0083 Can the myth interscope be used to express a link between the civilizations of the ancient Near East and Genesis 2:4-11?
Yes, Craig spends two chapters (B and C) discussing each criterion for myth (M1-M10) and showing how each applies to the Primeval History, as well as to the origin myths of ancient Mesopotamia.
0084 Craig writes beautiful prose. Every sentence is well constructed. Part Two exhibits the semitic textual style. Here, the pattern is A, B, C, C’, B’, A’.
Chapter 2 covers the nature of myth (A).
Chapter 3 addresses the perspective and situation levels of the interscope of myth (B).
Chapter 4 moves to the content level (C).
Chapter 5 asks whether the term, “mytho-history”, applies to Genesis 1-11 (C’).
Chapter 6 asks whether myths are believed to be true (B’).
Chapter 7 addresses how the New Testament regards Adam as historic (A’).
0085 The first movement (A-C) asks the reader to recognize the possibility that Genesis 2:4-11 has all the family resemblances of myth.
In particular, Genesis 2:4-11 bears a family resemblance to origin myths of the ancient Near East.
The next movement (C’-A’) is crucial. The origin myths of the ancient Near East are, from a Western point of view, historical, in so far as the cuneiform tablets bearing this literature come from archaeological sites.
Thus, the stories of Adam and Eve, along with the origin myths of the ancient Near East, may be labeled, “mytho-historical”.
0086 These myths are associated with certain periods in the archaeology of southern Mesopotamia, the Ubaid (7800-6000 years ago), the Uruk (6000-5000 years ago) and the Sumerian Dynastic (starting 5000 years ago).
Perhaps, the term, “mytho-archaeological”, is more accurate.
0087 For example, Genesis genealogies resonate with various Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian king lists. The term, “resonate”? Think “re-” (again) and “-sonate” (sound).
0088 These king-lists key into the situation level of the myth interscope.
Figure 13
0088 The situation-level potential situates the entire content level, where divine-nature correspondences2a emerge from (and situate) the potential of fantastical elements1a, in the normal context of a primeval age3a. The genealogies and the king lists1b are scaffolding that are situated by a perception that the gods2b (or God2b) live, today, as well as in distant times. The perception2b that the character of the gods2b has always been operational since the beginning1b is itself a ritual association3b.
0089 The content level says, “This is our story.”
The situation level says, “Our story brings the past into the present and the present into the past.”
Both Genesis 2.4-11 and the origin stories of the ancient Near East are mytho-historical texts that address the same prehistoric drama. They represent two trajectories within one multifaceted sequence of events, occurring before history can be written, because writing is yet to be invented. Writing starts during the Uruk. At first, writing is used record economic transactions. Hundreds of years later, the Sumerians write their origin myths onto clay tablets.
0090 In Part Two, Craig demonstrates that the mytho-historical stories of Genesis 2:4-11 apply to events associated to the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian archaeological periods.
But, in Part Three, Craig locates the historical Adam with the ancient hominin species, Homo heidelbergensis.
0091 With that in mind, allow me to restate the question posed in point 0039.
Why do Genesis 2:4-4and all other origin stories of ancient Mesopotamia describe a recent creation of humans?
Why do they only describe our current Lebenswelt?
Why can’t they acknowledge the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
0092 The answer is obvious.
Our current Lebenswelt cannot see into the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The storytellers cannot see beyond the horizon of the first singularity.
This answer also appears in Comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) “Aquinas, Original Sin and the Challenge of Evolution, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0093 I return to the nested form obtained from examining Part One.
Part Two transforms the definition of Genesis 2.4-11 as mytho-history into an inquiry into the reality of the historical Adam.
Here is how the definition in Part One transforms at the end of Part Two.
Figure 14
0094 Craig’s definition of the stories of Adam and Eve as mytho-history changes the presence underling the Primeval History and initiates an inquiry into the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods. The presence underlying Genesis 2:4-11 (and the origin myths of the ancient Near East) describes a recent creation of humans by God (or gods). By “recent”, I mean, the start of the Ubaid.
0095 Does this fly in the face of the scientific narrative of human evolution?
Does the start of the Ubaid mark a (yet to be appreciated) transition in human evolution?
0096 Why haven’t archaeologists proposed such a transition?
Well, it turns out, they have. A rule-of-thumb gained currency in archaeology in the first half of the twentieth century. It goes like this. The further from southern Mesopotamia, the later the civilization appears.
