About a week ago, Terry Mortenson at Answers in Genesis wrote a short article on the AiG website entitled, “Reading Genesis: ANE Hermeneutic vs. Plain Reading,” in which he took issue with the work of Wheaton College Old Testament professor John Walton, for his work regarding the proper understanding of the creation narratives in the Book of Genesis. Now, although these kinds of articles are nothing new from AiG, and although they contain no new insights or arguments from AiG (it really is just the same recycled talking points), I find that sometimes it is a good intellectual exercise to simply go through and answer their objections and claims. If you want to explore a more in depth look at how to interpret Genesis 1-11, what proper biblical exegesis is, and how Answers in Genesis really is divisive in its rhetoric, I invite you to read my book, The Heresy of Ham. If you just want to know how to respond to Terry Mortenson’s comments in his article, just read through the end of this post!
The Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) Hermeneutic
Mortenson begins in article by stating that some Evangelical scholars (of which John Walton is possibly the leading Evangelical scholar on this topic) claim that one cannot correctly interpret Genesis 1-11 without understanding the ANE worldview of the surrounding pagan nations of ancient Israel. Mortenson calls this using the “ANE Hermeneutic.” In his opening statements about John Walton, Mortenson calls Walton a theistic evolutionist.
Two things stand out to me in the way Mortenson opens his article: (1) I don’t think Mortenson is necessarily correct when he says that scholars like Walton claim one cannot correctly interpret Genesis 1-11 without understanding the ANE worldview. I would argue that understanding the ANE worldview allows one to have a fuller understanding and appreciation for what is being said in Genesis 1-11, but the basic, correct interpretation of the point of the stories in Genesis 1-11 is available to everyone. What’s the point of Genesis 1? There is one God who created everything, His creation is good and orderly, and human beings have a special role in His creation. You don’t need a degree in ANE literature or science to get that. But what scholars like Walton (and myself) are saying is that an understanding of the ANE worldview and literature illuminates a whole lot more in those stories than one might originally think.
(2) Mortenson’s mentioning of Walton being a theistic evolutionist is ultimately irrelevent to the issue of proper biblical interpretation. The reason why Mortenson mentions it is to essentially poison the well. He wants to imply that Walton is purposely twisting his biblical interpretation in order to “fit” in with his scientific views on origins—and thus is “putting man’s word above God’s Word.” To imply that is to say that Walton is being purposely deceitful. Speaking for myself, I can say that I came to the conclusion that Genesis 1-11 should be interpreted in light of the ANE worldview and therefore wasn’t historical a good ten years before I even bothered to look into the whole “creation/evolution debate.” My acceptance of the scientific claims regarding the age of the universe and evolutionary theory had absolutely zero influence on my interpretation of Genesis 1-11. I suspect the same goes for Walton.
In any case, Mortenson takes issue with Walton’s claim that Israel shared the same worldview as its pagan neighbors. He writes, “Does it really make sense to believe that a wide variety of ancient people groups throughout the Middle East held the same or very similar beliefs about our origins and the cosmos over the span of many centuries?” The simple answer to that is, “YES! It actually does, especially given the fact that all the ancient literature we have from the ancient world describes things the same way.”
Upon reflection, though, Mortenson has a point. I think it is wrong for Walton to claim that Israel shared the same worldview as its pagan neighbors. A worldview is essentially what a given culture believes regarding the gods/God, the nature and value of human beings, and the nature of the created order. And clearly, Israel’s belief about those things were different from the surrounding pagan nations. What I think Walton means is that Israel and the other pagan nations shared the same cosmological understanding of the created order. That basically involved the view expressed in the picture to the right.
And so, although Mortenson is correct to say Israel didn’t share the same worldview as the surrounding pagan nations, he is wrong to think that Israel didn’t share the same cosmological understanding of the created order. This isn’t that hard to figure out, for this is the very mantra AiG often uses when it attacks modern science: We’re all looking at the same evidence, but we interpret it differently because we have different starting points. AiG claims it is doing science and that it loves science, but its conclusions are different because of their belief in God and their stance on “biblical authority.” Similarly, ancient Israel shared the same cosmological understanding of the created order as pagan nations, but its conclusions about everything were different because of their belief in one God. Given that (and this is really Walton’s point), we in the modern world won’t be able to fully appreciate how/why Israel’s worldview was different than its pagan neighbors unless we first take the time to understand that fundamental cosmological outlook of the ANE.
Why We Should Reject the ANE Hermeneutic?
With that, Mortenson then gives a number of reasons why Christians should reject this “ANE Hermeneutic,” and why we shouldn’t bother to try to read Genesis 1-11 (or the entire Bible, for that matter) in its original context.
1. Scripture is written for all people in all times and places. Mortenson says that the ANE Hermeneutic, on the other hand, makes the Old Testament assessable only to scholars. This argument is simply nonsensical, and I can prove it pretty easily by just handing Mortenson a copy of the Hebrew Bible and asking him to read and tell me what it says. He won’t be able to—Why? Because he can’t read Hebrew. The English Bible he reads has been translated from Hebrew into English by biblical scholars who have expertise in biblical languages—and part of what is required to translate ancient languages correctly is a knowledge of the ANE culture.
John Walton is completely correct to point out that the Bible was written to ancient Israel, not to us. Of course, it is written for us and we have the ability and responsibility to apply it to our lives, but it was not written to us. If we want to understand the original, inspired message God revealed to Israel, we need to first do the best we can to understand that original context. If we sluff that off, then we are not being responsible Bible readers. Instead, we are being incredibly childish, immature, and ultimately self-centered readers of the Bible. And so, when Mortenson says that Walton is wrong to say that we should strive to understand the original context, because the original context really isn’t important, because, you know, Scripture was written to ME, to directly speak to MY NEEDS and MY QUESTIONS—eh, I just roll my eyes. Talk about putting “man’s word” (i.e. your own self-centered opinions) over God’s Word!
