Mytho-History

[9Rock9]

Mytho-history is a theory that claims Genesis should not be understood literallt (or at least not literally in the modern sense.) instead, it is largely a figurative account that expresses important theological truths and to establish Yahweh as the one true God vs the pagan religions of the Ancient World.

One argument for this view is that the Israelites would not have shared the same worldview that we modern 21st Century Westeners do. The fantastical and so-called scientific inaccuracies are accommodations rather than errors. That is, God met primeval humans at their level, and used language they would understand. Also, since the Israelites were an Ancient Near Eastern Semitic people, they were likely influenced by their surrounding neighbors such as the Caananites, Egyptians and Babylonians, and thus their texts all share similar themes and genre conventions.

God was not concerned with presenting an accurate view of cosmology or science so much as he was with correcting the theology of the Israelites. That is, he wanted to show that sun is a creation and not a god to be worshiped, and therefore more powerful than any pagan deity.

Genesis contains a lot of figurative language. For instance, the account Creation week draws parallels with the ancient world practice of seven days of ceremony when constructing a new temple. This is because the cosmos is God's temple.

I have only recently switched to this view from Old Earth Creationism, so there are many things I am still unsure about, but I do think this view best accounts for both a high regard for Scripture and compatibility with modern science.

 

[Fervent]

Mytho-history is a broad category, with different proponants holding different views. Whose version are you inquiring about?

 

[9Rock9]

Mytho-history is a broad category, with different proponants holding different views. Whose version are you inquiring about?

Well, I am mostly on familiar with Inspiring Philosophy's version of it, but I am open to other views.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not familiar with their view, though William Lane Craig presents an argument that the historical/figurative divide is a false dilemma and that the original audiences would have understood the people and the genealogies to be actual history, which was then couched in etiological myths and theological tales. Essentially it is a preservation of oral histories, which were couched in cultural myths. So Adam and Eve are held to be genuine people, but not the original man and woman. So they are to be read literally, but when "literal" is understood it means in accordance with the conventions of the literary genre that the books exhibit. It's kind of like when a movie says "based on a true story" where there is some historical element, but liberties have been taken to serve a narrative purpose.

 

[9Rock9]

I'm not familiar with their view, though William Lane Craig presents an argument that the historical/figurative divide is a false dilemma and that the original audiences would have understood the people and the genealogies to be actual history, which was then couched in etiological myths and theological tales. Essentially it is a preservation of oral histories, which were couched in cultural myths. So Adam and Eve are held to be genuine people, but not the original man and woman. So they are to be read literally, but when "literal" is understood it means in accordance with the conventions of the literary genre that the books exhibit. It's kind of like when a movie says "based on a true story" where there is some historical element, but liberties have been taken to serve a narrative purpose.

Ah. That's pretty much what I think.

Inspiring Philosophy thinks Adam and Eve were basically priests, and the Eden was the holiest of holies. Thus, Adam had a special connection to God that the rest of humanity didn't have.

This, in a way, parallel Jesus, as he is referred to as the New Adam, is the representative of humanity, and is also a high priest.

 

[Fervent]

Ah. That's pretty much what I think.

Inspiring Philosophy thinks Adam and Eve were basically priests, and the Eden was the holiest of holies. Thus, Adam had a special connection to God that the rest of humanity didn't have.

This, in a way, parallel Jesus, as he is referred to as the New Adam, is the representative of humanity, and is also a high priest.

A lot of it depends on how seriously you take text criticism...especially since current scholarly consensus is that a good chunk of the OT was written around 450-350 BC or at least it was redacted into its present form around that time. Now, I'm not saying they're correct but if one takes such criticism seriously then the apologetic function of the OT comes out quite clearly where it was stitched together to explain why God would allow His chosen nation to go into captivity. We can speculate about the Divine intent in all of this, but the composition of the Bible as a communal work weaving together oral traditions makes it likely that we're not dealing with scientific histories.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I don't have much to contribute at this point because I largely agree with the position articulated by Michael Jones (founder and director of Inspiring Philosophy), which you summarized here. It closely aligns with the somewhat unique view that I hold. But that is to be expected, as we were both inspired by the same material, the exegetical work of John Walton. My view is far more narrowly covenantal (Reformed theology), while Jones seems content with a broader mytho-historical scope, as far as I can tell. Definitely unlike William Lane Craig, who puts Adam 750,000 years ago (which would make Adam a different species).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mytho-history is a theory that claims Genesis should not be understood literallt (or at least not literally in the modern sense.) instead, it is largely a figurative account that expresses important theological truths and to establish Yahweh as the one true God vs the pagan religions of the Ancient World.

