Genesis 1-3 as Myth

According to David Williams writing on resurrectingraleigh.com,

Is Genesis a myth?  Ever since George Smith discovered and published the ancient Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish, theologians, biblical scholars and informed lay people have been aware of the fact that the book of Genesis was not written in a literary or cultural vacuum.  As other ancient Near Eastern creation stories have been brough to light we have come to know a lot more about the intellectual, cultural, theological, and literary milieu with which Genesis was written, giving us an unprecidented opportunity to assess just what sort of text Genesis is.  What is Genesis’s genre and how ought we to read it if we are to do so responsibly?

The majority report among mainline biblical scholars is that the ancient texts which Genesis 1-3 resembles most are ancient Eastern creation myths, an observation which suggests that that is probably the best way to read Genesis, as well. . .

Williams goes on to explain how Christian apologist (and Mormon literary hero) C. S. Lewis dealt with the issue:

For Lewis, “myth” is not a bad word.  It does not necessarily carry connotations of falsehood or contrivance or deception or muddleheadedness.  For Lewis myth is a highly imaginative way of speaking about the world that can speak truth at least as well as history or science can.  For Lewis, “myth” does not automatically mean false.

. . . [Lewis] was a professor of literature, a man trained in the reading, understanding, and appreciation of texts, and his literary instincts, given the available evidence, led him to the conclusion not only that Genesis was myth but also that that was perfectly fine.

About these ads
This entry was posted in bible, Creation, mormonism, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Genesis 1-3 as Myth

  1. Trevor says:

    I believe CS Lewis’s usage of “myth” is the common academic usage as well. Check out this interview with religious scholar Karen Armstrong, for instance: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4992705

    While I’d quickly describe much of the Old Testament, the BoM, etc. as “myth”, it’s certainly not a term I’d drop in Sunday School because I would be misinterpreted by probably everyone.

  2. Jesus didn’t treat Genesis as if it were a myth – Matthew 19:4-6 (Adam and Eve); 24:37-39 (Noah); Luke 17:32 (Lot and his wife); John 8:56 (Abraham); Matthew 8:11 (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and on and on. Genesis a myth? I’ll stick with Jesus.

    • rogerdhansen says:

      Hi Eugene,

      I don’t know exactly how to respond. The early chapters of Genesis don’t track well with science, history, archeology, geology, etc. I would hope that, if you have children or grandchildren, you encourage them to make up there own minds. That way, if they choose to believe in evolution and other scientific truths, they won’t necessarily lose their religious convictions. I’m very worried that the anti-science statements by religious leaders are causing a “crisis of faith” in our youth. Science and religion don’t need to be at odds.

      Roger

      • Thanks for the reply, Roger.

        I don’t worry too much with Genesis not “tracking well” with the faithless. I will stick with Jesus. If you can’t believe His words about the individuals I quoted above, the you can’t believe His words about anything else. It’s that simple.

        I think you’re correct in saying that science and religion don’t need to be at odds. It’s the way certain people teach science that makes it come to odds with Christianity and the Bible and not the other way around. Nothing about the creation process of Genesis contradicts science. Science contradicts the Bible when it tries to teach we came “from monkeys” instead of being created complete and whole in one day in the image of God.

        The science book or the Bible? I’ll take the Bible.

  3. alohalarsen says:

    During a philosophy class, we looked at Genesis as a “myth”, which, as Trevor (and Williams) says, does not necessarily mean a false or untrue story (more traditionally, it actually means a *true* story!).

    Regardless of the Creation story’s historicity, I gained some great insights about God from looking at this account as a traditional myth. I blogged about it on my own site – it’s part of an apologetic series I did about the corporeality of God. I’m not sure if you’re interested, but if you are, you can find more about the “myth of Genesis” here: http://religiousreason.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/god-has-no-body-part-4-1/

    Adkins is a little off. It’s great to side with Jesus and the scriptures, but, in the words of Hank Hanigraff, we need to “read the Bible for all it’s worth”. Injecting our own perspective into an account meant to be understood differently can easily lead us from the path the Savior would have us walk. We can think we’re siding with him all the way to spiritual blindness.

    Anyways, thanks for the post.

    • “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the BEGINNING ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”” (Matthew 19:4-6) Hmmm…I think I’ve read those exact words somewhere in the Bible before.

      Wow, Jesus saying that Adam and Eve were actually created by God in the beginning. Boy, that sure does sound like I’m injecting my own perspective into the scriptures doesn’t it. “Adkins” is a little off in that “Adkins” believes the scriptures in the midst of a group of people who like to talk about God being real but they don’t like to believe His word really means what it says.

