The King James translation erred in some of its translation
choices, particularly with regard to animals and beasts that the translators
were unfamiliar with. The cockatrice and unicorn are but a couple of well known
examples, and their usage has generated some confusion among readers. In some
cases the use of fantastical creature nomenclature has engendered mocking and
ridicule from both within and without the Church.
Later it was realised that these were incorrect translations
and modern translations correct this by replacing them with terms referring to
'real world' creatures that we're all familiar with. And yet it's not that
simple. Some of these animal-related terms are rather loaded and imply
something more than mere Middle Eastern creatures. The King James translators
erred but they weren't always on the wrong track in recognising there was
something more going on in how these creatures are named and described.
I find the contemporary argument that in all cases these are mere
references to common animals of the Levant represents an error not just in
translation but in theology.
For example the goat demons (Sa'ir) of the Old Testament Scriptures
are etymologically and conceptually related to (and of course antecedent to) the
satyrs found in Ancient Greek tales. Additionally many of the howling, haunting
waste-place creatures related in the Old Testament are described in terms that
transcend a mere animal. Once again context is important in determining how
words are defined. I use my Strong's Concordance on a regular basis but an over-reliance
upon it, or the tendency of some to allow it to rigidly define words in all
contexts can also result in error and lead to the misinterpretation of not just
individual words but whole passages.
Is the language poetic, symbolic and/or hyperbolic? That's a
possibility, but of course there's another possibility that these creatures,
like the draconic Leviathan are in fact real.
Is this absurd? It's no more 'absurd' than it is to believe
in a universal flood or in the other wonders and miracles associated with the
antediluvian and ancient world. Is it absurd to believe in a talking donkey, in
angels walking among us or in the resurrection of the dead? In fact given that
every culture on earth seems to share in these primeval memories, it's actually
much easier to believe that not only are the Old Testament accounts real and
what they purport to be but that there is a degree of truth in the old
mythologies of the world. This is not to say that we can read the ancient myths
and take them as gospel-accurate accounts. By no means but rather they are
embellished (if obscured) tales that point to once present realities and
ancient memory.
Leviathan and Behemoth are not whales and crocodiles. Let the
atheists taunt. We regard not their approval nor do we seek their accolade. Let
the Evangelical and Confessional compromisers beware. They seek the respect of
the academy and thus are quick to dispense with the more 'embarrassing'
supernatural elements of Scripture, certainly those they deem as
'non-essential'... a list which grows by the day it seems.
While the less than conservative Catholic author is quick to
dispense with 'flying serpents' he has chosen to ignore the widespread
testimony with regard to them. From Herodotus to Meso-America the world has
stories of flying serpents... and so we shouldn't be surprised to find
reference to them in Isaiah.
What has happened to this seeming world of supernatural
wonders? Well, that's a discussion worth having and there are many angles to
consider but it can't take place when secularism and its assumptions override
revelation. Were these creatures mere biological entities in keeping with the
materialist conception of zoology? That too is a discussion worth having. As a
supernaturalist and Bible-believer I would answer in the negative. And that
answer informs how I answer the first question... in accounting for why that
world seemingly no longer exists.
And as mentioned in other writings we need to beware of
Evangelical authors like Michael Heiser. Heiser is to be commended on one
level. He takes the text at face value and argues the Old and New Testaments
present a deeply supernaturalistic worldview which includes the many references
to creatures, demons and elohim-beings or gods. However Heiser dances around
the question as to whether these things are true or whether we merely have to
read the Bible with the understanding that ancient believers believed these
things to be true and therefore to understand them we need to read them in
their context and understand their arguments within the cosmological framework
and worldview that they held.
The latter point is certainly true enough but I think more is
demanded of us than to just admit that ancient people held this worldview. To
read the Bible through modern secular eyes is to impoverish the text if not
decimate it. And yet we are faced with an important question... is it true?
Well, we first have to ask, what is the Bible? Is it a supernatural book, a
miraculous work produced and preserved by the Holy Spirit? I'm not so sure
Heiser fully believes this and if he affirms it, he holds to many concepts
which fundamentally undermine the argument. Heiser represents a theology that
is on the rise in Evangelical circles. It posits that the text is something
cobbled together, something borrowed and manipulated, something constructed
from and in replication of the texts and myths of surrounding nations. They
grant credence to what the text says but they don't actually believe it, any
more than they believe in Mesopotamian and Levantine mythology. And thus its
presentation is in fact a lie. It wasn't written by the men it purports to be
written by, nor at the times that are presented. And yet somehow God grants his
approval, ratifies this text which is essentially a pack of lies and then we're
supposed to put our faith in it. It's no wonder that apostasy is on the rise.
There are dangerous wolves running rampant in the Evangelical camp.
