I eagerly anticipated the release of Ronald Osborn’s book, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, as it is a topic of great interest to me. The work is divided into two major sections: “On Literalism” and “On Animal Suffering.”
The first part occupies the bulk of the book (100/179 pages of text). In it, Osborn first offers his interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1. His take on it is that is fairly open to being taken in a number of ways. For example, having creatures come forth “from the earth” may be direct special creation, or a linguistic device aimed at describing the “open” status of creation–its ability to change and self-correct (see esp. 27-28).
After laying out the interpretation, Osborn sets out to show how “literalism” is a mistaken hermeneutic. He argues that literalism has been brought to the forefront due to Enlightenment ways of thinking. That is, biblical literalists are influenced by modernism and their readings tend to be highly reliant on that kind of rationalist epistemology (42ff). A major difficulty with literalism, he notes, is that it seems to ultimately lead to fideism: one’s view of what the “plain sense” reading of the Bible is must be taken as normative for all areas of inquiry (44; 45-46). Another difficulty is that literalism tends to actually go far beyond what the text says in order to defend a preferred interpretation of the text (56-57).
Scientific creationism, Osborn argues, is flawed because it isn’t a “progressive research program” but rather a “degenerative” one. That is, scientific creationism is simply adjusted in an ad hoc way to meet new challenges rather than predicting them (63ff). He rounds out this first part with a discussion of how literalism ultimately leads to circling the wagons and an “enclave mentality,” alongside various representatives of historical interpretation of Genesis–Barth, Calvin, Augustine, and Maimonides.
The second part focuses on animal suffering and approaches it from a number of angles. He begins the section with three difficulties with a “literalist” view of animal suffering and the Fall. Briefly, these are the notion that a flawless creation as put forward by some seems to simply be the winding up of a watch; that God is made to be a deceiver; and difficulties with how the curse is to be applied to animals (126ff). These are presented briefly but cogently and each offers a unique challenge to typical creationist readings of the text. Next, Osborn turns to explanations other than the Fall as reasons animals suffer. He turns to the book of Job and argues both that God may have created nature with predation and death and also that God’s answer to Job out of the whirlwind may be applied to animal suffering (154-155). Moreover, God’s choosing to participate in the world in the Incarnation helps to consummate all creation and bring it to completion (165).
A difficulty with the book is the sustained polemic against literalism/YEC. At times, Osborn shares great insights in the movement. Moreover, pointed criticism is surely needed in some form. Unfortunately, after some helpful introductory comments, he seems to degenerate into posturing against those with whom he disagrees. For example, after admitting that Gnosticism is rather ill-defined, he nevertheless goes on to compare literalism to Gnosticism and simply state that they each share certain features in common (86ff). I like to call this the “Gnostic fallacy” in which someone declares the ‘other’ to be a Gnostic in order to refute them. As Osborn himself notes, Gnosticism is hard to pin down, which also means it is very easy to twist various teachings into lining up with Gnosticism. I think this is honestly one example. [See comments for Osborn’s clarifying comments on this section.]
This section is understandable, and it is easy for someone like Osborn–a former YEC (like myself)–to want to lash out against these formerly held, and sometimes damaging, beliefs, but it is not a very helpful. I suspect it will alienate any readers he would perhaps hope to engage in dialogue, which leaves one wondering about the audience for the book.
Another difficulty with Osborn’s sustained critique of “literalism” is that he never provides much insight into how and/or when texts are to be read literally. That is, would the Gospels need to be read literally when they speak of Jesus dying on the cross and rising again? Osborn clearly affirms this, but doesn’t provide mechanisms which distinguish between “literalism” and simply proper exegesis which would allow for and engage with literal readings of the texts.
One further problem is that the book, despite purporting to be about Death Before the Fall, only briefly addresses this issue. The book really doesn’t provide anything more than most basic non-young earth literature does when it comes to the issue. As such, it is difficult to determine exactly how useful the book is when compared to other works.
