A cautionary tale
My current scholarly project has me investigating the “reception history” or Wirkungsgeschichte of the book of Genesis in Western culture. This investigation necessarily involves forays into the history and criticism of art, literature, music, drama, and other expressions of elite and popular culture. I try to keep an awareness of my utter dilettantishness in these fields always close at hand, and I approach them with trepidation. An article I read a few minutes ago drove this point home once again.
This particular article—which shall, along with its author, remain nameless here—focused on allusions to Genesis 11 within a particular short story. The author claims that “biblical commentary on Genesis 11.i–ix … bears an uncanny resemblance” to the short story in question. Although the article appeared in 2003, the author cites no source, either in biblical studies or literary studies, later than 1974. (I wonder whether a long delay intervened between the authorship and publication—without revision—or whether the article might be a reprint.) The only actual commentary cited is the 1952 Interpreter’s Bible on Genesis (the author of the article in question does not name the author of the old IB commentary), though one might consider Nahum Sarna’s Understanding Genesis to be a commentary. Otherwise, the author cites only a few encyclopedia articles (c. 1955–1975) as sources for understanding “biblical commentary on Genesis 11.i–ix.”
To me, this experience raises once again the question: How can I explore a discipline other than my own, in a scholarly publication, without looking like an ignoramus? How does one exercise quality control in the selection of sources from a field one does not really know as an insider?
6 comments Christopher Heard | Bible (specific texts), art, books, movies, music, writing
Could you point me to any resources on the immediate affects Darwin’s On the Origin of Species had on literature concerning the interpretation of Genesis 1-3? I know of Jack Lewis’ study already. I am planning on hitting the library tomorrow to begin the research. This is my final paper for my M.Div degree (Reformation and Modern Church term paper).
S.C. Barton & D. Wilkinson (eds.), Reading Genesis After Darwin (Oxford UP, 2009) might be a useful resource. One chapter in it is J. Rogerson, “What Difference Did Darwin Make? The Interpretation of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” pp. 75-91.
You obviously know enough not to do what that author did… and s/he got published.
One idea might be to ask people in the area for the two or three most important works… Or, after you have found sources, ask for their opinion of those.
Talk to insiders! Preferably dialogue with them, maybe even co-author…
Joseph, the link over my name is to an online version of an article that you may find informative: “Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related?” by Terry Mortenson, The Master’s Seminary Journal (TMSJ) 15(1):71–92, Spring 2004.
It covers a broader context, not what Darwin’s book did (its “effects”, not “affects”), but how Darwin’s road was paved for him before he walked down it. Darwin didn’t really influence the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 out of the blue (in particular see section “II. New theories about the history of creation”). I was surprised when I first learned about this.
What Dr. Davis said.
I know the feeling. Any sort of expertise I might have is in biblical studies. Now I’m trying to become a full-fledged historian. Lots of overlap. But less than what I expected or would like.