A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis

Introduction/What would you know if you didn’t know what you now know?/The state of the ancient world

[This is an excerpt from a new edition I’m writing of a personal study of the book of Genesis, the first edition of which can be found here. The purpose of this exercise is to compare a close reading of the text to our current understanding of language, paleontology, and the physical sciences. Constructive discussion on the elements presented is always encouraged!]

Introduction

All religious texts are largely considered to be legends or symbolic tales by the secular world. Even if they reference some events in history, rarely are they believed to be any more than fiction, and are often quickly dismissed by the non-religious as such.

However, throughout the Bible are verifiable accounts of people, places, and events with more evidence being uncovered even today making it as much a historical reference as it is a religious text. And even a modestly objective analysis of cultures that promote the prescribed individual morality, legal equality, and social standards have overwhelmingly resulted in greater progress across multiple socio-economic metrics. To be clear, this is in contrast to various oligarchies or caste systems where notable achievements were realized while denying various liberties to much of the population. Although the Bible does contain many examples of stratification in society throughout, most democratic libertarian societies today have based their constitutions on principles first found in the Pentateuch.

To be clear, it is not without parables, supernatural tales, and legends that even the most devout believer might consider symbolic or borrowed lore. This alleged hybrid of history and the fantastic has led to much debate between those who wish to observe scripture as a plain language collection of facts and others who see it as largely allegory or historical fiction. Devout believers and religious scholars throughout history can be found at all points in this spectrum.

In particular, the book of Genesis is largely considered to be such a fairytale. The first dozen or so chapters describe the world being created by the decree of a deity, people with lifespans of nearly 1,000 years, and a flood enveloping the world. It is my opinion that the popular interpretation of these first chapters may have caused more division between people across all degrees of belief throughout history than any other passages in the Bible. These seemingly indefensible supernatural legends continue to draw ridicule from the secular and scientific communities, especially at the expense of those who profess those introductory chapters to be fact.

This crisis of scripture was fresh on my mind while researching scientific developments within the past century. But as I delved deeper into recent discoveries in paleontology, the dramatic shifts in our understanding of the origins of the universe, and the emergence of quantum mechanics, there appeared an increasing number of parallels between these emergent theories and this religious fable. This sentiment has been echoed by several prominent scientists including Arno Penzias who commented concerning his co-discovery of the cosmic microwave background, “My argument is the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Although inspired by sentiments like his, I was not satisfied with what still appeared to be largely a leap of faith. Still having difficulty resolving some of what we have come to believe empirically with how Genesis has traditionally been interpreted, I realized it was those very interpretations that gave me pause.

The most familiar interpretations of the Old Testament are based on the Talmud which had assumed the point of Genesis was philosophical more than literal. Even among Christian theologians, we still rely on the assertions of individuals like Thomas Aquinas from nearly 800 years ago. While certainly written with the best of intentions and largely in support of their cultural or religious doctrines, the obvious deficit in every case empirically is that they do not reflect the experience of the original authors nor did they likely have a functional understanding of the prehistoric world.

I am not challenging the voracity of their convictions or anyone else’s. However, within the last century there has been a massive expansion of scientific knowledge including an unprecedented view of history. It is my opinion that we are at a unique point in time where we may now have more objective knowledge regarding pre-history than any other time since. 

Considering these factors, I then challenged myself to read those first chapters of Genesis while suppressing my knowledge of popularized imagery of the creation story to try and gain a fresh perspective. Empirically inspired, I sought to evaluate data points contained therein in a literal and deterministic fashion. This led to my scrutiny of key terms and phrases that did not seem to fit the popular interpretations. And it is through intentional disregard of these long-held viewpoints that an objectively applicable reality became apparent!

It is my view that our outmoded interpretations of this ancient story need revision. But like other familiar interpretations, to simply re-read a modern paraphrase of the Bible with our 21st-century sensibilities will provide little additional insight. To fully realize this tale from antiquity, we should take every consideration to place Genesis in the most accurate context. And with the astronomical and historical knowledge unique to our time in history, it is modern science itself that now can reveal expanded relevance to Genesis!

What would you know if you didn’t know what you now know?

Due largely to advances in transportation and media, humankind has literally “seen it all”. The average person today is exposed to so many ideas and visual experiences, including those real and imagined, that it is unlikely for one to witness something truly indescribable. Nowadays, with nearly worldwide access to the internet and all forms of educational and entertainment content, anyone can become familiar with any topic. Beyond the information itself, modern multimedia can reproduce or simulate the sights and sounds of almost anything that has ever existed and many things that have not! Everyone now reading this book has exponentially greater access to this combination of general knowledge and experiential information than perhaps anyone at any other time in history.

But if we look back hardly more than 100 years ago, most people rarely traveled beyond a 10-mile radius in their lifetime. Outside of the needs of daily life and their particular trade, individuals would be exposed to little intellectual variety beyond what was required of them or that could be found locally in a library or museum. This meant the majority of people had a limited inventory of mental images and experiences and therefore a relatable vocabulary for expressing such ideas. Also, the knowledge base for a given community would be unique when compared to other geographical regions or employment specialties. With such a smaller and more individualized experience to pull from, unusual observations would be more difficult to accurately describe to a culturally and regionally diverse audience.

This is the first challenge of historical contextual analysis: Taking into account a realistic consideration of what the knowledge base of a person who lived more than 3,000 years ago might be.

This is not to imply there is a lack of intelligence or ability to understand an extraordinary concept. On the contrary, there is little physiological difference between the capacity for knowledge and complex reasoning of humans today and those from millennia past. That we still study ancient philosophy and find relevance to texts like the Bible is proof of their persisting depth and complexity.

What I’m referring to is the likely challenges in expressing a unique idea with fewer shared experiences from which to create an analog with a diverse audience. For example, consider any fantasy book or film series of recent popularity. When striking up a conversation with someone who has never consumed that specific media will result in expressive limits. For example, a simple phrase like, “Who are you calling scruffy looking?” will mean something galactically different depending on the experience of the reader. It is where we possess common source material that concepts (including humorous anecdotes) are easier to share.

Now go further back, before the time of film, photography, or even books themselves. What common source material or life experience might one be able to use to describe a novel concept? Something described by ancient people will need to be relatable to the visual inventory, experiences, and scope of vocabulary common at the time.

The state of the ancient world

After doing our best to unlearn a few thousand years of interpretation and collective experience, we still need to consider the environmental context of the world we are trying to understand. Historical geography and archaeology are giving us insight into the ancient world in ever-growing detail. Again, we may know more now about life and conditions during the Ice Age than anyone in recorded history since then.

Also, paleontological evidence now shows us that the earth has changed drastically over millennia. For example, what is now the Sahara desert was a tropical grassland less than 6,000 years ago. That means the whole of Egypt was green during the lifetime of some of the mummies we have uncovered. If we had a photograph of their pyramids in the time they were built, one might mistake the setting for that of today’s tropically located Mayan pyramids of North America.

In Genesis, the author describes the ancient past beyond the time of recorded history. If we are to believe they are relaying accounts from antiquity or were given inspired knowledge of that time, we would need to make an effort to understand how the region might be different than today or what changes have taken place over the period being considered which is all of time.