Support for ancients not viewing their stories as literal history

[Vance]

I have listened to a few lectures by renowned Christian scholar Luke Timothy Johnson (The Apostle Paul, Early Christianity and Great World Religions: Christianity). You can check out his numerous books at Amazon, and he is known for combatting the minimalist secular approach to the history of Biblical times. Here is his Biography:

Luke Timothy Johnson Emory University
Ph.D., Yale University Luke Timothy Johnson is the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology in Atlanta, Georgia.

Professor Johnson earned his B.A. in philosophy from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans, a Masters of Divinity in theology from Saint Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana, an M.A. in Religious Studies from Indiana University, and his Ph.D. in New Testament Studies from Yale University.

A former Benedictine monk, Professor Johnson has taught previously at Yale Divinity School and Indiana University. He is the author of over 20 books, including The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, and The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, which is used widely as a textbook. He has also published several hundred articles and reviews.

At Indiana University, he received the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching, was elected a member of the Faculty Colloquium on Excellence in Teaching, and won the Brown Derby and Student Choice awards for teaching. At Emory University, he has twice received the “On Eagle’s Wings Excellence in Teaching” award.


Well, I figured he would be a perfect one to weigh in on this issue of how the ancients would have viewed their past and their writings about their past, so I emailed him with that very question. He responded as follows:

"I think that your are in general absolutely correct about the attitude, not only of ancient people, but also of ordinary folk, concerning tales about the past. What matters most is whether they are "true" in some existential sense, not whether they correspond to "facts" in every respect . . . Unfortunately, many Christians have fallen into the epistemological trap of thinking that the only way a narrative can be true is if it is historiccally accurate."

This is what I have been saying.

 

[California Tim]

"I think that your are in general absolutely correct about the attitude, not only of ancient people, but also of ordinary folk, concerning tales about the past. What matters most is whether they are "true" in some existential sense, not whether they correcpond to "facts" in every respect . . . Unfortunately, many Christians have falled into the epistemological trap of thinking that the only way a narrative can be true is if it is historiccally accurate."

This is what I have been saying.

I think you've clarified your position on interpretation to everyone's satisfaction. Now we are left wondering, was Adam a real person, was Noah an historical person, were their offspring literal people, were the events they participated in real. And to that you answer?

 

[Vance]

I think you've clarified your position on interpretation to everyone's satisfaction. Now we are left wondering, was Adam a real person, was Noah an historical person, were their offspring literal people, were the events they participated in real. And to that you answer?

I will answer the way an ancient would (although he would think it odd that someone would ask the question). Some yes, some no, difficult to tell which, but not important anyway, since it is the MESSAGE being conveyed by God in these Scriptures which is what is TRUE, whether it is being told via literal history or semi-historical stories with legendary additions, or purely figurative stories akin to parables. Fixing the transition from non-historical to historical would be not only speculative, but futile and, ultimately, entirely irrelevant.

Only those who need something to be historically accurate in order to believe the message is true will be concerned about it.

This is not being wishy-washy or indecisive. It is simply recognizing that it is the message that is important, not the historicity. Think about the story of Job. Even the evangelical movement is split on whether this is historical or just a figurative story. Does it matter? Is not the truths given JUST as true regardless.

Now, with the Gospels and Jesus, the matter is entirely different for a number of reasons. First of all, we are now talking about a different time, in which actual history was becoming a bit more important. Second, we are talking about eye-witness or near eye-witness accounts, which are NOT told in the types of language that we see in Genesis. Further, these matters deal directly with salvation issues. So, there is no slippery slope danger.

By the way, we should realize that Dr. Johnson is an expert on Paul, what he wrote, believed, and how he would have viewed his own past. So, what he is saying in that quote above is crucial to the question that keeps getting raised here about Paul's references to Adam.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Unfortunately, many Christians have falled into the epistemological trap of thinking that the only way a narrative can be true is if it is historiccally accurate.

confirms my suspicion that the issue is epistemological.
thanks for the OP.