I believe the means, message and preservation of the text to
be a supernatural work and so in terms of epistemology I am far more likely to
trust Divine Revelation (even if it seems outlandish) than general revelation
viewed through the fallen lens of my own (or my culture's) flawed and limited
epistemology. The Bible reveals a supernatural world that both transcends and
exists alongside our own. Such prepositions are of course strained and
inadequate but approximate or at least attempt to explain the nature of the
relationship. Elisha's servant seeing the heavenly hosts outside of Dothan is
but one example of this and yet this aspect of reality is clearly beyond our
empirical probings and in actuality evades any serious predication we might
entertain. We are in the end, wholly dependent on revelation and at best our
knowledge, given that its expression is limited by our space-time bound
language is going to be analogous and relational. Propositional logic is
destined to fail when exploring such questions, let alone the various
epistemologies born of man's philosophical inquiry. Those that are trying to
'prove' the supernatural revelatory nature of the text through naturalistic
means and in accord with the empiricist orthodoxy of our day are engaged in a
fool's quest. Many do so out of sincerity but in fact they merely open the
doors to the enemy and end up undermining the argument and the belief of those
that would put their faith in Christ and in His inspired and providentially recognised
and preserved Word.
Quoting Loftus with regard to Pliny, Herodotus, Ovid and
Virgil the Catholic author is equally dismissive of their discussion of what we
today would call legendary beasts or even cryptids. The Catholic author seeks
to differentiate the Bible and argue that it conforms with scientifically based
fact while other ancient authors resort to myth. Loftus says the Bible is just
more of the same.
Rather, I would say I'm far more likely to believe the
accounts of the ancient authors or at least argue there is truth to their
claims and the stories they relate even if the details and accounts are muddled
and embellished over time. Not every cited creature need be real but I would
certainly be slow to just dismiss all of them. Once again in some cases the
creatures represent universal experience that transcends cultures. Rather than
delve into questions of psyche or some kind of evolutionary mental phenomena I
would argue these represent primeval memory. Loftus the atheist is (sad to say)
closer to the truth, even while being dead wrong.
Reading this unfortunate article I was reminded of Neil
MacGregor's BBC series Living with the
Gods, which received abundant praise. His Germany: Memories of a Nation was excellent and highly recommended
but the series on religion was a disappointment. The various explored motifs
were interesting but the series demonstrated the impoverished and incapable
attempts of scientific materialism to explain the nature, function and genesis
of religion and the supernatural... even the many false religions as we
Christians understand them. And contrary to many rationalist-leaning
theological conservatives of our day, I do believe the supernatural functions
within the context of false religion.
While someone like RC Sproul is quick to discount even the
staff-to-serpent phenomena of Pharaoh's priests in Exodus as a mere
sleight-of-hand trick, I on the other hand would argue that what they did was
real... but being sorcery is of course evil. There is a practical and functional
deism at work within Evangelical and Confessional circles that should disturb
us. Evangelicalism seeks to conform to the world as much as possible and so in
many cases their functional deism is in keeping with the culture and is rooted
probably more in emotional commitment, a determination to 'fit in' and be
respected. In terms of actual theology, Calvinism is particular is susceptible
to this 'functional deism' as it falls prey to a monistic and reductionist
coherentism based around the centraldogma of sovereignty. Because Providence
governs all, then the idea that there are rival forces and influences at work
becomes effectively a moot question. The conflict as represented in Scripture
is reduced to theatre, something of a plot device. But it isn't real. The very
people that profess believe in Divine Providence actually in many cases live as
though the 'decree' has been given, almost like a watch being wound... and
everything is set in motion and therefore everything functions on a naturalistic
basis. They would deny this and I'm not saying they don't believe in the
supernatural but I'm referring to how this works out in their thinking, daily
life and interaction with the world.
The Sovereignty of God is certainly true and Scriptural but I
wouldn't want to use that glorious and comforting doctrine to discount,
undermine and negate large swathes of Scripture. The truth is bigger and
actually more wondrous. Again, just because there are those that abuse these
truths and run riot with them shouldn't force us into hermeneutical or
doctrinal retreat.
A final note with regard to MacGregor, the most interesting
aspect to the series was the focus on religion as being intimately tied to
community and to belonging in a
social or cultural sense. This is what some Christian authors have referred to
as the Sacral impulse, the attempt to integrate cult and culture, something
they deem as an imperative. But of course what is so striking is the way New
Testament Christianity breaks with this. It was the reality in the Old
Testament and indeed we as Christians are certainly part of a community and
culture but it's heavenly in its origin and nature and transcends any political
or cultural construct on the Earth. Old Testament Israel was a type of this,
fulfilled by Christ and thus not a model to be emulated or perpetuated. Church
history has been plagued by the Sacralist heresy which (starting in the 4th
century) has conflated and confused the Called out Ecclesia-Kingdom people of
the New Covenant with various nations and empires, their cultures, politics,
economies, aspirations and wars. MacGregor's series while interesting on some
levels cannot properly grasp or account for this and yet again demonstrates the
inability and inadequacy of the secular academy when approaching such
questions.