It is with dismay that I read an analysis of some writings coming from the pen of a newly appointed professor at the Theological University of our “sister churches” in the Netherlands. It seems as if the Dutch Churches are bent on outraging the Reformed world as it is organized in the ICRC. You can find a .pdf in Dutch here It was translated by J. Eikelboom and circulated by P. t’Hart via an email subscription list. You can find the translation here.
I thought I’d interact with that analysis.
Dr. Paas is newly appointed to be lecturer in the “Missionary Congregation Training" course the university of the GKv. What his credentials are for that position are unclear, but he has written and published material on other topics that are worthy of our attention.
Dr. Paas’ writings, as quoted, remind me of the writings of liberal critical scholars of the last century. In the 19th and 20th century there were many biblical scholars who engaged in what is known as “higher criticism”. This type of analysis undermined the historicity, the authority, as well as the divinely inspired character of the Bible. This type of investigation was rooted in a mind set influenced by various disciplines, including the ideas of social Darwinism, and the sociology of religions.
Scholars attempted to discover the root causes and influences that lay behind the development of religions and the rise of tribal and national cultures and myths. Israel’s history was not considered to be any different from that of Canaanite or Egyptian nations. All would be measured with the same rod. From this analysis came conclusions that early Israelite history, as written in Genesis and Exodus, is not an accurate contemporary historical account, but rather a document written much later in the history of Israel to explain how the nation came to be. We call that kind of ancient writing “etiological myths”: myths which explain origins.
Dr. Paas suggests that, “Nowadays there is broad consensus regarding the notion that the early Israelites were ethnically and culturally not different from the Canaanites, but developed from them.” This of course overturns the history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It undermines the history of God entering into covenant with Abram. It challenges the “separation” between the Canaanites and the children of Abraham.
Moreover, Dr. Paas suggest that, “Although the stories of Exodus and Entrance are a theological reflection, this does not mean that they are completely separate from those events.” That kind of reflection does not fill me with confidence. Liberal critical scholarship places man above the divine Word and takes to itself the authority and competence to judge whether or not “stories” are connected to “history.”
The analysis of Dr. Paas’ position as found on the Dutch Website contains the following quote from his writings.
“Ever since living memory there were in the eastern Nile delta Asians living in close contact with Egyptians. Among these strangers there may very well have been ancestors of the later nation of Israel. The turbulence of this period may in any case have formed the background for the Israelite memories of the Exodus. An exodus could possibly explain how the above-mentioned chiefly social groups of wanderers and farmers could have developed into a nation. The arrival in Canaan of a group of fleeing or expelled Semites can have played a role in that development. Perhaps, but here we begin to speculate, this concerns a group which belonged to the tribe of Levi. According to biblical traditions this tribe did not have its own inheritance in Canaan. The Levites Moses, Hophni and Phinehas had Egyptian names. They were also known as defending champions of Jahwism. In this manner it may be possible to explain part of the above-mentioned religious discontinuity between the Late Bronze culture and those of the Iron-I settlements. An event of that nature explains in any case why in later years Israel for an explanation of its origin, always went back to its slavery and liberation from Egypt. According to the Old Testament their great leader and lawgiver Moses was brought up at the court of the pharaoh. These traditions are so consistently in evidence that it is unlikely that they do not reflect the experiences of at least some of the early Israelites.
Although the stories of Exodus and Entrance are a theological reflection, this does not mean that they are completely separate from those events. … The resulting connection of Israel’s development with Egypt in the biblical traditions should therefore stimulate us to seriously weigh up the possibility of Egypt being the possible nursery room of a number of Israel’s religious notion.
Based on the results of more recent research, we may assume that Israel was initially a Canaanite nation, which apart from other gods worshipped El. During the 12th century the basis was laid for Israel’s later functioning as an independent nation. The arrival of an ‘exodus-group’, which possibly consisted partly of religious zealots, has probably been a contributing stimulating factor.”
If I were to publish such things on this side of the Atlantic, the elders of my church and my colleagues at classis would certainly object strongly and seek to challenge my orthodoxy.
Dr. Paas also believes that Israel’s idea of who God is was influenced and (partially) developed from the religious ideas of the Canaanites and Egyptians.
Not only is the primeval god Atum an aspect of Amun, the same holds for the sun-god Re. Amun is at the same time primeval god, creator god and god of life. Israel assigned this absolute creative power also to its God. The role El played in the Canaanite texts is possibly influenced by this Egyptian theology of Amun-Re. YWHW was occasionally also identified with this most important god of the New Kingdom. The notion of an all-powerful and majestic creator need not therefore have been unknown to Israel in this early stage. These aspects of YHWH must not necessarily be derived from later experiences of Israel in a fast growing world. We can search for its roots also in the history of the people in Palestine.”
Later he concludes:
“Israel’s creation-belief has Canaanite roots and is possibly influenced by Egyptian ideas.”
How can the GKv accept this? If Dr. Geelkerken were alive he would be wondering. “What just happened? A hundred years ago I was expelled from the church for doubting that snakes talked, and now professors are appointed who think that Genesis 1 is based on Egyptian religious mythology.”
Dr Paas writes: “I cherish the thought that it is not unbelief in God as Creator or unbelief in talking serpents that has put me on this track. It is not so that I believe that what is written in Genesis 1-3 is impossible. With God everything is possible. And perhaps it happened that way. But I believe that those questions are simply not the right ones to start with. Genesis 1 does not want to say that God exactly at that moment and in that manner began with the world. In a literary form all of its own this chapter especially wants to say something about the sense and the foundation under our existence here and now. That is its inspiring power and an outstanding instrument to bridge the gap. In other words, Genesis 1 wants to say that and why God has created the world and us. There’s nothing wrong with the question how and when He did that, but it can scarcely be answered from within this chapter. It is only out of deep respect for the Word of God that I want to go this way. God’s Word speaks with absolute authority, indeed. This makes it the more important to examine what God’s Word says precisely.”
Dr. Paas suggests that, “that YHWH was most likely an Israelite offshoot from the Canaanite El.”
All of this smacks of history of religions, sociology of religion, and social Darwinism to me. None of these disciplines has a place in a Biblical hermeneutic that accepts divine inspiration as maintained through the centuries by orthodox Reformed scholars.
I think it is time to begin to raise the profile of these issues among the churches with which the GKv has formal relations.