 

[Vance]

I asked a follow up question specifically on the issue of Paul, and how he would have viewed Adam, especially given his reference to Adam and the comparison to Jesus. I told him what my thoughts were, given my own background in ancient history, and he said: "Again, I think that you are right." He went on to say that it would be better to say that Paul thought of Adam as "real" than to say that he thought of him as literally historical.

 

[California Tim]

He went on to say that it would be better to say that Paul thought of Adam as "real" than to say that he thought of him as literally historical.

--> --> -->

 

[Vance]

--> --> -->

But, Tim, why so shocked? You act as if a figurative Adam, or one in which figurative stories are told about an historical person, is not a common approach among Christians. True, it is not the fundamentalist approach, but that is not all of Christianity by a long shot.

But what Dr. Johnson is saying about how Paul would have likely thought about the stories of his past is simply true, whether or not you believe Adam is literal or not. All it means is that you can not point to how Paul referred to Adam as evidence for literalness.

 

[grmorton]

But, Tim, why so shocked? You act as if a figurative Adam, or one in which figurative stories are told about an historical person, is not a common approach among Christians. True, it is not the fundamentalist approach, but that is not all of Christianity by a long shot.

But what Dr. Johnson is saying about how Paul would have likely thought about the stories of his past is simply true, whether or not you believe Adam is literal or not. All it means is that you can not point to how Paul referred to Adam as evidence for literalness.

VAnce, I gotta agree with Tim here. Maybe Jesus is real rather than literally historic. This sounds a bit like Orwellian doublespeak, War is peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is strength

What I have simply never figured out is why all this applies to Genesis but never ever in our wildest dreams to anything having to do with any of the Stories about Jesus.

 

[Vance]

VAnce, I gotta agree with Tim here. Maybe Jesus is real rather than literally historic. This sounds a bit like Orwellian doublespeak, War is peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is strength

What I have simply never figured out is why all this applies to Genesis but never ever in our wildest dreams to anything having to do with any of the Stories about Jesus.

Because Genesis is a completely different writing style and time period than the Gospels. It is comparing apples and oranges. Just because God inspired the whole Scripture, that does not mean it is written with a single style, in a single genre, with a single purpose, and should all be read the same. And nobody does. We do not read Song of Solomon the same as Paul's Epistles.

First, the time factor. Genesis is derived from oral stories nearly 2000 years older than the Gospels. Even if it was written as history (which could not have been the case), it is like comparing a history of WWII written last year with Herodotus. We just can't read them the same or apply the same standards of literalness.

Second, it is simply a different genre of writing. It is like comparing Dante's Inferno with that same modern WWII history. It is just not written for the same purpose. It is like biography compared to a novel, or poetry compared to a science book. You simply can't compare them.

More to the point, it is like comparing I Chronicles to Song of Solomon. Or Job to one of Paul's Epistles. Or Revelation to Joshua. The Bible is a compilation of literary styles compiled over hundreds and hundred of years. God had His hand on all of it, and made sure it all said what He intended it to say, but He definitely did not say it all in the same way. God has shown very well that He can convey His truths in a wide variety of presentation styles.

The Gospels were written with a specific purpose and were written at a specific time. They are a specific genre of literature. They are a type of focused biography meant to convey to the reader exactly what Jesus did, what He said and how He died and rose again. This is intended to be true and accurate history, as Luke says outright. If it is written with the intent to tell true history, then we should read it that way.

Genesis, in its early chapters, is very different. It is meant to convey great truths about God and His relationship to His Creation and with Man in particular. It conveys those great truths in a powerful and evocative way very much in style and format like the myth-epics very common in the ancient neareast. At the time these accounts were first told orally and even when they were first written down (as inspired by God), no one wrote literal history, and no one expected to be reading literal history, as I have been pointing out for a long time, and which most Biblical scholars readily acknowledge. Professor Johnson, one of the Christian Biblical scholars is just confirming what I have been saying. It is not something new or original being said, it is a belief about Genesis as early as many of the Church Fathers and many Jewish scholars before that. In a way that we have a hard time getting "our heads around", as they say, the ancients had no problem viewing their stories about their past as "real" and "true" regardless of their historicity. They didn't even think about strict historicity. No, not even in the genealogies.