Ultimately, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering does not contribute much new to the debate over whether animal death could occur before the fall. Osborn presents many interesting points–particularly in his heavy critique of literalism as a method–and the book is worth the read, but its limited treatment of the title is a disappointment.
Readers who are interested in the topic of animal suffering and death before the fall are better served to pick up Michael Murray’s excellent and enthralling book, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Murray’s work is superior in both tone and treatment. It focuses entirely on the topic of animal suffering from a philosophical perspective (and is thus more academic than Osborn’s work, for better or worse). The work has a lengthy (33 pages) chapter dedicated explicitly to philosophical issues with animal suffering and the Fall, which makes it far more in-depth than the work reviewed here. Finally, it provides much greater depth on various theodicies when it comes to animal suffering. Those interested in that topic and the topic of death before the Fall or how the Fall relates to animal suffering would be better served to pick up Murray’s work.
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Sunday Quote!- Do Trilobites Yield a Greater Good?– I discuss a very minor point in Murray’s work which shows how diverse its threads are for thinking on this topic.
Ronald Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsit, 2014).
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
J.W., thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my book. To clarify for your readers, I do not directly equate literalism or creationism with Gnosticism, as Conor Cunningham does in his excellent book “Darwin’s Pious Idea”. Rather, I point out that SOME versions of creationism display decidedly Gnostic tendencies–those, for example, that appeal to esoteric or secret knowledge, that tell us we cannot trust our senses or material reality, and that see the creation/evolution debate in sharply Manichean terms as an epic struggle of good versus evil. In fact, I argued in explicit opposition to Cunningham that claiming that all creationists or literalists are Gnostic is “too broad an indictment that does not correspond to the lives and thinking of many creationists I know.” While it is true that “gnosticism” is a contested term, I made clear how I was using it and I don’t believe there was any “fallacy” in my approach. Using a family resemblances approach and building on the work of Luciano Pellicani and Eric Voegelin, who apply the term to ultra-orthodox versions of Marxism, I wrote about what I called a “Gnostic Syndrome”, which I said only occurs when 12 different psychological traits are found in conjunction: anxiety; alienation and suspicion; nostalgia; millenarianism; dualism; permanent revivalism; elitism; salvation by knowledge; surrealism; authoritarianism and absolutism; isolationism; and laceration. I believe this a reasonably precise description and that it accurately describes not a majority but a significant minority of creationist individuals and groups I know very well. Creationists or literalists who do not exhibit these traits do not fall under the critique. Your readers should know this. Perhaps there is a better set of conceptual tools and vocabulary for making sense of the kinds of ideas I am describing, but the phenomenon must still be clearly identified. A case in point: as fantastic as it may sound, in my own denominational tradition there is a popular or folk theory for the origins of the dinosaurs that says these animals were created by evil scientists in hyper advanced genetics laboratories before Noah’s flood, the evidence of which cannot be found in the scientific data but is hinted at in Egyptian hieroglyphics and various other mysterious places. I stand by my argument that versions of creationism such as this are Gnostic at their core.
I think your critique is fair and I will amend the review to better reflect the thrust of your argument in that section.
Thanks J.W., but I think you should let your review stand as it is. People can see from my note how I would respond and it is important when people publish things online for the public that there be a clear record of what they have written.
I restored it to the previous version but added a sentence directing readers to your comments. Thanks for your helpful responses!
Thanks very much for stopping by and offering a thoughtful critique and explanation.
Have you read Owen Barfield’s Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry? He would have some profound things to say about the ideas in this book.
This is a great review. I know the death of animals (or the timing of their “death” pre- or post-Fall) is important in arguments for certain creationists. So, I hope one day to read Osborn’s work and Murray’s work as well.
Thanks for stopping by and for your kind words. The argument over “death before the fall” is indeed a very crucial point of contention in the debate over creation.