0097 In sum, the stories of Adam and Eve associate to a prehistoric trauma, corresponding to the start of the Ubaid. In this trauma, the traditions of the deep past cannot be remembered, so humankind must be created from scratch (as far as mythology goes). The trauma (represented by Adam’s story) originates humanity’s tragic flaw. This flaw touches base with the first theme (T1). Humankind tends to destroy what God has made good.
0098 Chapter 6 (B’) poses the question, “Are myths believed to be true?”
The answer is, “Yes, if every element in the three-level interscope is filled in.”
Intellectual satisfaction proceeds from a completely associated three-level interscope.
The proof is in the way that the ten family resemblances of myth associate to all elements in the three-level interscope.
Myths that contain all family resemblances offer understanding.
0099 Understanding?
Is “understanding” is another way to say, “This is the way it must be.”
Not all historical processes and events are accessible to Western scientific articulation. For example, a prehistoric event cannot be fully described as history.
It can be described through myth.
0100 In the case of Genesis 2:4-11 and the origin stories of the ancient Near East, these historical events and processes associate to the Ubaid, the Uruk and the Sumerian Dynastic.
In other words, prehistoric events are memorialized as myth, in Genesis 2:4-11.
We know that they associate with the start of civilization in the ancient Near East.
We can also imagine that Genesis 2.4-11 contains clues that point to those prehistoric events.
0101 ‘Something’2, captured in the stories of Adam and Eve2, transforms Craig’s definition3 into an inquiry3.
The presence of the ancient Near East and Genesis 2:4-111 is located in the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic of southern Mesopotamia. In particular, the historical Adam is united with a primeval… er… primordial trauma corresponding to the start of the Ubaid.
0102 At the time of Christ, no one knows this. Instead, everyone understands that Adam originates humanity’s tragic flaw. Adam and Eve are regarded as causes, in the scientific sense of the word, rather than signs.
0103 Today, I suggest that the stories ofAdam and Eve are signs of the start of the Ubaid. The Ubaid associates to the start of civilization of southern Mesopotamia. The Ubaid also marks the start of our current Lebenswelt and the beginning of the end of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0104 In Part Two, Craig’s definition3 turns into an inquiry3.
The actuality2 of this inquiry3 concerns the contiguity between the archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia2 and the Genesis Primeval History2.
The meaning1 and message1 remain the same. But, the presence1 corresponds to the start of our current Lebenswelt.Our current Lebenswelt manifests humanity’s tragic flaw, where humankind tends to destroy what God has made good.
0105 Here is a picture.
Figure 15
0106 Yes, our current Lebenswelt (of speech-alone talk and unconstrained social complexity) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (of hand-talk and hand-speech talk and constrained social complexity).
The hypothesis is scientific. A change in the way humans talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity, such as civilization.
0107 Yes, Craig’s failure to identify Adam with the start of the Ubaid stems from a failure in the scientific imagination.
Craig imagines that there is only one creation of humans.
The hypothesis of the first singularity changes all that.
0108 Consider two e-works for a direct discussion: The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace and Comments on Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12-19.
Also consider a fictional account where the hypothesis is presented in dramatic form. An Archaeology of the Fall is accompanied by an Instructor’s Guide, for adults who want to lead discussion seminars for high school and college students.
0109 ‘Something’ that is captured in Genesis 2:4-11 and the origin myths of the ancient Near East is brought to consciousness in the New Testament (C’). The resurrection of Jesus calls all humankind, in our current Lebenswelt,because we are the ones who suffer from the tragic flaw originated by Adam. We are the ones who live in the Lebenswelt initiated by the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.
0112 This is the last blog concerning this particular book. I post this blog first, because WordPress places the latest blog closest to the top for each month. Chronologically, the first blog in a series appears last on the month’s list and the last blog eventually appears first. There is a certain logic to this, which I appreciate and adjust my posts accordingly. My goal is to limit my examinations to one-month duration.
0113 I summarize.
0114 First, Part Three of Craig’s book associates to Genesis 1:26, the intention of man. The time frame corresponds to the period after the domestication of fire and before the speciation of anatomically modern humans. Our religious sensibilities evolve during this period, as discussed in the e-masterwork, The Human Niche.
