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).