One argument for this view is that the Israelites would not have shared the same worldview that we modern 21st Century Westeners do. The fantastical and so-called scientific inaccuracies are accommodations rather than errors. That is, God met primeval humans at their level, and used language they would understand. Also, since the Israelites were an Ancient Near Eastern Semitic people, they were likely influenced by their surrounding neighbors such as the Caananites, Egyptians and Babylonians, and thus their texts all share similar themes and genre conventions.

God was not concerned with presenting an accurate view of cosmology or science so much as he was with correcting the theology of the Israelites. That is, he wanted to show that sun is a creation and not a god to be worshiped, and therefore more powerful than any pagan deity.

Genesis contains a lot of figurative language. For instance, the account Creation week draws parallels with the ancient world practice of seven days of ceremony when constructing a new temple. This is because the cosmos is God's temple.

I have only recently switched to this view from Old Earth Creationism, so there are many things I am still unsure about, but I do think this view best accounts for both a high regard for Scripture and compatibility with modern science.

I'm keeping this short it simply applauding you for doing a broader survey of the scholarship and views that are present put forth. While I like much of what Inspiring Philosophy has to say, and although my own view isn't discordant with what he or William Lane Craig teach, I'm a little more liberal still, sticking more or less with the critical Cosmogonic approach of Conrad Hyers or that of Peter Enns.

Anyway, thanks for being studios.

 

[9Rock9]

I'm keeping this short it simply applauding you for doing a broader survey of the scholarship and views that are present put forth. While I like much of what Inspiring Philosophy has to say, and although my own view isn't discordant with what he or William Lane Craig teach, I'm a little more liberal still, sticking more or less with the critical Cosmogonic approach of Conrad Hyers or that of Peter Enns.

Anyway, thanks for being studios.

No problem. It was quite the journey for me. Like most evangelicals in the Bible Belt, I was a young earth creationist just because that was what I was taught, and evolution is a gateway to atheism. I used to be pretty militant about it.

I did everything shift to Old Earth Creationism, as I thought it made more logical sense, but I was still critical of evolution. At that point, it was less evolution itself and more that I thought a non-literal reading of Genesis was disingenuous, which I thought was required in order to fit evolution in.

I don't think the mytho-history view necessitates evolution, but I no longer think evolution conflicts with a high view of scripture, either.

I think the real reason I was so anti-evolution is that I didn't like having my intelligence mocked for wanting to believe the Bible, and it closed me off to other viewpoints. So, while I am no longer convinced of creationism, at least not YEC, I still sympathize with it because I used to agree with it, and many of my friends and family still affirm it.

 

[Fervent]

No problem. It was quite the journey for me. Like most evangelicals in the Bible Belt, I was a young earth creationist just because that was what I was taught, and evolution is a gateway to atheism. I used to be pretty militant about it.

I did everything shift to Old Earth Creationism, as I thought it made more logical sense, but I was still critical of evolution. At that point, it was less evolution itself and more that I thought a non-literal reading of Genesis was disingenuous, which I thought was required in order to fit evolution in.

I don't think the mytho-history view necessitates evolution, but I don't think it conflicts with a high view of scripture, either.

I can definitely relate to this, my journey also involved struggling with evolution because of unrecognized assumptions about the Bible I have since shed. Evolution is only a gateway to atheism because so many make their faith fragile and dependent on a strict inerrancy as if a single flaw renders the whole Bible untrustworthy. In my research, I have come to view the YEC movement and other strict literalists not as true fundamentalists but revisionists reactionaries to a rise in naturalist epistemologies that view any dogmatism as automatically suspect.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No problem. It was quite the journey for me. Like most evangelicals in the Bible Belt, I was a young earth creationist just because that was what I was taught, and evolution is a gateway to atheism. I used to be pretty militant about it.

I did everything shift to Old Earth Creationism, as I thought it made more logical sense, but I was still critical of evolution. At that point, it was less evolution itself and more that I thought a non-literal reading of Genesis was disingenuous, which I thought was required in order to fit evolution in.

I don't think the mytho-history view necessitates evolution, but I no longer think evolution conflicts with a high view of scripture, either.

