1749 B.C.  Further relying on Gen. 50:26, we infer that Joseph died at age 110 years in 1749 B.C. - 110 = 1639 B.C.

We continue Joseph’s biography using Gen. 15:13, Ex. 1:8-11, and Ex. 12:40 as follows: Only after Joseph had been dead and buried in Egypt for about 30 years (1609 B.C.) did a new Pharaoh feel threatened by Israel’s burgeoning population and enslave the Israelis under Egyptian masters for what turned out to be 400 years.  Thus, 430 years elapsed after Joseph’s death but before an Israeli leader would arise to start the process of freeing the Israeli slaves from Egyptian bondage (1209 B.C.).  On “our” view, the 400 years of slavery occurred from 1609 B.C. to 1209 B.C.  Subsequently, the approximately 40 years of Israel’s wandering in the desert took place from 1209 B.C. to 1169 B.C.

Moses led the Israelites in escaping Egyptian slavery during the Exodus, which we assume to include both the exit from Egypt and the 40 years in the desert.  Moses was 80 years of age at the beginning of the Exodus (Ex. 7:7) and continued until his death at age 120 (Deuteronomy 34:7).  He lived, on the view presented here, between 1289 B.C. and 1169 B.C.  Other scholarly and Rabbinic viewpoints exist: Moses is sometimes said to have died as early as 1451 B.C., which is some 282 years earlier than in “our” estimation.  On these divergent views, the 40 years in the desert could have started in 1169 + 40 = 1209 B.C. or in 1451 + 40 = 1491 B.C.  During the Exodus, the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses.

What is relatively very well-known from Babylonian and Persian history is that many or most Jews were deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 and 586 B.C.; that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 B.C.; that Cyrus the Great of Persia officially freed the Jews in 539 B.C.; that the Jews began their return in 538 B.C.; that the Temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt by 516 B.C.; and that Jeremiah’s prophecy of the “Seventy Years of Babylonian Captivity” was fulfilled from 586 to 516 B.C.  (See Jeremiah 25:8-14 and 29:10.)  Minor changes to the starting and ending dates of the Babylonian Captivity have been proposed.

We again emphasize that our estimates for the lifetime dates for Abram, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and - - much later - - Moses could easily be off by plus or minus 200 years, or even more.  But these estimates are broadly consistent with the second millennium B.C. as being the time of the Israelites’ 400 years of slavery in Egypt and 40 years of wandering in the desert.  However hazardous, uncertain, and error-prone this time-estimation process may be; it may nevertheless help one in dealing with remote Biblical dates.

In the next blog posting, we will be in a position to start reading the text of Genesis itself with some important philosophical distinctions in mind, as well as an appreciation of the imprecision and inaccuracy inherent in the historical dating of the distant past.

Background for Genesis Essay – 2.1

In the immediately preceding blog posting in this series of background essays, the author stated that “the Septuagint does not seem to be ‘just one more translation’” of the Hebrew Bible, but instead “seems to be a divine authorization, or warrant, to take Greek philosophical presuppositions seriously.”  At that point, beyond the issue of the acceptance of some Greek philosophical presuppositions, the author should have added the sentence: “Whether or not the Septuagint, as a whole, rises to the status of a divinely inspired writing is a complex issue not adjudicated here.”

However, we will now go on to note that the whole idea of calling the first Hebrew-to-Greek Bible translation “The Seventy” (Septuagint) was to emphasize that its 70 (or 72) participating scholars had isolated themselves in separate rooms and produced identical translations.  Hence, their work must have been divinely inspired, based on the apparently presupposed principle that hyper-consistency implies divine inspiration.  If the Septuagint had not been originally received as a divinely inspired text, then none of the original recipients would have given any credence to it.  Later, Calvin thought that the Septuagint must be respected, albeit without an authority equal to that of the Hebrew Bible: The Septuagint had, after all, been quoted in the New Testament, which presumably was divinely inspired.

