Abstract
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
|
Vol.2: Genesis and Early Man
Part II
PRIMITIVE CULTURES:
A SECOND LOOK AT THE PROBLEM OF THEIR HISITORICAL ORIGIN
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1. The Changing Climate of
Opinion
Chapter 2. Climax at the Beginning
Chapter 3. Cultural Degeneration
Chapter 4. Some Considerations, Some
Causes, Some Conclusions
Publishing History:
1960 Doorway paper No. 32, published
privately by Arthur C. Custance
1975 Part II in Genesis and Early Man, vol.2 in The Doorway
Papers Series, published by Zondervan Publishing Company
1997 Arthur Custance Online Library (html)
2001 2nd Online Edition (corrections, design revisions)
pg
1 of 4
INTRODUCTION
A FRIEND OF
mine once sat down to dinner with a famous old gentleman of foreign
extraction. During the course of the conversation my friend remarked
upon the beauty of the view from the dining room window and pointed
out to his guest that when the sun rose over the Hudson River
below it created an ever-changing kaleidoscope of colourful reflections
as the ships of many nations moved up and down stream. "But,"
complained the great man, "Dat iss der vest, nod der east!"
His host hastened to assure him that he must have got turned
around and was making a mistake. The argument, however, reached
such a point that it seemed nothing short of a compass on the
table would convince the old gentleman of his error. So a compass
was produced which bore out the observation made by the host
who had sat in that window many, many times. "Then,"
said the old man, after considerable pause, "der kompass
is wronk!" Since he had spoken with such complete conviction,
further discussion of the subject was pointless and the matter
was dropped.
This story sounds so absurd as to be
almost unbelievable, nevertheless it really happened. It is a
beautiful illustration of the extent to which a preconceived
idea can prevent the admission of a truth when that truth is
contrary to expectation. In the minds of most anthropologists
a preconception about the nature of man when he first appeared
on the scene as a creature little removed from the apes has likewise
led to their complete repudiation of the early chapters of Genesis
as a compass to the past. For Genesis pictures the first man
as anything but an animal, and his first efforts to build a civilization
as anything but primitive. But this is quite the opposite of
what is believed today of the first human beings. With the elderly
gentleman of our story, they simply say, with finality, "Der
kompass iss wronk." Yet rightly understood, the record of
Genesis accounts for many of the anomalies of prehistory.
It seems to me a matter of very
grave concern that not a few Christian anthropologists, when
publishing their views, no longer feel it necessary to make any
real attempt to square what they say as anthropologists with
their theology as Christian believers. In the
pg.2
of 4
desire to be up-to-date,
no Christian can afford to embrace the latest orthodoxies merely
because they are accepted by the authorities. There is no guarantee
that what is latest is necessarily truer than what preceded,
and in fact it will be shown subsequently that quite the reverse
may be the case, and older beliefs may re-appear in a new light
and be accorded greater respect For my part, I believe it is
both wiser and safer to make Scripture the touchstone of truth,
even in the matter of anthropology -- and wait.
During the last hundred years the
pendulum of opinion has tended to be carried from one extreme
to the other. First of all everyone was convinced that man's
Fall was so complete that no progress whatever was possible and
everything must be in a state of decay. When this gloomy picture
was rejected, it was replaced by a philosophy of progress which
gave birth, towards the end of the last century, to an age of
great optimism in which the key was progressive evolution. Degeneration
became a naughty word. But two devastating world wars tempered
such visionary philosophies and forced us all to take a fresh
look at the course of human history. Was it, after all, a record
of progress from primitive to civilized, from simple to complex,
from superstition to pure worship, from savage to refined? A
few who suggested that perhaps we should re-examine primitive
cultures with a view to understanding how they came to be what
they are, found it unwise to propose forthrightly that they might
be degenerate, because the climate of opinion was against any
concept which reflected in any way the idea of a Fall of man.
As Liberal theology lent its weight to the disposal of this particular
aspect of Christian faith, fewer scholarly voices were heard
defending the traditional view. At the same time, it became less
dangerous for a non-Christian writer to admit the possibility
of degeneration, and this they have consequently often tended
to do.
When Lyell formulated his principle
that in explaining geological phenomena, appeal to forces not
known to be operating in the present ought to be avoided, he
was attempting to discourage the Catastrophists who frequently
introduced forces that were so unusual as to be practically supernatural.
The general belief is that the science of geology profited very
greatly by following Lyell's advice.
In dealing with the early human
pre-historical period, the time scale and background is geological,
and anthropologists were easily persuaded that this same general
principle should be applied to their discipline also. However,
while they accepted Lyell's rejection of all appeals to supernatural
forces, they did not follow his rule of explaining the past only
in terms of the known "present." If they had done
pg.3
of 4
so, they could never
have assumed cultural evolution to have taken place in the way
they say it did.
Furthermore, Lyell's Principle
obviously could not apply to the matter of origins -- for example,
to the origin of the Universe. Nor can it apply to the origin
of civilization. At this point we have no such guide to the interpretation
of the past. In a sense, therefore, it was not reason but bias
which led to the rejection of the biblical record. But the time
is perhaps ripe now for a re-examination of the whole issue.
The references at the end of each
chapter may seem inordinately numerous. My purpose is to extend
the scope of the text somewhat by providing an additional list
of bibliographical references where further interesting information
will be found.
Such information is sometimes only
indirectly related to the subject, but it is worthwhile in any
case, and contributes in other ways to some of the wider implications
of the Paper.
pg.4
of 4
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter Next
Chapter
|