I think the real reason I was so anti-evolution is that I didn't like having my intelligence mocked for wanting to believe the Bible, and it closed me off to other viewpoints. So, while I am no longer convinced of creationism, at least not YEC, I still sympathize with it because I used to agree with it, and many of my friends and family still affirm it.

I can understand the angst involved in all of that, even if my wrestling with these issues has been as someone who began as a child, and later as an adult, with evolution and mainstream science and who then tried to make heads or tails out of any kind of veracity that could be found in the collection of Biblical Texts. It's not easy to do, so everyone on all sides has my sympathy.

This is also one reason that where the first 11 chapters of Genesis are concerned I try to be especially gracious. There's so much to wrestle with and so I try not to contend with other Christians on the matter, whether they're YEC or evolutionary like myself.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It was quite the journey for me. Like most evangelicals in the Bible Belt, I was a young earth creationist just because that was what I was taught, and evolution is a gateway to atheism. I used to be pretty militant about it.

I did [eventually] shift to Old Earth Creationism, as I thought it made more logical sense, but I was still critical of evolution. At that point, it was less evolution itself and more that I thought a non-literal reading of Genesis was disingenuous, which I thought was required in order to fit evolution in.

I don't think the mytho-history view necessitates evolution, but I no longer think evolution conflicts with a high view of scripture, either.

I followed a somewhat similar path—but only "somewhat." I inherited young-earth creationism from my Baptist mentor who led me to Christ, along with a host of other ideas that I have since shed along the way (e.g., Arminian theology, dispensational premillennialism, etc.). The wealth of scientific evidence convinced me that the universe had to be billions of years old, but I didn't know how (and therefore didn't try) to square that with Genesis. For various reasons, I couldn't accept either the Gap view or the Day–Age view; on the textual evidence, I was convinced the days had to be normal solar periods, and on the theological evidence, I was convinced Adam and Eve were historical individuals. But how does all of that work within a universe that has been around for billions of years? I had no idea. But, like you, either way I was staunchly opposed to evolution as something "of the devil." I was an undefined old-earth creationist who was contemplating the framework hypothesis (the main proponents of which were Kline, Ridderbos, Blocher, and Waltke).

That is where John Walton and Michael Jones entered the picture, providing the impetus I needed to harmonize all of these seemingly disparate facts—along with Greg Beale, Denis Alexander, J. Richard Middleton, G. C. Berkouwer, Herman Dooyeweerd, Michael Heiser, Joshua Mortiz, and others including Audrey L. Moore (despite him being a raging anti-Calvinist). Due to Beale and Walton, I see the Genesis account referring to the cosmos as temple or the dwelling place of God, and due to Middleton, Berkouwer, and Dooyeweerd (and Mortiz to some extent) I came to understand the imago Dei in terms of the royal-functional view—i.e., vocational, not substantive or relational.

At the end of the day, I came to realize there is no conflict—either actual or plausible—between Genesis and evolution. I didn't accept evolution at that time, but I realized that I could (and eventually I did). For me, the reason why there is no conflict between creation and evolution is similar to why there is no conflict between the biology of human reproduction and the belief that God knits us together in the womb. It's not a zero sum game; both can be true. There was only one belief that couldn't stand—namely, Adam and Eve being the first humans. But there was no compelling biblical reason to think they were and no essential Christian doctrine that requires them to be, so letting that go was relatively easy. (I am still in the process of identifying and resolving any wrinkles with this view, using a professor at a Reformed seminary as my sounding board to ensure biblical and confessional orthodoxy—because I remain a hardcore fundamentalist.)

 

[Fervent]

I followed a somewhat similar path—but only "somewhat." I inherited young-earth creationism from my Baptist mentor who led me to Christ, along with a host of other ideas that I have since shed along the way (e.g., Arminian theology, dispensational premillennialism, etc.). The wealth of scientific evidence convinced me that the universe had to be billions of years old, but I didn't know how (and therefore didn't try) to square that with Genesis. For various reasons, I couldn't accept either the Gap view or the Day–Age view; on the textual evidence, I was convinced the days had to be normal solar periods, and on the theological evidence, I was convinced Adam and Eve were historical individuals. But how does all of that work within a universe that has been around for billions of years? I had no idea. But, like you, either way I was staunchly opposed to evolution as something "of the devil." I was an undefined old-earth creationist who was contemplating the framework hypothesis (the main proponents of which were Kline, Ridderbos, Blocher, and Waltke).