I would highly recommend reading once again the quote by C.S. Lewis here to get a better idea of what I am discussing:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1155784-time-for-a-lewis-update.html

The point is the same as with the Gospels: we should read it the way it was intended. If the original writers of Genesis did not intend it to be read as literal history, and the original readers did not read it that way, then why should we? Isn't that actually contrary to good interpretation, to read a different meaning into a text than was originally intended just because it fits with our modern sensibilities?

It simply makes no sense to assume strict literal historicity in early ancient texts as a default. It would be a major departure from everything that was written at the time. Sure, God could have done it, but why should we assume it that He did? Just because that is how we write and think about our past today, so many thousands of years later?

We also have the evidence from the text itself. While many fundamentalist scholars have wasted a lot of ink in forcing the two different creation accounts to fit together and retain literalness, you have to admit that their ultimate conclusions are not very convincing unless you are fully dedicated to the endeavor to begin with. Very often these workarounds don't even agree. Some say they are discussiing different aspects of the same creation period, some say it is a different, but still literal, process. But when you consider that many ancient neareastern cultures had double accounts which similarly contradicted each other in detail and sequence, but still held both to be very true and important stories about their past, it becomes much easier to consider that the Hebrew origin stories are the same. They DO contradict if they are read literally. They DON'T contradict if they are read figuratively, as symbolic and typological accounts.

As St. Augustine said about the danger of reading something literally which was intended to be read figuratively:

At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).​

 

[California Tim]

It simply makes no sense to assume strict literal historicity in early ancient texts as a default. It would be a major departure from everything that was written at the time. Sure, God could have done it, but why should we assume it that He did? Just because that is how we write and think about our past today, so many thousands of years later?

First of all, why should we assume He did not do it the way He stated? It seems to me if you are going to base your argument on preconceived bias, it would make a lot more sense to assume Genesis is narrative history unless compelling evidence refutes that possibility. Since Genesis speaks of miraculous creation, even if all my YEC calculations fly in the face of reason, it does not preclude the creation account being potentially accurate - including the age of the earth, if it is demonstrated that the account was historical and accurate. So, unless there is compelling scriptural evidence to the contrary, why not take the obvious approach when reading the Word? That seems the reasonable approach to studying the Bible IMO.

So where do we go to find out how Genesis was intended to be interpreted? I suggest the Bible itself has the answer. Since the literary style of the entire book of Genesis is relatively the same, it seems unlikely that it was all allegorical or figurative. To say only the first few chapters are allegorical based on literary style, is to render the same judgement to the entire book. So why not tell me why you feel the accounts of Isaac, Jacob and Essau, Joseph and the early patriarchs are not represented historically as well? Are all the geneaologies to be figurative representations of real people (whatever that means)? Why the specific mention of ages at conception of offspring and again at death? All part of an intricate plan of confusion to the saints? To throw us off so the figurative reading would remain hidden? Why?

So to me, while the answer to how to read Genesis seems clear, the answers within the message may not always be clear, as evidenced by the discussions here where the physical evidence appears at first to contradict the Biblical account. But rather than feeling compelled to adjust the interpretation of the Bible to match the presumption that we interpret all the evidence correctly, we should instead attempt to determine how to read His word and let it reveal the truths of creation to us in the process.

 

[Vance]

"Why should we assume He did not do it the way He stated it?"

But, Tim, that is the point, by saying "the way He stated it", you are assuming that He stated it as literal history. You are still assuming that literal history is the proper default reading. Why? Why is reading as historical narrative the default? I have just shown you exactly why it SHOULDN'T be the default. What is YOUR basis for this starting point? You say it is the "obvious" approach. But obvious to who? To you? It is not obvious to me, and it definitely would not have been obvious to the ancient writers and readers. Your entire position is based on a modern cultural bias in favor of narrative history, as Professor Johnson points out.

