Recently I was thinking a bit more about the notion, beloved by liberals and atheists alike, that Bible writers believed in a triple-decker universe. On this view, as I understand it, there was a central landmass which floated on the primordial sea. The sea was under and around the land.
Let’s bracket inspiration for a moment and just consider if this would make sense to an ancient Near Easterner, with no modern scientific knowledge. What would that cosmography entail?
Well, on that view, the earth would be a boat or raft at sea. And that’s something ancient fishermen and mariners were acquainted with. But in that event, you'd expect the land to bob up and down with every wave and ripple–like a waterbed or cork in a bathtub. But although ancient Near Easterners experienced the occasional earthquake, life on dry land was quite different than stepping into a boat.
It would also be a pretty top-heavy ship, what with those mountainous pillars supporting the solid dome overhead. During an earthquake, wouldn't the ship capsize?
Here's some interesting material related to the antipodes
ReplyDeleteI don't want to endorse either the realistic cosmology or phenomenological view here, but I do worry that your speculations on whether a three-tiered cosmos would have made sense to an ANE person are just that, speculations. It may be anachronistic to suppose that they worried about such things. There are plenty of beliefs that we know people in other times took more or less for granted, while we are left scratching our heads wondering how it could ever have made sense to them. Like humorism, for example. Like all discredited theories it made sense of some observations and it did not occur to people of previous times to wonder whether it made sense of all of them.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm not arguing for one or the other view here. I'm just saying that I don't think it's particularly compelling to argue against the realistic cosmology view by suggesting objections which we have no idea whether they would have occurred to ANE peoples or not.
I would also add that, taking the speculative route for the moment, the ancients might have noticed that heavier craft would remain more stable in choppy water than lighter craft. Extrapolate that to a very massive central landmass, and I doubt ancients would expect it to behave like a floating cork.
ReplyDeleteJ.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete“I don't want to endorse either the realistic cosmology or phenomenological view here, but I do worry that your speculations on whether a three-tiered cosmos would have made sense to an ANE person are just that, speculations.”
Yes, the possibility that Scripture might actually be right is deeply worrisome. Discovering that Scripture is true would be shattering to one’s faith.
Speculation cuts both ways. The assumption that the ancients were too dimwitted to note easily falsifiable or incongruous cosmological models is also speculative.
“It may be anachronistic to suppose that they worried about such things.”
Is it?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/ancient-logistics.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/ancient-logistics-ii.html
“There are plenty of beliefs that we know people in other times took more or less for granted, while we are left scratching our heads wondering how it could ever have made sense to them. Like humorism, for example.”
Although humorism is false, is that obvious to the observer? Our bodies aren’t transparent. Our physiological processes aren’t transparent. To say the ancients lacked a modern understanding of endocrinology etc. is quite different than whether they could tell if mountains supported a solid vault.
“I'm just saying that I don't think it's particularly compelling to argue against the realistic cosmology view by suggesting objections which we have no idea whether they would have occurred to ANE peoples or not.”
Critics of inerrancy level the same objections in reverse.
And it’s perfectly legitimate for me to point out that certain types of knowledge were readily available to ancient Near Easterners.
“I would also add that, taking the speculative route for the moment, the ancients might have noticed that heavier craft would remain more stable in choppy water than lighter craft. Extrapolate that to a very massive central landmass, and I doubt ancients would expect it to behave like a floating cork.”
Even modern ships far larger than ancient watercraft sway at sea.
Your compiled quotes show that people did raise questions about the coherence of certain cosmological models. I'll grant that (even if they don't give evidence that people worried about the specific objections that you raise). But what I don't see in those quotes is evidence that those difficulties lead ancient readers to interpret the Scriptures phenomenologically, or that the original authors intended them to be so interpreted. In fact, the quote from Basil shows rather that (at least some) ancient readers interpreted the biblical images realistically. Basil comes up with a tweak that allows him to 'save the appearances' of his literal, solid dome understanding of Genesis 1.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the fact that such challenges were leveled at Scripture at all is evidence that many readers understood the Genesis 1 cosmology realistically. If it was clear to ancient readers that the cosmological language in Genesis and elsewhere was phenomenological and cultic, there would have been no fodder for accusations of incoherence.
So even if questions were raised about coherence, that doesn't seem like a good reason to dismiss the idea that ancient readers interpreted the Genesis cosmological pictures realistically.