That is where John Walton and Michael Jones entered the picture, providing the impetus I needed to harmonize all of these seemingly disparate facts—along with Greg Beale, Denis Alexander, J. Richard Middleton, G. C. Berkouwer, Herman Dooyeweerd, Michael Heiser, Joshua Mortiz, and others including Audrey L. Moore (despite him being a raging anti-Calvinist). Due to Beale and Walton, I see the Genesis account referring to the cosmos as temple or the dwelling place of God, and due to Middleton, Berkouwer, and Dooyeweerd (and Mortiz to some extent) I came to understand the imago Dei in terms of the royal-functional view—i.e., vocational, not substantive or relational.

At the end of the day, I came to realize there is no conflict—either actual or plausible—between Genesis and evolution. I didn't accept evolution at that time, but I realized that I could (and eventually I did). For me, the reason why there is no conflict between creation and evolution is similar to why there is no conflict between the biology of human reproduction and the belief that God knits us together in the womb. It's not a zero sum game; both can be true. There was only one belief that couldn't stand—namely, Adam and Eve being the first humans. But there was no compelling biblical reason to think they were and no essential Christian doctrine that requires them to be, so letting that go was relatively easy. (I am still in the process of identifying and resolving any wrinkles with this view, using a professor at a Reformed seminary as my sounding board to ensure biblical and confessional orthodoxy—because I remain a hardcore fundamentalist.)

It's funny how different paths come to similar conclusions. For me, I've never concerned myself with being orthodox though I didn't want to invent beliefs whole cloth. In the end, I found myself in agreement with a lot of EO doctrine regarding soteriology, the role of tradition and Scripture, and other key issues...but find the mytho-history position compelling(and fits nicely with an iconic/canonical view of Scripture) largely from drawing on a variety of unnamed sources. So to be in agreement with someone who is staunchly reformed is interesting to me.

 

[9Rock9]

It's funny how different paths come to similar conclusions. For me, I've never concerned myself with being orthodox though I didn't want to invent beliefs whole cloth. In the end, I found myself in agreement with a lot of EO doctrine regarding soteriology, the role of tradition and Scripture, and other key issues...but find the mytho-history position compelling(and fits nicely with an iconic/canonical view of Scripture) largely from drawing on a variety of unnamed sources. So to be in agreement with someone who is staunchly reformed is interesting to me.

I've always admired Orthodox Christianity. I find the mystery and mysticism appealing. However, I am still a staunch Protestant in some of my convictions like sola scriptura and justification by faith alone.

I find the Orthodox view of the afterlife intriguing, but idk enough about it to actually have an opinion on it either way.

I always figured I'd make a good monk, but that's not really a thing in evangelical Protestantism.

I guess I'd describe myself as Evangelical in beliefs, but prefer Eastern styles and aesthetics.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ah. That's pretty much what I think.

Inspiring Philosophy thinks Adam and Eve were basically priests, and the Eden was the holiest of holies. Thus, Adam had a special connection to God that the rest of humanity didn't have.

This, in a way, parallel Jesus, as he is referred to as the New Adam, is the representative of humanity, and is also a high priest.

You would probably appreciate books and content by Tremper Longman III.

 

[Fervent]

I've always admired Orthodox Christianity. I find the mystery and mysticism appealing. However, I am still a staunch Protestant in some of my convictions like sola scriptura and justification by faith alone.

I still am decidedly Protestant in my ecclesiology, especially in embracing the priesthood of every believer. My inclination is more towards the Wesleyan quadrilateral, especially since I don't see a neat way to separate tradition(little t) from Scripture as far as determining the canon and establishing its authority without circularity.

I find the Orthodox view of the afterlife intriguing, but idk enough about it to actually have an opinion on it either way.

I'm not sure which one you're refering to, as there are a couple. The most outlandish beiing Aerial Toll-Houses

I always figured I'd make a good monk, but that's not really a thing in evangelical Protestantism.

A lot of introverts feel this way...the cenobite life has a certain appeal, and I feel like its a major missing factor in Protestant spirituality though I understand why from a doctrinal standpoint.

I guess I'd describe myself as Evangelical in beliefs, but prefer Eastern styles and aesthetics.

I'm kind of flipped, Eastern in my approach to theology and beliefs, but prefer Baptist style worship and liturgy(for lack of a better word)

The iconic view of the Bible is a big part of why I'm able to accept more controversial views like mytho-history and also why I'm able to not shy away from deconstructive scholarship to engage with secular scholars of religion.