Next, you say that the literary style of the entire book of Genesis is the same. How do you get that? Are you saying that Genesis 1 is in the same literary style as the Abraham stories? That is the farthest thing from the truth, as even a cursory reading will show. Even in our modern translations (which tends to mute the differences in the language and style) the literary genre of the first part of Genesis and the Patriarchal accounts are worlds apart. This entire premise fails before it even starts. You raise a point which actually works against your conclusion: since they are NOT written in the same literary style, they should NOT be read the same.

Yes, I agree that we should attempt to learn how to read His Scripture, and so far, you are refusing to consider any other approach than the one YOU find obvious and clear.

 

[artybloke]

What I have simply never figured out is why all this applies to Genesis but never ever in our wildest dreams to anything having to do with any of the Stories about Jesus.

Well, I for one see no reason to suppose that all the stories in the Gospels are literal history; or that we have the exact words of Christ, rather than the Gospels writers' summaries of what he said. I don't really need to know if all the miracles occured. (That doesn't mean I don't think they're possible; it just means that my faith isn't dependent on Christ's miracles, and if I were to find out that he definitely didn't walk on water, I wouldn't be that bothered, frankly.)

But there are limits to scepticism, or faith isn't even possible for someone as liberal as me. Firstly, there is the need for Christ's life, death and resurection to be real historically; even if I were to question the empty tomb stories, I wouldn't doubt that the resurection happened (it's not as if all the resurection was was a "conjuring trick with bones".) The idea that at some point in history, God made mine and every body else's salvation possible through becoming a real, historical living, breathing person who suffered death on the cross and was raised would seem to be the crux of Christian theology. Without that, you ain't got nothing.

The historicity or otherwise of Adam is not a crux of theology, though; and while it's possible that there was someone called Adam, who was the first "sinner", it's not necessary that he existed for all of us to be sinners. Paul, being quite a subtle thinker trained in Greek rhetoric, would have been aware of this, I think.

Of course, as Vance pointed out, the Gospel writers were nearer the events they were describing than were the writers of Genesis, so it's more likely that what they were writing, while not neccessarily being 100% historical, have a much firmer footing in history. So even if I think that the Gospels are sometimes imaginative in their stories, I don't believe they are completely ahistorical.

 

[grmorton]

Hi Vance,

My over-riding issue here is that with all areas outside of the Bible we treat truth and falsity as ways to tell reality. When we come to the Bible, we let it be as false as we want and then claim it is still true. We wouldn't do that in Chemistry by proclaiming the deep scientific truths revealed to us by the phlogiston theory. I believe we should be consistent in our treatment of all reality. If we wouldn't act this way in science, why do we act this way in theology? I know it won't convince you because I have never seen a TE yet who sees the illogic but it is there.

Because Genesis is a completely different writing style and time period than the Gospels.

No, Genesis 1 is in a different writing style. Genesis 2 on is not. Unless you are saying nothing more important than that the Style of Ezekiel is different from that of Isaiah.

It is comparing apples and oranges. Just because God inspired the whole Scripture, that does not mean it is written with a single style, in a single genre, with a single purpose, and should all be read the same. And nobody does. We do not read Song of Solomon the same as Paul's Epistles.

Genesis 1:1 must be literally true or God is not the creator. How can we beleive that Genesis 1:1 is not meant to be taken as real history? It is what the philosophers would call propositional. It is either true or false. There is no middle ground.

First, the time factor. Genesis is derived from oral stories nearly 2000 years older than the Gospels.

This is the part of the story that I have often felt needs to be challenged on the part of the TE's who otherwise demand evidence but here they accept something as fact which is mere assumption. We all have our assumptions in our world views, but we need to be careful that we don't treat our assumptions as bed rock truth. You may or may not be correct here.

