Info

not real. This schema was advocated by several Catholics, the Braunsberg theologian Friedrich Michelis (1815-86), editor of Natur und Offenbarung, and the theology professor Johann Baptist Baltzer (1803-71), in his Die biblische Schöpfungsgeschichte (2 vols., 1867,1872),22 as well as Reusch.

In addition to the harmonisers, there were those who opposed the results of modern science, and insisted on a traditional, literal interpretation of Genesis. The entire geological column as well as the palaeontological record had accumulated after the six days of creation or, more precisely, after the fall of man, and was generally attributed to the deluge.23 The publications by this group ofliteralists formed the intellectual roots oftwentieth-century fundamentalist creationism.24

The reconciliatory schemata provided science with considerable freedom to pursue its investigations of the physical world. Simultaneously, biblical literalism was weakened, to which, from the theological side, textual and higher criticism contributed. The reinterpretation of the Mosaic accounts of creation and flood, triggered by geology, linked up with results from the historical study of the Pentateuch, the archaeological study of Israel and the Near East, and the anthropological study of Old and New Testament religion. More radical than the revisions that were forced on many believers by science was this critical tradition within theology, leaders of which ranged from Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827) to Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), both Gottingen orientalist-theologians. The documentary hypothesis of the historical school in biblical studies, especially Old Testament studies, reduced the entire Pentateuch from a unitary record of divine revelation to a product of historical change, cobbled together from a variety of other sources and repeatedly altered in a process of editorial changes.25 Higher criticism did not become a topic of major public debate in Britain before the 1860s, with the appearance of Essays and reviews (1860), written by members of the Church of England, and The Pentateuch and the Böök öfJöshua critically examined (1862), by the bishop of Natal, John William Colenso (1814-83), which questioned the Mosaic authorship and with that the authenticity ofthe Pentateuch as a divinely inspired account of history. A protest by fellows - some eminent - of the Royal

22 J. B. Baltzer, Die biblische Schöpfungsgeschichte, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1867,1872), vol. i, pp. 322-54, table ii.

23 Rupke, The great chain öf histöry, pp. 42-50; Reusch, Nature and the Bible, vol. i, pp. 294-310; Zockler, Theölögie und Naturwissenschaft, vol. ii, pp. 470-83.

24 Numbers, The creatiönists.

25 Kraus, Geschichte der histörisch-kritischen Erforschung, pp. 120-264.

0 0

Post a comment