2. Scripture is essentially clear. Therefore, sure understanding ANE culture might help a little, but it isn’t really needed, because Scripture is clear—we can read the “plain meaning of the text.” Okay then, like I said above, here you go! How clear is this for you?
Therefore, when Mortenson says, “the Scriptures are essentially clear and understandable to anyone in any culture and at any time in history if he reads with a sincere and honest heart seeking the truth,” although that may sound nice, it just is flat out, 100% false. The fact he is reading an ENGLISH BIBLE proves it. The Old Testament ISN’T CLEAR to someone who doesn’t know Hebrew—it isn’t even intelligible. The New Testament ISN’T CLEAR to someone who doesn’t know Greek—again, not even intelligible. The only reason you can even read the Bible in English is because those “intellectual elites” Mortenson disparages have dedicated their lives to translating the original Hebrew and Greek into English.
3. Walton’s view of the ANE people, cosmology, and worldview is seriously mistaken. Before I comment on what Mortenson specifically says, let me point out that Walton is an expert in the Bible and the ANE, whereas Mortenson is not. Him saying this of Walton would be like me saying, “Einstein’s scientific views, particularly that of the theory of relativity and E=MC2 is seriously mistaken!”
In any case, Mortenson takes issue with Walton’s claim that the story of Noah and the Flood in Genesis 6-9 shares a number of “superficial similarities” with other ANE flood stories that are nevertheless pretty important to note. Shockingly, Mortenson says, “This is false on all accounts,” and proceeds to just spew nonsense—there’s no other way to say it. He says that, of course, those rebellious pagans shared the same worldview, but not Israel (again, mistaking “worldview” with “cosmological understanding”). And then there is this doozy: “The ancients were just as concerned about questions of origins (e.g., How did the world come into existence? Where did man come from?) as modern people are, evidenced by the fact that they had creation myths (just like modern evolutionists have), and they also had myths about Noah’s flood.”
I cannot begin to explain just how nonsensical and ignorant that statement is. I’m sorry if this sounds too harsh, but anyone who points to ancient myths in an attempt to show that those ancient cultures were concerned with modern scientific questions of material origins, and then who additionally claims that modern scientific theories of material origins are myths—that person cannot be taken seriously He doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about. It is therefore not surprising that such a person could read both Genesis 6-9 and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh (both translated into English, by the way!) and come away thinking, “Nope, I don’t see any similarities at all!”
The further irony is that immediately after Mortenson says that, he turns around and says, “While there may be some superficial similarities (!!!), there are a number of key theological differences.” To that, I say, “OF COURSE! THAT’S THE POINT!” The flood stories are ancient near eastern myths that are expressing what certain cultures believed about their gods—and since Israel believed in ONE GOD, the flood story in Genesis 6-9 is completely theologically different, even though the basic story is quite similar.
Mortenson can’t see that, though, even though he basically said that very thing. Instead, he chooses to just explain away the similarities by saying that the Noah story is the historically accurate flood account that some people preserved after the Tower of Babel, while the other pagan flood stories were the ones that were distorted after Babel by idol-worshipping pagans.
Sorry, there simply is no evidence whatsoever for that claim made by Mortenson (and many other YECists as well).
4. Scripture is supremely authoritative for determining truth. Essentially, Mortenson is putting forth the idea of Sola Scriptura on steroids. I’m actually in the middle of doing a blog series on the differences between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism, and one of the key differences includes the traditional Protestant stance on Sola Scriptura. Simply put, the concept can be easily manipulated and abused (as we can see in the case of Mortenson and AiG). They may claim Scripture is “supremely authoritative,” but in reality, they are just reading their own assumptions and rather uninformed biases into Scripture, and then claiming their assumptions and biases carry supreme authority.
If you really do think Scripture is inspired and authoritative, then you have to conclude that the original message God revealed to the original audience is the inspired message. And if that is the case, then you have to acknowledge that that original inspired message wasn’t written directly to you, here in the 21st century, and that therefore you had better do all you can to try to understand that original context so that you can better understand that original, inspired message. But if you don’t think that original context is important enough to try to understand, then what you are saying is that you don’t care to understand the inspired message God has revealed in Scripture.
Dare I say it, that means you are undermining Scripture and biblical authority, Dr. Mortenson.
And so, when we come to the end of Mortenson’s article and read this, “We most certainly should not use the demonically influenced, sinfully distorted writings of ANE pagans or the similarly influenced and erroneous writings of modern evolutionist pagans to interpret the inspired and inerrant Word of God,” we should understand two things: (1) Yes, he has just implied that John Walton is a “modern evolutionist pagan” whose writings are demonically influenced and sinfully distorted; and (2) Terry Mortenson is undermining Scripture and biblical authority. We know this because he has just publicly stated that he doesn’t think it is important to understand the original inspired message God has revealed to us in the Bible. Mortenson (and the rest at AiG) don’t hold to Sola Scriptura. He holds to Sola Scriptura via Sola YECist Individuala.
Well said and though Mortenson’s comments are not new as you say, very much worth reviewing as you have done.
Yep, it is important to provide answers to those kinds of attacks–true “answers in Genesis,” if you will! 😉
“Once one denies the existence of a church Magisterium, how does one avoid turning one’s interpretation of Scripture into a sock puppet?” is a valid question to ask all those that do not believe in a Magisterium, like me. You might want to discuss this more in a separate post.
Is this supposed to be related to my Orthodoxy posts, or my new AiG post?