The JEDP theory is a case in point. Those sources are no where mentioned in the Bible and they are nowhere mentioned in extrabiblical ancient literature. One doesn't KNOW how the Bible came to be because we have NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, LEENG evidence. So your statement is an assumption and needs to be treated as such.

Even if it was written as history (which could not have been the case), it is like comparing a history of WWII written last year with Herodotus. We just can't read them the same or apply the same standards of literalness.

Herodotus has turned out to be much more correct than people in the 19th century believed him to be.

Second, it is simply a different genre of writing. It is like comparing Dante's Inferno with that same modern WWII history. It is just not written for the same purpose. It is like biography compared to a novel, or poetry compared to a science book. You simply can't compare them.

How do you write Genesis 1:1 with a different purpose other than telling us that God created the heavens and the earth?

The Gospels were written with a specific purpose and were written at a specific time. They are a specific genre of literature. They are a type of focused biography meant to convey to the reader exactly what Jesus did, what He said and how He died and rose again. This is intended to be true and accurate history, as Luke says outright. If it is written with the intent to tell true history, then we should read it that way.

Then you really haven't looked at what is said about ancient literature written in admiration of a person. During Jesus' time it was quite common to have the stars proclaim the birth of a noble personage. You are applying one standard to Genesis but another to the gospels. I know several atheists who can argue the case quite well that the Gospels were no different than the adorational literature written to praise a bigwig politician in that era. Why don't we apply the same standard to the Gospels that we apply to Genesis?

In my not-so-humble opinion, the story of the Star is pure myth, similar to many ancient legends about the miraculous appearance of a star to herald a great event, such as the birth of Caesar, Pythagoras, Krishna (the Hindu savior), and other famous persons and deities. Aeneas is said to have been guided by a star as he traveled westward from Troy to the spot where he founded Rome. (I was unable to find a reference to this in Virgil's Aenead, and would be grateful to any reader who can locate the reference for me.) The legend about the Star of Bethlehem is believed by many scholars to have arisen to fulfill a prophecy in Numbers 24:17, "I shall see him [God], but not now. I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel." Martin Gardner, The Star of Bethlehem, Skeptical Inquirer Nov/Dec 1999 http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=paranormal&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csicop.org%2Fsi%2F9911%2Fgardner.html

Genesis, in its early chapters, is very different. It is meant to convey great truths about God and His relationship to His Creation and with Man in particular.

Once again, an assumption, not a fact. Treat it as such. Where do you base this on. You might cite Jerome, but I can cite lots of ancient Talmudic sources that they thought it told what happened, if not exactly in the order of the creation.

It conveys those great truths in a powerful and evocative way very much in style and format like the myth-epics very common in the ancient neareast.

Having read Homer, having read parts of the Vedas, I can assure you that Genesis 1 has little in common with epic poetry.

At the time these accounts were first told orally and even when they were


I would highly recommend reading once again the quote by C.S. Lewis here to get a better idea of what I am discussing:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1155784-time-for-a-lewis-update.html

I have read that Lewis book before today and I re-read the passage today

The point is the same as with the Gospels: we should read it the way it was intended.

And who exactly told you the intention of Matthew, Mark and John? I will acknowledge Luke tells us his purpose, but that isn't the case with the other 3.

[/qutoe]If the original writers of Genesis did not intend it to be read as literal history, and the original readers did not read it that way, then why should we? Isn't that actually contrary to good interpretation, to read a different meaning into a text than was originally intended just because it fits with our modern sensibilities?

It would be IF and ONLY IF, your assumption that they didn't take it as literal is true. And it isn't. You can't read the Bereshith without realizing that the ancient Jews DID take the account literally. So I would disagree with your assumption above---logically what you have above is merely an assumption, not a fact.

The appearance of Adam and Eve, when just formed, was like that of persons of twenty years of age.

It simply makes no sense to assume strict literal historicity in early ancient texts as a default. It would be a major departure from everything that was written at the time. Sure, God could have done it, but why should we assume it that He did? Just because that is how we write and think about our past today, so many thousands of years later?