Belief as an attitude toward a proposition: The philosophical approach to belief, as delineated in these background essays, distinguishes between the objective, propositional content of a belief and a thinking subject’s attitude towards that propositional content.  If the subject’s set of attitudes includes an acceptance of that objective content, based on “considered judgment,” then the subject is classified as a believer of that content.  If the accepted, objective content deals with religion, then the subject typically also holds other attitudes or inclinations, such as a propensity to worship, to reverence, to pray, to stand in awe, to seek forgiveness, or even to seek mental clarity on what should be taught (a.k.a., orthodox doctrine).

Timelines from the Vastly Old to the Merely Ancient: Some civilizations and religions from the valleys of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, and Yellow Rivers date from circa 3500 B.C.  (The historian, Toynbee, defined and analyzed more than twenty world civilizations.)  During the last few centuries, natural scientists have been inclined to look for ever more remote physical traces of ancient civilizations, evolving life forms, planetary origins, and those ultra-remote cosmic events defining (or proceeding from) either the Big Bang or the most recent Big Bang (in case there really are intervening Cosmic Crunches).  For a given world-historical event, we assume the existence of an associated time-zero and a timeline proceeding from that time-zero up to the present and beyond.  A timeline is a half-infinite line (ray) whose unique terminal point is a time-zero for the real variable, time, appearing in the laws of physics.

The concept of the Big Bang allows one to speak meaningfully about physical laws that existed in an “inflationary epoch” (infinitesimally after a time-zero); or, on the other hand, about purposes and final causation that timelessly exist “logically prior to,” or “metaphorically before,” the Big Bang (provisionally assuming only one Big Bang).  Physical laws describe, typically via differential equations, the efficient causes operative in the universe.  Final causation considers questions such as “Why is there something rather than nothing?”  Empirically, the time-zero for the Big Bang is about 15 billion years ago.

The timeline that goes into effect after (or on the occasion of) the Big Bang might be designated as the Cosmic Timeline, which has been in operation for some fifteen billion years, has extended to the present, and will extend into the indefinite, if not infinite, future.  In other words, the time-zero in this case is 15 billion years ago.  The Cosmic Timeline seems to be consistent with the idea of ex nihilo creation attended by a “significant radiation event.”

A timeline tracing less far back, to planetary origins in our solar system, might be designated as the Old-Earth Timeline.  These planets might have become visually recognizable, albeit not yet habitable, after a certain period of swirling-dust accretion that had been mostly completed by some five billion years ago (the time-zero for this timeline).  This timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years had elapsed between the Big Bang and the heyday of planetary formation in our solar system.

A timeline tracing very much less far back - - to the celebrated homo sapiens and their predecessors who are now thought to have wandered about in Africa for multiple hundreds of thousands of years - - might be designated as the Anthropological Timeline.  In this case, the time-zero seems to have been 300 thousand years ago.  This timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years would have elapsed from the Big Bang to the origin of the DNA-encoded information that guided the development of amino acids, proteins, and molecular machines; and that led inexorably to that biological efflorescence known as homo sapiens.

At this point, the Cosmic, Old-Earth, and Anthropological Timelines provide a naturalistic temporal framework upon which to locate at least some of the events portrayed in Genesis 1.  For example, the original radiative blast establishing the time-zero of the Cosmic Timeline fits in very nicely the “Let there be light (radiation)” of Genesis 1:3.  Genesis-1 history was summarized in Genesis 2:1 as “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.”  The stage had been set for a much shorter, more finely grained timeline starting with Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2.

As a rhetorical matter, we acknowledge that there will never be an absolute resolution of the issue whether the “Days of creation” in Genesis 1 are literal or metaphorical.  However, in these essays we will assume that the Biblical Days of creation in Genesis 1 are metaphorical; and that some such metaphor offers the only way of taking the Biblical text seriously.  For example, the universe’s inaugural radiative blast dominated billions of subsequent years; and the declaration “Let there be light” can therefore only refer to a metaphorical day.  To the extent possible, we want to develop a Biblical understanding in which metaphor and literal interpretation can peacefully coexist in a reasonable, or at least plausible, manner.