0115 Second, Part Two of Craig’s book attempts to define Genesis 2:4-11 as mytho-history. The attempt turns Craig’s definition into an inquiry concerning the first singularity. The first singularity associates to the start of the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia. The hypothesis of the first singularity explains why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The consequences of the first singularity are captured by the stories of Adam and Eve. This is a theme in the e-masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0116 Third, Part One of Craig’s book sets a path to a category-based nested form, defining3 the stories of Adam and Eve2as emerging from (and situating) Jewish covenantal history (meaning1), the ancient Near East and Genesis 1-11 (presence1), and the notion that Adam originates humanity’s tragic flaw (message1). The categorical structure of definition is introduced in the e-masterwork, How to Define the Word “Religion”.
0117 Fourth, Part One presents ten family resemblances characterizing the term, “myth”. These family resemblances associate to all the elements in a three-tier interscope. The interscope is a relational structure, presented in the e-work, A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
0118 Fifth, Part Two fills in the interscope of myth with the ten family resemblances, leading to an understanding that Genesis 2:4-11 and the origin stories of the ancient Near East pertain to the same prehistoric events and processes, occurring during the Ubaid, the Uruk and the Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods.
0119 Sixth, Part Three fails to capitalize on the fact that both the Genesis Primeval History and the origin stories of the ancient Near East portray a recent creation of humanity. This failure follows a lacuna in the modern discipline of Anthropology, which does not envision that our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Why does modern Anthropology not register the first singularity?
Modern Anthropology self-identifies as science. Modern Anthropology belongs to the waning Age of Ideas.
The hypothesis of the first singularity belongs to the dawning Age of Triadic Relations. Peirce’s philosophy opens a new, semiotic consciousness. That consciousness calls for a postmodern Anthropology radically different from what modern intellectuals call “postmodern”.
0120 My thanks to William Lane Craig, for demonstrating the beauty of good English prose, even while missing the mark in his quest for the historical Adam.
0001 In this series of blogs, I examine John H. Walton’s book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate, published in 2015 by Intervarsity Press. John Walton is a Professor of the Old Testament and has published other commentaries.
0002 I examine this book from the point of views of (A) natural philosophy and (B) the hypothesis of the first singularity.
0003 From the first point of view (A), what Walton calls, “archetypal”, may also be construed as “noumenal”, as opposed to “phenomenal”. According to Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy, modern science construes each thing as a noumenon and its phenomena. A noumenon is the thing itself. Phenomena are its observable and measurable facets. Science models phenomena. Science cannot address the noumenon, the thing itself.
0004 So, how we recognize noumena, things themselves?
Noumena are the subject of philosophical inquiry. Aristotle’s hylomorphe is the first step in philosophical inquiry. We perceive the thing itself, directly, as a dyadic relation containing two contiguous real elements. Aristotle calls the two real elements, matter and form.
What about the contiguity?
The contiguity will be placed in brackets.
I will use another one of Aristotle’s terms for the contiguity. The term has been the subject of a lot of wooly thinking. So, the choice is rich, in more ways than one.
0005 According to Charles Peirce, the category of secondness, the realm of actuality, consists in two contiguous real elements.
According to Aristotle, the hylomorphe is (basically) matter [substantiates] form. The verb, “substantiates”, is the same as the noun, “substance”.
Here is a picture.
Figure 01
0006 Human recognition of hylomorphes is immediate and intuitively natural.
Why?
We evolved to recognize noumena, things themselves.
This is how the ancient world thinks. Greek philosophers ask, “Why are there things instead of nothing?” The answer ends up with Aristotle’s proposal. The hylomorphe is the portal to natural philosophy. Natural philosophy considers things in themselves.
0007 Today, science-lovers fixate on phenomena, such as the observable and measurable aspects of a thing, called “original sin”. Then, they they build models for how Adam could be the direct cause of this thing.
In contrast, Walton argues that the civilizations of the ancient Near East look at this issue from the noumenal side. Adam is contiguous with what is wrong with the world. Paul wrestles with this hylomorphe in his famous letters to the Corinthians and the Romans.
Figure 02
0008 From the second point of view (B), Walton’s propositions appear more and more like a noumenon whose phenomena yield a novel scientific hypothesis. This novel hypothesis is formally proposed in the masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
In 2015, John Walton and his collaborator, N.T. Wright, are not aware of this novelty. The hypothesis of the first singularity changes everything.
0009 In the conclusion, Walton states that his book demonstrates that Genesis 1 is concerned with God’s ordering of a grand sacred space with the goal of coming into relation with us. Genesis 2.4 starts with God planting humans within a sacred space, within the grand sacred space, only to find that we bite. We bite into the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Isn’t that smart?