It simply makes no sense to assume what we like in order to avoid what we don't like.

We also have the evidence from the text itself. While many fundamentalist scholars have wasted a lot of ink in forcing the two different creation accounts to fit together and retain literalness, you have to admit that their ultimate conclusions are not very convincing unless you are fully dedicated to the endeavor to begin with. Very often these workarounds don't even agree. Some say they are discussiing different aspects of the same creation period, some say it is a different, but still literal, process.

Since I don't hold to their views of Genesis, this argument doesn't seem applicable to my position.

But when you consider that many ancient neareastern cultures had double accounts which similarly contradicted each other in detail and sequence, but still held both to be very true and important stories about their past, it becomes much easier to consider that the Hebrew origin stories are the same. They DO contradict if they are read literally. They DON'T contradict if they are read figuratively, as symbolic and typological accounts.

Please name these other cultures and the books upon which this statement is based. I like details not general statements.

As St. Augustine said about the danger of reading something literally which was intended to be read figuratively:

At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).​

But the very question before us is: Is Genesis to be taken literally?

I would argue that your position is inconsistent. YOu must accept Genesis 1:1 as literal history but then excise the rest of that first chapter worth of poetry and make it figurative. Genesis 2 is written in the style of the generally accepted historical portions of Genesis but it too is considered figurative in your position as far as I can see. That means that you are in a cafeteria style theology. Picking and choosing what one wants to accept. That is no less ad hoc than is the YEC view, only you do it with theology, they do it with science.

 

[Didaskomenos]

But grmorton, the fact that Genesis 1:1 is historically true is incidental, and even somewhat coincidental. It belongs to the subsequent narrative, and must be treated within the narrative as a part of it. A story beginning, "A certain man had three sons" should not therefore be treated as historical just because there have demonstrably been many certain historical men who became fathers of three sons each.

 

[California Tim]

While many fundamentalist scholars have wasted a lot of ink in forcing the two different creation accounts to fit together and retain literalness, you have to admit that their ultimate conclusions are not very convincing unless you are fully dedicated to the endeavor to begin with. Very often these workarounds don't even agree.

Another myth is this assumption of the two contradictory creation accounts. For the benefit of those who are as yet undecided or confused by all this banter, I will post the following article and source link to shed some light on the truth on the matter:

The Real Explanation

Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorships. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to those variations? Indeed there is. Furthermore, there are a number of factors which militate against the notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent and contradictory accounts of the creation. Think about these points.

1. There is method in the emphases of these two sections of scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind – in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is a special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observes that the

“technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118).​

2. These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. (This procedure is not unknown in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.)
Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:

“There are different emphases in the two chapters . . . but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1” (p. 53).​

3. There is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the sun, moon, and stars, etc.
Archer points out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the sun, moon, seas, etc. (Archer, 1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.

Even Johnston, who is sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis (at least in part), is forced to concede:

“The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man” (p. 90).​

The following summary statement by Kenneth Kitchen is worthy of notice:

“It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the ‘two’ accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism” (pp. 116-117).​

Conclusion
When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been carefully considered, one thing is clear. An objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics. It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,” but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine. Source

 

[Vance]

Glenn, you are being too much the scientist here! :0) You are being, ironically, somewhat uniformitarian in your view of Scripture. You are a trained scientist, so it is even harder for you to place yourself in the mindset of the ancient writer or reader. We are all products of a post-Enlightenment upbringing in which empirical data establishes "truth" and "falsity", and we have come to discount any literary vehicle other than strict historicity or accurate narrative for the conveyance of essential truths, both of in events and spiritual truths.

Genesis IS true in the sense that it tells us a lot of very true things and conveys many great "truths", but this is not at all dependent upon it being literal history. Consider the book of Job. Most Christians of all stripes do not consider that to be telling literal history. But would you say that it is not telling us the Truth? Would you say that the messages God is giving us in that book are equally true regardless of of whether it is historically accurate?

