University of Dayton eCommons English Faculty Publications Department of English 2017 The iB ble and Creationism Susan L. Trollinger University of Dayton, [email protected] William Vance Trollinger University of Dayton, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eng_fac_pub Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Christianity Commons eCommons Citation Trollinger, Susan L. and Trollinger, William Vance, "The iB ble and Creationism" (2017). English Faculty Publications. 105. http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eng_fac_pub/105 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 The Bible and Creationism Susan Trollinger and William Vance Trollinger, Jr. To understate the case, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) marked a significant challenge to traditional understandings of the Bible and Christian theology. Darwin’s theory of organic evolution stood in sharp contrast with the Genesis account of creation, with its six days, separate creations of life forms, and special creation of human beings. More than this, Darwin’s ideas raised enormous theological questions about God’s role in creation (e.g., is there a role for God in organic evolution?) and about the nature of human beings (e.g., what does it mean to talk about original sin without a historic Adam and Eve?) Of course, what really made Darwin so challenging was that by the late nineteenth century his theory of organic evolution was the scientific consensus. That is to say, American Protestants had no choice but to reckon with Darwinism. For many Protestant intellectuals, clergy, and laypersons, this was not an enormous obstacle. That is, and in keeping with previous Christian responses to scientific developments, many Protestants adjusted their understanding of the Bible and their theology to accommodate Darwin’s ideas. But a significant minority of late nineteenth-century American Protestants responded quite negatively to Darwin, and would not or could not adjust their understanding of the Bible and its authority to fit the theory of organic evolution.1 They were bolstered in their resistance by the doctrine of inerrancy. Inerrancy was developed in the late nineteenth century by Princeton theologians in response to the advent of historicism (or, higher criticism), which – in its determination to examine the Bible as any other historical text would be examined – raised 2 questions about the errors and inconsistencies in the text and highlighted the ways in which aspects of the biblical narrative seemed to involve borrowings from other cultures. In contrast, inerrancy emphasized that the original biblical “autographs” are the infallible, errorless product of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. While the texts and translations that we have may have a few errors, they are, so it is claimed, so few and so minor that we can trust the Bible that we have as the Word of God. As such, the Bible is factually accurate in all that it has to say, including when it speaks on history and science.2 Of course, inerrancy would not mean much if we the readers could not understand what the inerrant text is saying. That is to say, central to inerrancy is the notion that we are to read the Bible plainly, commonsensically, “literally.” It bears noting here that – despite all the rhetoric to the contrary – there is no such thing as one and only one literal reading of the Bible. Despite persistent and even frantic efforts by various biblical inerrantists to freeze the interpretation of the biblical text and claim that they have come up with the One True Reading of the text, they have not been able to change the fact that there is and will always be a plethora of plain, commonsensical, literal readings of the Bible.3 While it is thus certainly possible to imagine an inerrant Bible that is amenable to Darwinism, most late nineteenth-century Protestants who held to inerrancy could see no way to square the theory of organic evolution with the first few chapters of Genesis. Interestingly, however, the idea of an old Earth did not pose a problem for these conservative Protestants. This was in good part because the work of squaring a literal reading of Genesis 1 with the notion of an ancient Earth had already been done for them. In the centuries prior to Charles Darwin there was overwhelming confidence that the findings of modern science did and would square with the biblical text. As Jon Roberts has observed, “Protestant intellectuals . conceded that the 3 conclusions of science sometimes seemed to clash with the Scriptures, but they managed to devise a number of formulas that accommodated the meaning and truth of the Bible to the results of scientific investigation.”4 So when it became clear – in the latter half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century – that the Earth was millions of years old, Protestant thinkers instinctively developed ways of reading Genesis 1 to fit this scientific consensus. Two approaches proved to be the most popular: Thomas Chalmers’ “gap theory” and Hugh Miller’s “day-age theory.” Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) was an evangelical Scottish minister, a significant figure in the Church of Scotland and leader of the Free Church of Scotland movement, and a professor of moral philosophy at St. Andrews University (1823-1828) and then professor of theology at the University of Edinburgh (1828-1843). While a minister in his twenties and thirties, Chalmers delivered various lectures – at St. Andrews and the communities where he was pastoring – in mathematics and the sciences. It was in those years that he advanced his gap theory, which reconciled Genesis 1 with the antiquity of the Earth. As Michael Roberts has ably argued in “Genesis and Geological Time,” Chalmers’ gap theory is best understood not as a radical departure from established biblical interpretation, but instead as a modification of the chaos-restitution approach to Genesis 1 first articulated by Hugo Grotius and Marin Mersenne in the seventeenth century. In the traditional chaos-restitution exegesis, Genesis 1:1-2 describes an initial creation of chaos or a creation that became chaos – “the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep” – that lasted an indeterminate period of time, after which time God used six days to order his creation. Specifically citing Grotius, in the early nineteenth century Chalmers took the chaos-restitution interpretation and tweaked it to take into account the recently-established antiquity of the Earth. That is to say, Chalmers inserted into the time of chaos, that is, into the gap 4 provided by Genesis 1:1-2, the entirety of geological time and events. This geologically momentous era was then followed by God’s six, twenty-four hour day ordering or restitution of the Earth.5 The appeal of Chalmers’ gap theory is obvious: one could have an ancient Earth and a literal six-day creation all in one nice-and-neat exegetical package. For the first few decades of the nineteenth century, this was the dominant form of Genesis-geology reconciliation. But after mid- century, it was superseded in popularity by what came to be known as the day-age theory, which, most simply stated, held that the “days” in Genesis 1 are not 24-hour days, but instead periods of time of undefined length. While not the first to make this argument, it was the Scottish geologist, writer, and churchman Hugh Miller (1802-1856) who, particularly in his The Testimony of the Rocks (a book he completed on the last day of his life), did the most to advance this argument. While Miller had been an adherent of Chalmers’ gap theory, his Scottish compatriot’s emphasis on a time of chaos eventually proved unacceptable because, as Davis A. Young has noted, “all the geological evidence indicated to Miller a continuity between the past and the time of the appearance of man.” More than this, it seemed to Miller that each of the Genesis days lined up well with (to quote John Hedley Brooke) “sharply differentiated [geological] epochs,” at the beginning of each “there had been creative acts of God.” As was the case with Chalmers and his gap theory, Miller and others making the case for a day-age approach to Genesis 1 received support from biblical exegetes, who pointed out that in the Bible the Hebrew word for day often means a long period of time, that it was very difficult to imagine that the actions described for each of the days could have been completed in discrete 24-hour periods, and that the “seventh day” has not actually ended (and thus is obviously not a 24-hour day).6 5 In the century after Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, virtually all Protestants who opposed the theory of organic evolution “readily conceded,” as Ronald L. Numbers has observed, “that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life.” And virtually all of these “old Earth creationists” utilized either the gap theory or the day-age theory to reconcile Genesis 1 and geology. The most influential representative of the former camp was C. I. Scofield. Scofield was a Congregationalist (and then Presbyterian) minister as well as a prominent figure in the late nineteenth century Bible and Prophecy movement, which aimed to inculcate American Protestants in biblical inerrancy and dispensational premillennialism. By the turn of the century, Scofield had committed himself to creating an edition of the King James Version Bible that included notes designed to ensure that readers rightly interpreted the Scripture.