      Were Adam and Eve real people? If you say “no” then you’re saying “no” to the Bible – that simple. Sounds like a lot of people are confused about something that God’s word is very clear on – http://wp.me/p20YNR-1b

  4. alohalarsen says:

    I’m sure our host will act as moderator if our exchange devolves into mindless patter, though I myself don’t plan to to reply more than this once.

    You see, no one is debating the “exact words” found in the Bible. *Perspective* refers to how people understand those exact words, and certainly you will concede that people from different Christian sects can understand the same scripture in much different ways. You say that you believe the scriptures, and I have no doubt you mean that, but what you really mean is that you believe *your* interpretation of the scriptures. And when you add that you’re amongst those who don’t believe the scriptures, what you really mean is that you’re amongst those who don’t believe them as *you* think they should.

    You’re entitled to believe what you wish, including that I’m some sort of heretic, but let’s not misunderstand – I believe, just as much as you believe, in the scriptures and what they teach (also, for what it’s worth, I don’t think I’m a heretic). I’ll let Roger and Trevor speak for themselves if they’re so inclined.

    I believe that God created Adam and Eve, that they were real people, and that they were separate and distinct from all other animals, just as you do. I don’t, though, necessarily believe that the world was created in six 24 hour periods, just like I don’t necessarily believe the dragons of Revelation literally exist even though I believe in the reality of Jesus Christ taught in that book.

    Again, you’re welcome to believe what you want, but don’t mistake *your* perspective for *the* perspective, particularly when all you have behind you is your lay experience. Engage in the discussion, but do so by doing more than just repeating yourself or tossing around veiled insults about being confused or heretical.

  5. rogerdhansen says:

    Hi Eugene and alohalarsen,

    My only point in posting this discussion was to make the case that religion need not be anti-science. If we assume that God created the Earth in his own good time (after all he had an eternity) and that Genesis was never intended to be a science or history book, then Genesis 1-3 makes sense if not taken literally. There is no discussion in OT about how God made the Earth and man.

    I personally don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. If my ancient ancestors were monkeys/apes, that is fine with me. Adam and Eve are symbolic for when the human species reached a certain level of sentience. There was no flood that covered the whole Earth, there is not enough water to do that. And there are also historical issues with a universal flood. And I can go on and on.

    The important document for Christians is the NT and there is no need to get hung up on the OT.

    Roger

    • Hello Roger,

      You said, “If we assume that God created the Earth in his own good time (after all he had an eternity) and that Genesis was never intended to be a science or history book, then Genesis 1-3 makes sense if not taken literally.”

      The problem is that you’re assuming where God’s word is telling.

      You said, “There is no discussion in OT about how God made the Earth and man.”

      Um, how about Genesis 1-3??? You must not read the Psalms very much, or very much of the rest of the Old Testament either for that matter.

      You said, “I personally don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. If my ancient ancestors were monkeys/apes, that is fine with me.”

      It’s not fine with me because it’s not what the scriptures teach. Adam was a type of Jesus according the New Testament. A monkey is not a type for the Savior of the world. You may not personally believe that Adam and Eve were real people but Moses believed in Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26,27); Ezra believed in Adam and Eve (1st Chronicles 1:1); Job believed in Adam and Eve (Job 31:33); Luke believed in Adam and Eve (Luke 3:38); Paul believed in Adam and Eve (1st Corinthians 15:45, 1st Timothy 2:13); Jude believed in Adam and Eve (Jude 14); and Jesus not only believed in Adam and Eve, He created them (Matthew 19:4,5; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17). You cannot believe in the second Adam without believing in the first (1 Corinthians 15:45; Romans 5:14).

      You said, “There was no flood that covered the whole Earth, there is not enough water to do that.”

      You may not believe it, but Jesus did (Matthew 24:38-39). Your comments are exactly why I said what I said in my first reply and I’ll say it again – I’ll stick with Jesus; He didn’t teach that any of Genesis was a myth, plain and simple.

      Thanks for the reply though.

  6. rogerdhansen says:

    Robert A. Rees in the Mar 2012 “Sunstone” (p. 56) writes:

    ” . . . it is important to remember that much of scripture is an admixture of fact and fancy, a deliberate arrangement of history so as to make it more persuasive, and an artful telling–even invention–of human events to make them more dramatic. That sixty percent of the Old Testament is poetry suggests that we can give ourselves to the poetic (that is, imaginative) fabrications of sacred literature. . .”

    • Who are you going to place your faith in? The word’s of Robert A. Ress, or the word’s of Jesus the Christ? I know who I’m going to believe when it comes to interpreting the scripture of Genesis 1-3.

  7. Pingback: A Tragic Example of Christian Cognitive Dissonance | Religious Reason

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s