Now, look at Genesis 1, what are the Truths that are undeniable in that account, whether it is being told as literal history or a figurative account. Either way, it is STILL telling us that God created the whole universe, that He is in control of everything, that it was "good", that He created with a plan and with an orderly progress, that He created Man in His image, etc, etc. These would have been seen as absolutely true statements derived from this account, regardless of whether the literary vehicle of the "days" and the exact order of events (which is set out in a two tiered poetic format) is historically accurate. That is why there is a big difference in the ancient mind between "true" and "historical". They can, and did, accept all of these important truths in Genesis without knowing or caring whether the details were historical. I understand this is difficult for our modern minds to accept, but it is simply the truth about how they thought. And they were the ones who wrote it, so we need to understand and respect where they were coming from.

Now, where you are having a problem, I think, is in grasping that even a figurative story can tell many literal historical truths as well. Such as the historical fact that God DID create everything. That He DID create Man in His image, etc. These are both historical truths and theological truths and they are powerfully conveyed in an overall figurative account. This is not inconsistent at all, it is just a matter of seeing the essential truths within the story. For some reason, these are very obvious to me, and I have no problem accepting them AS wholly true events even while realizing that the structure of "days" and chronology are not meant to be historically accurate or scientifically accurate.

Now, turning to the second Creation account, and the Adam and Eve story. First of all, this is also NOT written in the same literary style as the Patriarchal stories. In fact, starting with Abraham, there is a very clear shift in style and presentation. Again, this is greatly muted in our modern translations, but it is still pretty obvious. The Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Tower of Babel and the Flood all fit into a very different style and genre than we see starting with Abraham.

Now, what are the basic truths conveyed in the Adam and Eve account? That God desires personal communion with Mankind, but Mankind's selfish, sinful nature has caused us to lose that possibility of communion, that Man can be tempted by Satan, and can lead others into sin, that woman was created as a helpmate for man, that Mankind now has to work hard to survive when God would have it otherwise, etc, etc, etc. All of these truths are JUST as true and essential whether they are told to us via historical narrative or a figurative, symbolic and typological story. Now, that doesn't mean that a literal Adam did not exist, he may very well have. But the events that occur to him described in Scripture, the ancients would not have thought of as necessarily historical, so why should we?

As for the multiple accounts of stories, this is true of Hittite and Sumerian cultures that I can recall off the top of my head, possibly Egyptian as well. Not to long ago I completed a university level course on Neareastern Mythology, and was reminded of these accounts, and I can dig up those exact examples again, if you like. Otherwise, it has been 20 years since I got my degree in ancient history, which is why I confirmed by recollection on these points from one of the leading scholars in the area, and a Christian to boot.

In regards to the Gospels, yes, there are those who want to argue that those can not be read as historically accurate, and I do not find this very persuasive. Remember, this is my area of study, it is what I have a degree in, so I am not just spouting off without a great deal of background. I have taken lecture courses from professors who have taught those types of minimalist approaches and know their arguments thoroughly and just find them unconvincing. If you would like a further explanation as to why, I can do that in a separate thread. Further, there is the "check" of theological consistency. Christian theological essentials require that these Scriptures be historically accurate in the salvation essentials.

Now, this is not some newfangled idea, held on to by modern, liberal, marginal Christians. It is actually how most Christians around the world read Genesis. That does not make it correct in and of itself, but I keep getting the impression that here in the U.S. Christians really think that the literal/historical approach is just what Christians believe.

 

[California Tim]

The Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Tower of Babel and the Flood all fit into a very different style and genre than we see starting with Abraham.

Is it just a coincidence that only those parts in which a supernatural events requiring direct intervention by God are called into question? Meanwhile, the rest, which is primarily an ordinary account of humankind and geneaologies of the time which occurred after any major miracles are perfectly acceptable to all critics - evidently because the events do not address the supernatural and fit neatly into a current world-view of history. Had it possibly occurred to anyone that the reason the creation accounts would read a bit differently is because there were no eyewitnesses to the event and thus are recounted from a different perspective. It does not mean they are any less historical.

