In many writings, John Walton promotes the view that Gen 1 presents an antiquated view of the universe. One of his supporting arguments is that this isn't the only instance of outmoded science in Scripture. In his new book, The Lost World of Scripture (coauthored with Brent Sandy), he says Bible writers attributed emotional and cognitive processes to the heart, kidneys, and entrails. There are, however, several problems with his argument:
i) Walton would be the first to claim that Bible writers had negligible understanding of human gross internal anatomy. Ancient Jews didn't dissect human corpses. So not only, according to Walton, would they not know the true functions of each internal organ, but even their number or general placement.
But that raises a question: how do Bible scholars and Bible translators know what the Hebrews words are even referring to? What are the intended correlates of these terms if OT writers didn't even know what the human body looks like on the inside when you open up the chest cavity and poke around (like a surgeon or coroner)?
That's reflected in Walton's equivocal ascriptions, when he oscillates between the heart, kidneys, and entrails as the source of emotional and cognitive processes. But those aren't interchangeable organs. How can OT writers intend to attribute reason or emotion to the "kidneys" if they couldn't even point to which organ was the kidney?
So his argument generates a dilemma. To the extent that OT writers, and ancient Jewish readers, knew next to nothing about the internal anatomy of humans, how could they attribute emotional or cognitive processes to particular organs?
ii) Another basic problem with Walton's inference is that OT writers also attribute divine emotional and cognitive processes to God's "heart" (e.g. Gen 6:6; 8:21; Hos 11:8). But by Walton's logic, that would mean OT writers thought God was a corporeal, humanoid being with a physical heart. If, on the other hand, Walton denies that, then why assume the attribution is figurative in God's case, but literal in man's case? Why not at least allow for the possibility (or probability) that it's a poetic or idiomatic metaphor in both cases?
iii) In addition, there's evidence that ancient Near Easterners believed in the afterlife. Take Biblical prohibitions against necromancy. If, however, the dead could still think and feel emotion, then emotional and cognitive processes were separable from internal organs.
Given how much stock Walton puts in the conceptual world of the ANE to supply the "cognitive environment" for OT writers, surely that should figure in his interpretation. If ghosts could still reason and feel emotion, then their psychological makeup was independent of the body.
i) Walton would be the first to claim that Bible writers had negligible understanding of human gross internal anatomy. Ancient Jews didn't dissect human corpses.
ReplyDeleteBut the Jews sacrificed animals. That both required and resulted in an intimate (and growing) knowledge of animal anatomy. By seeing homologous structures/organs both internally and externally in animals, they could figure out similar functions in human anatomy. Also, Jews fought battles that resulted in injuries both to the enemies and to their own people. They could observe the effects that injuries can have on physical and mental functioning. It doesn't take too many battles to realize that injuries to the head and brain can result in impaired mental functioning.
Also, slicing people up in war using a sword will give some insight into human anatomy as well. It's interesting that in the book of Revelation the Mark of the Beast is placed on the hands and forehead. This has sometimes been interpreted to mean an agreement in one's thoughts and actions with the evil workings of the Beast. If that's the correct interpretation, then that shows that Jews by that time understood some connection between the head and thought.
So his argument generates a dilemma. To the extent that OT writers, and ancient Jewish readers, knew next to nothing about the internal anatomy of humans, how could they attribute emotional or cognitive processes to particular organs?
The OT writers weren't consistent with the location of where they allegedly equated emotion or thought. Either with each other and probably with themselves as a single author. That's consistent with Steve's point that they may have been using such language as idiomatic metaphors.
It's true that by self observation there's often a correlation between our emotions and how our hearts beat faster, slower, or skip beats. In that sense, ANE people may have made a connection. However, admitting a connection and using that connection metaphorically is not the same as dogmatically teaching that thought or emotion actually occurs or is localized in the heart. Correlation doesn't entail causation.
Similarly, the Bible talks about one's "bowels" in relation to emotions like compassion (e.g. 1 John 3:17; splagchnon in Greek). And we're all familiar with the sensation of "butterflies in one's stomach."
Interestingly, modern science has proven a second "brain" in the intestines that affect mood and other aspects to personality. So, the Jews and other ANE Semites may not have been far off in their use of language anyway.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-second-brain/
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-18779997
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201110/your-backup-brain
http://neurosciencestuff.tumblr.com/post/38271759345/gut-instincts-the-secrets-of-your-second-brain
http://www.ted.com/talks/heribert_watzke_the_brain_in_your_gut
They wouldn't know that the internal anatomy of sacrificial animals is analogous to human anatomy absent comparative anatomy.
ReplyDeleteSword-fights may give you an idea of which organs are vital organs, but not their specific function.
Yes, head trauma can impair cognitive function. So are you offering that as an argument against Walton?
Yes, I was exploring arguments that might refute Walton's views (which imply error on Scripture's part).
DeleteThey wouldn't know that the internal anatomy of sacrificial animals is analogous to human anatomy absent comparative anatomy.
The Jews could have formulated theories based on their reconstruction of the observations of Levites who cut up animals for sacrifice, the observations of warriors who have hacked into enemy human beings, along with the reports of what they may have heard from their pagan neighbors about whatever experiments or rituals they may have performed on animals and/or humans. They could also compare the anatomy of different animal species and noticed homologous organs and structures between them as well.
At the very least they could observe similarities between human and animal parts like eyes, ears, nose, tongues, genitalia, mammary glands, teeth, nails, hair etc. From that they could postulate homologous internal organs and functions.
You're just making things up out of thin air. Time for you to cease and desist.
DeleteWhen Paul talked about the "eyes of the heart" in Eph. 1:18, it's doubtful that Paul thought that the physical heart has eyes by which it can see physically. Clearly Paul used such language as figures of speech. It's not implausible for OT writers to have done something similar even if they were more "primitive"
DeleteWhen Scripture says that God hardened Pharoah's heart, I don't think the writers of Scripture intended to mean that God was literally and physically hardening his physical heart. Same thing when Ezekiel talks about God removing a heart of stone and replacing it with a heart flesh (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26).
I don't need you to explore arguments to refute Walton. As I point out, his assumptions generate an internal dilemma for his own position. Your attempt to dissolve the dilemma doesn't improve my argument. The dilemma, as it stands, is a problem for his position. Your comments are obtuse in reference to how the argument is framed.
DeleteYou labor under the conceited notion that my posts need to be supplemented by your comments. That your uncomprehending observations somehow improve on my original argument. They don't. I don't need your "help."
You're just making things up out of thin air.
ReplyDeleteI thought what I wrote was similar to how you've speculated about how ancient peoples were probably able to infer the roundness of the earth by seeing the curvature of the earth from a high mountain, or the mast of a ship.
History shows that some of them did infer it in various ways. For example, from the curved shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Eratosthenes estimated the Earth's circumference by using trigonometric calculations based on how different areas of the world simultaneously cast shadows of different length. The point is that the ancients were much more clever than many unbelieving skeptics or liberals realize.
That's not "speculation." Rather, those are documented examples.
Delete