The “apparent timeline” portrayed by the Days of Genesis 1 differs from the timeline to be developed in Genesis 2.  Genesis 1 deals with the six metaphorical days of Biblical creation.  These are not six units of physical time, but rather are representations of six tasks logically required to have been accomplished before the whole panoply of heavens and earth could finally be assembled and proclaimed to have been “completed in all their vast array.”  Internal to each of these six metaphorical days, there may be temporal processes; but, overall, there seems to be no unifying time allowing sequential completion of all six tasks.  In contrast, Genesis 2 only begins its account of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden after the “heavens-and-earth completion” in Genesis 1, seeming to imply that the Big Bang, planetary formation, and those arduous African wanderings had all been things of the past at the time of the Genesis 2 story.

“In the beginning,” as Genesis-1 creation is ramping up, if not exactly proceeding along a unified physical timeline for all of its Days; the heavens and the earth were formless, empty, and dark (Gen. 1:2); seeming to cry out - - if metaphor and personification are permitted - - for some ex-nihilo creation.  The Spirit of God was “hovering above the water,” meaning that the stage was being set for God to proclaim a various, six-fold “Let there be … Day N (N = 1 - 6),” i.e., “to speak the world into existence” in Genesis 1.  This six-fold plan featured the following: There was to be initial radiation, inorganic phase separation (solid - liquid - gas), organic plant life, astronomical development of stars, organic animal life in the water and in the air, and organic land-based animal life including mankind.  Radiation having been mentioned for Day 1, the internal timeline for Day 1 seems to correlate with the beginning of the Cosmic Timeline.  The Days’ tasks being only logical prerequisites for creation, however, there is no expectation that - - for example - - organic plant life (Day 3) must develop before stellar development (Day 4) can occur.

A timeline tracing again very much less far back than the Anthropological Timeline - - to the human and horticultural origins portrayed in Genesis 2 - - might be designated as the Young-Earth Timeline.  An estimate of its time-zero value will be given in the next blog posting in this series.  That time-zero value marks the creation of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden.  The Young-Earth Timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years would have elapsed from the Big Bang to whatever modification of DNA coding was required to guide the first appearance of Adam: “The Lord God formed a man, Adam, from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7).  On this view, Adam was not the world’s first homo sapiens, but rather an obscure branch of homo sapiens, perhaps with some slightly reinitialized DNA coding.  There is, however, no reason to doubt that Adam, Eve, and their Garden were the first of their kind in their allotted corner of Mesopotamia.

Regarding the Garden of Eden and, presumably, the Middle East generally: Where there had been no surface water, no plants, and no one to work the ground; there God created streams, plants, a horticulturalist (Adam) “from dust,” and Adam’s wife (Eve) “from one of Adam’s ribs.”  Nearby Africa may have had water, plants, and animal life from an early date; but Genesis-2 creation concentrates specifically on its own Young-Earth Timeline, during which the creation of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden occurs.  These particular creation events occur, evidently, in Mesopotamia.

Summarizing: The Cosmic, Old-Earth, Anthropological, and Young-Earth timelines are not incompatible: In the indefinite past, there were notable events that established timelines with different estimated values for their “time zeros.”  For example, empirical evidence puts the Cosmic, Old-Earth, Anthropological, and Young-Earth time-zeros at, respectively, 15 billion years ago, 5 billion years ago, 300,000 years ago, and a value to be discussed in the next blog in this series.

Background for Genesis Essay - 1

In the preceding blog posting in this series, the author concluded with the statement that “the first (of the following) essays will start with the first part of the book of Genesis.”  Now, however, it seems best to defer that assignment until after two preliminary essays on the philosophy and history of the Judeo-Christian religion have been presented.  Developing philosophical and historical clarity now is expected to lead to quicker comprehension of the Genesis text once it is started.  Today’s essay will start with some philosophical background on the topics of belief, faith, trust, states of affairs, facts, unrealized possibilities, truth, and knowledge.  Then, we will state some Biblical background information.