 

[Vance]

Is it just a coincidence that only those parts in which a supernatural events requiring direct intervention by God are called into question? Meanwhile, the rest, which is primarily an ordinary account of humankind and geneaologies of the time which occurred after any major miracles are perfectly acceptable to all critics - evidently because the events do not address the supernatural and fit neatly into a current world-view of history. Had it possibly occurred to anyone that the reason the creation accounts would read a bit differently is because there were no eyewitnesses to the event and thus are recounted from a different perspective. It does not mean they are any less historical.

First of all, think of all the supernatural events in the rest of Scripture. It is chock-full of them, and so this is not a real factor.

But, the lack of eyewitness issue is getting you closer to the truth. They ARE recounted in a different perspective for that reason (among others). They are events told about the distant past, which is why the ancients did not even EXPECT them to be literal history, with accurate presentations of the details. Given these expectations in the culture and the literary forms with which the past was presented, I would not have expected God to inspire the stories in any other format than the figurative, symbolic and typological presentations of those events which the cultures were used to and which would find as acceptable as we find "hard" history today.

Actually, when you think about it, MORE SO. We are always finding out that what we thought to be an absolute historic fact was incorrect. History (my own expertise) is an science of sorts, but definitely an inexact one. We recognize that we will often have to hold certain "facts" tentatively. Can you imagine how much more this was the case in ancient times. I can assure you that we know more about most ancient people's literal history than they knew themselves! So, even today, instead of relying on shifting "facts" of history, we often hold on to more general, indisputable truths concretely, and the details with lesser degrees of certainty.

Genesis is this approach writ large. It is simply a fact, as Professor Johnson points out, that this IS how the ancient Hebrews would have viewed their stories. So who in the world are WE to insist on reading them differently?

 

[California Tim]

It is simply a fact, as Professor Johnson points out, that this IS how the ancient Hebrews would have viewed their stories. So who in the world are WE to insist on reading them differently?

I almost began posting information to the contrary, when it occurred to me: You may likely dismiss the relevance even if it were demonstrated that the ancient Hebrews did read Genesis as historical. So before I apply any substantial effort on that possibility, let me first ask you: What would it mean to you if the ancient Hebrews actually did accept the Genesis creation account as historical?

 

[Vance]

I almost began posting information to the contrary, when it occurred to me: You may likely dismiss the relevance even if it were demonstrated that the ancient Hebrews did read Genesis as historical. So before I apply any substantial effort on that possibility, let me first ask you: What would it mean to you if the ancient Hebrews actually did accept the Genesis creation account as historical?

Ah, in the nature of a "thought experiment" as in my other thread? My rumination would be whether GOD intended us to read it literally, even if not all readers throughout history followed this intention. The fact is that people throughout history have read it a wide variety of ways, so just how a particular group read it is not an absolute indication of how it should be read. But, I do give a lot of credence to what the original readers would have thought, since that was the original intended audience, and the culture from which the actual scribes who wrote it down came from.

In short, I think that the manner in which the earliest readers thought about Genesis is a very important factor in how WE should read it, but not conclusive. I think it provides us with the best "default" position to start from, and we should depart from that only upon convincing evidence, as Augustine tells us, that a different interpretation is more likely what God intended.

Edit: I would also add that you can always find someone to say a given thing about any subject. The question is, when you have viewed the evidence as a whole, what is most likely? Given your lack of knowledge on this subject to start, my guess would be that you would simply have gone out to seek an opposing view, rather than reviewed the subject in some detail and reached a conclusion. If so, it is a matter of course that you can find somebody to say what you want to hear. My understanding on this subject is based on my own education on the subject over many, many years. I have a degree on this stuff, and have learned under those who are experts in the field. That is why I took the time to ask one such expert, and one who is a Christian.