0010 We deceive ourselves.
We introduce chaos into God’s order.
Oh, I meant to say, it is Adam’s fault.
0011 Weirdly, this sounds a lot like all the other origin stories of the ancient Near East, especially the ones recovered by archaeologists from royal libraries that burnt to the ground thousands of years ago. Cuneiform clay tablets fire into brick. The bricks retain their integrity even when buried by detritus. Then, they are excavated by modern archaeologists. Then, archaeologists miraculously find a way to read the script.
0012 Walton has the advantage of these archaeological discoveries. Walton has the advantage of new scholarship on Paul and the Jewish civilization during the Second Temple Period. Yet, he writes in the twilight of the Age of Ideas.
0013 This examination brings his propositions into the dawning Age of Triadic Relations.
Walton sets forth 21 propositions.To these, I attend.
Ancient documents simultaneously express esoteric and plain-speaking aspects.
They describe things unseen, as well as things seen.
0015 For sixteen centuries, interpreters of the Old and the New Testaments wrestle with both aspects, producing the great doctrines and codifying the contradictions inherent in Christian revelation.
Then, the sixteenth-century Reformers of northern Europe lobby to jettison the esoteric components and press for plain-spoken interpretations, that anyone can perform. They do so while retaining the great doctrines.
One hundred years of plain-speaking interpretations later, seventeenth-century Europeans encounter the arguments of the mechanical philosophers. Mechanical philosophers take plain-speaking to a whole new level. The scientific and industrial revolutions follow in the next two centuries.
0017 In the nineteenth century, archaeological excavations recover hundreds of thousands of cuneiform texts from tells (or “hills”) throughout the Near East. This inspires the inquiries that inform Walton’s book. How do reformers, in their plain-speaking tradition, confront this new evidence about the ancient Near East?
Ancient documents simultaneously express esoteric and plain-speaking aspects.
The esoteric aspects address those-in-the-know. The insiders hear one aspect.
The plain-speaking aspects address those-who-are-not-in-the-know. They are not exactly insiders. They are not outsiders, either. So, they need a plain message to grasp.
In the ancient Near East and in the Old Testament, the Hebrew terms for “creating” (bara) and making (asa) applies to establishing order by assigning roles and functions.
0019 In the modern world, “creating” and “making” concern material production of things, irrespective of roles and functions. Of course, moderns have the luxury of centuries of research into the material sciences. Modern science follows the dictates of the Positivist’s judgment, which includes the empirio-schematic judgment.
The Positivists take the plain-speaking approach out of the reformed churches and into the natural sciences. Mathematical and mechanical models eschew formal and final causalities (the stuff of roles and functions) and extol material and instrumental causalities (the stuff that one can explicitly abstract and specify).
0020 The empirio-schematic judgement does not apply to the old Hebrew terms. Therefore, the Positivists declare, “Genesis is not scientific.”
Walton tries to respond, “But, that is not the point of Genesis.”
Then, the Positivists persist, “Then, are you saying that Genesis is esoteric knowledge? If so, then plain-speaking interpretations of Genesis are not possible.”
0021 The Positivists, the heirs of the mechanical philosophers, place Walton in a difficult position. Walton belongs to a plain-speaking tradition. Positivists say that the only way to speak plainly, is to speak scientifically.
Walton replies, “Okay, let us look at the other appearances of the key words of Genesis 1, bara and asa, and fashion a scientific interpretation.”
0022 The results?
Bara means to create things with roles and functions.
Asa means to make things with roles and functions.
The ancients focus, not on material phenomenal reality, but on things themselves.
Here is a plain-speaking result that appeals to the science-minded.
0023 I would like to associate bara and asa to Aristotle’s hylomorphe, portrayed as an exemplar of Peirce’s category of secondness. Like the Latin term, esse, being as existent, bara associates to being [substantiates]. Like the Latin term, essence,asa associates to [substantiating] form.
I write esse as esse_ce, the complement of essence.
In the following figure, I portray the Hebrew terms.
Figure 03
0024 In sum, key Hebrew terms in Genesis associate to later Greek philosophical insights. Esse_ce (the fact that it exists) and essence (the fact that it has form) belong to the noumenon. The noumenon stands outside the empirio-schematic natural sciences. So, the noumenon is derided as “esoteric”. Yet, the noumenon, described as a hylomorphe, is the gateway to natural philosophy.