Philosophical Background: Prior to any philosophical or theological reflection, it might seem that a comprehensive presentation of God’s truth could be accomplished with a Bible that “started at the beginning” and said everything that was worth knowing (in the sense of “capturing in writing”) about the relationship between God and man.  Among presuppositions of this exposition would be the ideas that belief is another word for faith; that the Hebrew Bible presents faith as trust in God; and that the Christian Bible identifies faith as trust in Christ, who is the second person of the Holy Trinity.  Here, “trust” includes experiential or emotional factors, if any, that cannot be captured in writing.

However, the terms “belief” and “faith” have not only a branch of meaning relating to the term “trust,” but also a branch of meaning relating to the terms “truth” and “knowledge.”  These latter two terms are in turn related to a real (or actual) world, which is assumed to exist and to be intelligible.  This real world is thought to consist of states of affairs (SOA’s) that “obtain” and that are usually known as “facts,” whereas SOA’s that “do not obtain” are merely unrealized possibilities.  SOA’s are also known as “situations” that may or may not occur.

An SOA is a way that the real world must be in order for some corresponding (or underlying) proposition about the real world to be true in a logical world.  In other words, an SOA is a truth-maker; whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer.  SOA’s either obtain or fail to obtain; whereas propositions are either true or false.  For example, if historical research and judgment lead one to believe that the SOA “Caligula is cruel” obtains; then, as a matter of logic, the proposition “Caligula is cruel” is true.  Likewise, if the relevant judgments lead one to believe that the SOA “Caligula is cruel” does not obtain; then, logically, the proposition “Caligula is cruel” is false.  The distinction between truth-maker and truth-bearer is based on the difference between empirical research and judgment, on the one hand; and the logical world of premises and deductions, on the other.

We speak of a belief as one particular type of introspective judgment or attitude toward a proposition, which in turn is something that can be true or false in logic.  If the attitude is one of acceptance, then we are said to have judged (fallibly) that the SOA under consideration obtains in the real world; thereby forcing the corresponding proposition to be true in the logical world.  If the attitude is one of rejection, then we are said to have judged (fallibly) that the SOA under consideration does not obtain in the real world; thereby forcing the corresponding proposition to be false in the logical world.

One notes in passing that there is a panoply of possible attitudes that one might take towards a proposition, including, but not limited to, expecting, hoping, or fearing; intending, desiring, or wishing; believing, knowing, or judging; and accepting, rejecting, or doubting.  In this essay we are focusing on believing and knowing.  Attitudinal analysis presupposes that we are capable of (fallible) introspection and judgment; that we can recognize real and logical worlds; that these worlds are intelligible; and that we can estimate subjectively (or in some cases, statistically) how much confidence or probability to attach to any particular belief - - from certitude to barely above 50%.

Finally, knowledge is sometimes said to be justified true belief, i.e., belief that is true and that is backed up (i.e., justified) by a “story” of why the belief must be true.  Ever since the Platonic dialog, Theaetetus, however, this approach has been shown to be plagued by circularity.  One recent philosopher, Robert Nozick, created a “work-around” for this problem.  In this new approach, knowledge is said to be “belief tracking truth”:  Your belief, X, qualifies as knowledge if X is true, you believe X, and you would not believe X if X were false.  Presumably, you are aware of some “factor” or “story” that explains why X couldn’t be false.  In effect, Nozick substitutes “couldn’t be false” for the traditional “must be true.”  It took more than 2300 years to get from Plato to Nozick, and one doubts that we have heard the definitive last word on this subject.

The nebulous role of certainty in accepting propositions: One might contrast certainty in the mathematical and logical worlds; a high degree of confidence for at least some empirical laws in the physical world; and sufficient reason for actions or beliefs in the moral or religious worlds.  Mathematical propositions that follow from self-evident principles and deductive proof are considered to be certain, because the “mind’s eye” sees, and assents to, each step in the proof.  Perceptions, being empirical, can sometimes be accumulated so as to allow the formulation of physical hypotheses, which in turn are tested via falsifiability criteria and possibly accepted with a high degree of confidence.  Some moral and religious propositions are thought to be so “existentially charged” that they rise to the level of “moral certainty” or “incontrovertible belief.”  One recalls that Aristotle’s practical syllogisms envision propositions as premises and actions as conclusions.  In the Christian New Testament (Hebrews 11:1), one reads that “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (NIV-1983).  Thus, the idea of certainty surpasses its original domain of mathematics and logic, migrating into the domain of religious faith.