"Although humorism is false, is that obvious to the observer?...To say the ancients lacked a modern understanding of endocrinology etc. is quite different than whether they could tell if mountains supported a solid vault."
Is it obvious that mountains could not have supported a solid vault? I can think of pretty simple observations that could easily discredit humorism in hindsight. The question is whether the questions you raise occurred to ancient people.
"Even modern ships far larger than ancient watercraft sway at sea."
But not as much. If the ancients were as sophisticated as you make them out to be, they could have concluded that the central landmass could sway, but ordinarily its motions were imperceptible.
J.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete“But what I don't see in those quotes is evidence that those difficulties lead ancient readers to interpret the Scriptures phenomenologically, or that the original authors intended them to be so interpreted. In fact, the quote from Basil shows rather that (at least some) ancient readers interpreted the biblical images realistically. Basil comes up with a tweak that allows him to 'save the appearances' of his literal, solid dome understanding of Genesis 1.”
i) And other ancient readers like Origen and Philoponus did not construe it realistically.
ii) Moreover, a triple-decker cosmography isn’t consistently phenomenological. It’s not as if ancient Near Easterns saw rain pouring from celestial sluice gates (to take one example).
My position was never predicated on reading the imagery is purely phenomenological terms. Rather, I think Biblical cosmography combines phenomenological elements with architectural metaphors. The latter piggyback on the former.
“Also, the fact that such challenges were leveled at Scripture at all is evidence that many readers understood the Genesis 1 cosmology realistically.”
You’re doing a bait-n-switch. It documents the fact that *some* church fathers construed the cosmography realistically *in spite* of extratextual evidence to the contrary. Therefore, you can’t stipulate that Biblical cosmography was based on how the world appeared to ground-based observers when, in fact, it generated incongruities with the observable world. It was not realistic from the viewpoint of ancient observers. Rather, some church fathers take the literary depiction as their frame of reference *despite* evident difficulties with a realistic reading of that depiction.
“If it was clear to ancient readers that the cosmological language in Genesis and elsewhere was phenomenological and cultic, there would have been no fodder for accusations of incoherence.”
Basil is responding to pagan critics. That’s a hostile audience. They have a vested interest in ridiculing the Biblical depiction.
“So even if questions were raised about coherence, that doesn't seem like a good reason to dismiss the idea that ancient readers interpreted the Genesis cosmological pictures realistically.”
The Pentateuch wasn’t written to the church fathers. The fact that church fathers might be insensitive to cultic metaphors doesn’t mean the implied reader shared their insensitivity. The Pentateuch is a literary unit with many cultic allusions.
“Is it obvious that mountains could not have supported a solid vault?”
If you hike to the summit, do you bump your head on the roof of the sky?
“I can think of pretty simple observations that could easily discredit humorism in hindsight.”
“…in hindsight.” You’re prevaricating.
“The question is whether the questions you raise occurred to ancient people.”
No, the question is whether JD likes to be contrarian for the sake of contrariety.
“If the ancients were as sophisticated as you make them out to be, they could have concluded that the central landmass could sway, but ordinarily its motions were imperceptible.”
i) In what sense is swaying motion imperceptible?
ii) Sophisticated people can make intellectual adjustments in how they interpret phenomena. But that doesn’t change how they sense phenomena.
"No, the question is whether JD likes to be contrarian for the sake of contrariety."
ReplyDeleteActually, I rather like the phenomenological/metaphorical interpretation of biblical cosmological images. If valid, it does away with several thorny issues in the theology/science relationships quite nicely. What I'm still trying to figure out is whether it was indeed the original authors' intent, or amounts to 20th Century evangelical 'ventriloquism', to save the appearances.
i) To some extent phenomenological/metaphorical interpretations are probably motivated by apologetic concerns.
ReplyDeleteSo we have to guard against self-deception. Being too eager to latch onto any interpretation that relieves a pressure point.
ii) However, I think it's incontestable that the Pentateuch contains a lot of cultic foreshadowing and backshadowing. Sacred time. Sacred space. Sacred sound.
iii) If the Bible is true, then we'd expect true interpretations to conveniently dovetail with other truths. So that's not inherently suspect.
As a matter of fact, there is at least one Mesopotamian account in which Marduk creates the dry land on top of the sea by first building a (huge) reed raft and then pouring dirt on top of it: The Bilingual Account of the Creation of the World by Marduk (CT 13 36:17-18).
ReplyDelete