Biblical Background: The Hebrew Bible contains 24 books divided among the five books of the Law (Torah) given to Moses; the eight books of the Prophets; and the eleven books of the Writings (e.g., Psalms, Chronicles, etc.).  The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, which presents the books distributed among four sections (Law, History, Poetry, and Prophets) for use by Greek-speaking Jews in the third century B.C.  The Torah is referred to in Greek as the “five scrolls,” or “Pentateuch.”  The Christian Old Testament is essentially based on translation from the Hebrew Bible, with the Septuagint being available for context.  The first book of the Law is referred to (in English) either as The First Book of Moses or as Genesis, which is a Greek word that means “origin, source, or beginning,” albeit not a word that actually occurs in the Septuagint itself.  After the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth, his followers produced a completely different set of writings that followed a different canon and that became known as the “New Testament.”

The first Hebrew word of the First Book of Moses is translated into English (NIV) as “in the beginning.”  According to the Bible-hub Interlinear web resource, this Hebrew word occurs four other times in the Hebrew Bible (always in the book of Jeremiah), in Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, and 49:34.  All four occurrences in Jeremiah are translated into English (NIV) as “early in the reign of …”  Thus, the same Hebrew word can bear two different senses, either as indicating an absolute or unqualified beginning or as indicating “relatively early” or “near the beginning” of a particular king’s reign.  The English translation of Genesis 1:1 as “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is on solid ground.

However, the first two Greek words of the Septuagint (in Genesis 1:1) are transliterated as “en arche,” which means “as a first rule, highest ruler, or philosophical first principle.”  (One recalls that “monarch” means “the one ruler of a government or of a nation.”  See also Philip Wheelwright, “The Presocratics,” Odyssey Press, 1966, p. 15.)  On this Greek view, the English translation of Genesis 1:1 becomes “As a first rule or highest ruler or first principle of the universe, God created the heavens and the earth.”  The question arises: How could this utterly novel, Septuagint-based “context” of Genesis 1:1 have arisen?

The apparent answer is that Greek translators make Greek philosophical presuppositions, which God evidently intended to introduce into his Biblical revelation.  Some pre-Socratic Greek philosophers had proposed that one or another of the classical elements (earth, air, fire, and water) is the fundamental source, or arche, of all matter; which is to say, a basic, irreducible substance from which all other matter is composed.  In the case of Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint, if the Creation truly occurred “in the beginning,” then the Creation is not a part of any temporal sequence.  Instead, temporal sequences arose within the Creation.  In the ancient Greek view, the Creator must be a true first principle, or arche, existing outside of time, not an interloper in the temporal order.  A “creator within time” could only be what the Greeks called a demiurge, a cosmic worker who fashioned the universe out of pre-existing materials (as in line 28a6 in the Platonic dialog, Timaeus).

The Septuagint version of Genesis, Chapter 1, envisions a logical sequence of purposes to be fulfilled, or tasks to be completed, while God “speaks the universe into existence.”  This type of creation is consistent with the Aristotelian worldview that there exists an Unmoved Mover who is a first principle or final cause of the universe.  Moreover, Greek presuppositions are useful in dealing with philosophical questions such as the apparent problem of a “young earth” at variance with the modern estimate (nearly 5 billion years) for the age of the earth.

The Septuagint does not seem to be “just one more translation” that is a forerunner of the relatively recent KJV or NIV translations.  Instead, the Septuagint seems to be a divine authorization, or warrant, to take Greek philosophical presuppositions seriously.

In the following blog posting, a second preliminary essay will deal with some guidelines for the historical dating of certain prominent Biblical events - - events that are remote in time and that typically allow only very imprecise suggestions for their historical dates.

Biblical Sermons, Commentaries, and Essays

Recently, the author of this blog posting heard online an otherwise good Christian sermon based on Chapter 10 of the Book of Luke, a sermon that was regrettably impaired by one flaw.  This sermon began promisingly enough by exploring the conditions under which it is advisable to be vulnerable (no extra shoes or luggage, etc.) when venturing forth to spread the gospel.  Such evangelists, being without dedicated supply lines, are like lambs among wolves.  The 70 (or 72) evangelists sent out in pairs by Jesus were directed to “set up shop” for peace and healing in every town and place that were about to be visited by Jesus.  Such locations would wind up being classified, retrospectively, either as “welcoming towns” or as “unwelcoming towns.”  When leaving either type of town, these 70 (or 72) evangelists were to proclaim the positive message that “the Kingdom of God has come close to you.”

However, in order to complete the unitary (single and complete) train of thought based on Luke 10:1-12, it should be noted that the evangelists departing from an unwelcoming town were also told to wipe the dust off of their feet as a warning against that town’s ways.  The unwelcoming town thereby elicited from Jesus the ominous pronouncement to the effect that “It will be more tolerable on ‘that day’ (the day of judgment) for the city of Sodom than for the unwelcoming town just left behind.”  This comment presupposes that the city of Sodom had previously set a high bar for maximally sinful behavior, a high bar that is nevertheless surpassed by the unwelcoming town under consideration.  Ultimately, one might argue about the results of a competition for the “worst of the worst” places, towns or cities; but wouldn’t it be a lot easier (i.e., more straightforward) merely to strive for the status of “welcoming town”?

Why does the Zeitgeist consider Luke 10:12 to be so “radioactive” that it may be neither explored nor mentioned?  (Related discussions of other cities exist in Luke 10:13-24.)  Clearly, what is needed is an authoritative Biblical commentary or book of essays, which includes Luke 10:12 and offers a way to finesse its interpretation.  But, of course, one surmises that the entire problem is that no authorities have survived the Zeitgeist’s contemporary reign of terror.  Not volunteering, as he most certainly is not, to receive theological tumbril-service at the present time, the present writer will also not elaborate upon Luke 10:12 in this essay.  On the other hand, the present writer is now sufficiently motivated to contemplate writing a limited series of Biblical commentaries or essays that might help promote mental clarity and avoid regrettable exegetical shortcuts.

A commentary is an explanation of, or an opinion about, a given text at hand.  An essay is a short work on, or an “attempt at,” a topic presumably written up as a text elsewhere.  Regarding either a text or a topic: Exegesis is a particular instance of interpretation (determination of meaning, including authorial intent); whereas hermeneutics is the general theory and methodology of interpretation (including the interpreter’s own viewpoint and presuppositions).

Commentaries on books of the Christian Bible may start with exegesis; but they inevitably incorporate some related topics from history, philosophy, sociology, etc.  At what point does the sheer volume of such related topics swamp out the Biblical exegesis and turn a purported commentary (text-based) into an essay (topic-based)?  Here, “swamping out” means overly reducing the analytical emphasis on authorial intent in favor of the interpreter’s own viewpoint.

It might be best to view the writing at hand as an introduction to a proposed series of hybrid commentary-essays on Biblical texts, as well as on some topics in the history and philosophy of religion (primarily Christianity).  For simplicity, these hybrid writings will be called essays; which will be indexed, or brought to mind, by many - - but not all - - of the successive books, chapters, and verses of the Protestant Bible (sixty-six books without apocrypha).  In these essays, some topics may be of more interest to Protestants (e.g., the theory with the acronym “TULIP”); while other topics may be of more appeal to Catholics (e.g., the Vincentian Canon or some ideas from G.K. Chesterton).

The Bible considers faith as trust, as in Matt. 6:28-30, which poses the question “Will God not clothe you better than the grass and the lilies of the field - - O ye of little faith?”  Dealing, as Paul Tillich does, with faith as the object of “ultimate concern,” one might think that there would be widespread agreement about the Bible’s meaning and application to questions of faith and practice.  Alas, not only are there civilizational differences about what faith is; but there are also seemingly innumerable anxieties besetting religious believers: Ontological anxieties (What is the most real?), moral anxieties (What are the criteria for right action?), and spiritual anxieties (What are the grounds, if any, for rejecting the thesis of the ultimate meaninglessness of life?  Or for rejecting the thesis that the existence of other minds cannot be philosophically proven?).

If one were only seeking agreement among Christians, then one might perhaps hope for a greater chance of success in resolving all theological issues in an utterly perspicacious manner via Biblical commentaries or essays.  However, some attempted resolutions seem to leave behind irreducible disagreement (e.g., Luke 10:12); while others are more likely to lead to mental clarity and agreement (e.g., Matt. 6:28-30).  But “hope springs eternal,” and some commentaries or essays may possibly promote common understanding.

Apologetics is, generally speaking, a presentation of evidence and rational arguments in defense of deeply held beliefs.  That evidence may come from Biblical commentaries or essays, and the results may help remove conceptual clutter impairing religious judgment.  Apologetics in the form of certain Platonic dialogs (Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Euthyphro) predates the New Testament.  For example, Euthyphro poses the controversial question: Is something good because the gods approve of it; or do the gods approve of something because it is good?  Later, apologetics came to be known as the rational defense of the Christian faith, often in the “Areopagus” or “Mars Hill” mode of debate found in Acts 17:16-34.  (One recalls that the Greek “Areopagus” refers to the Greek god Ares or to the Roman god Mars.  The “Hill” in this case was in Athens.)  Martin Luther and John Calvin thought that their commentaries might help to increase the accessibility of Scripture by lay persons and to promote the apologetics underlying such Reformation ideas as justification by faith alone.

Orthodox starting point: In the 400’a A.D. the Vincentian Canon was written in support of Christian doctrinal orthodoxy, where doctrine is “what is taught” and orthodoxy is right, correct, or true (ortho) thinking or opinion (doxa).  In this rather optimistic view, Christian doctrinal orthodoxy is “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”  (Here, “everywhere” refers to the known Greco-Roman world and its immediate border regions; “always” refers to historical time since Jesus walked on the Earth; and “by all” means “by all Christians.”)  For the sake of self-consistency, however, Christian doctrine has come to be thought of as including tradition, reason, and the development of doctrine; because, among those things widely believed and held in high regard, one finds the following concepts:

First, the concept of the “democracy of the dead” (G.K. Chesterton, in his book, Orthodoxy [Chapter IV]) implies that all spiritually engaged Christians have a say (or a “vote”), in what is believed, independent of their current status as being dead or alive. (One does wonder about normalization, or how the effect of increasing total population over time affects the weighted value of past votes.)  This is the source of tradition (what is handed down).

Second, the life of the human mind, with its limited logos, or reason, seems to run parallel to the life of the unlimited Logos, or Word of God, through which all things were made (John 1:3).  Without such parallelism there could be no perception of God in physical nature; no recognition of God’s own invisible qualities, power, and divine nature; no understanding of God from what has been made; and, contra Romans 1:20, abundant excuses for mankind to be and to remain ignorant of God.

Finally, some theologians find that the ongoing application of human reason to Christian doctrine leads, over long periods of time, to ever more highly articulated doctrine and - - if not exactly to an asymptotic approach of the Hegelian Zeitgeist to Absolute Knowing - - at least to a modest development of Christian doctrine over time (J.H. Newman).  This viewpoint was strongly opposed by C.S. Lewis in the Preface to his book “Mere Christianity,” in which he maintained that calling someone a Christian is like calling someone a gentleman (in the original British sense): We are dealing with a description of belief in the case of a purported Christian; and with certain facts about land ownership and possession of a coat of arms in the case of a purported gentleman.  In Lewis’ view, we must we stick to the original, obvious meanings of simple, unwavering, and, hence, time-independent doctrines when assessing a network of beliefs.

We will now turn, in subsequent blog posts, to the presentation of essays on selected Biblical books in English translation (most commonly, the NIV).  It is anticipated that some references may also be made, occasionally, to the Bible Hub online resource for Hebrew and Greek.  Finally, the Schlachter 2000 German translation of the Bible has also been found to be useful.  The first essay will start with the first part of the book of Genesis.