What genre is Genesis 1?

[rmwilliamsll]

The question was asked in the thread "Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!" and answered with a link to: http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm. where he writes:

A detailed study of the literary form of Genesis 1 has concluded that we are dealing with the literary genre of "prose-genealogy."74 Even Gunkel noted long ago that Genesis is "prose." He noted also that it is "more artistic in its composition and has some sort of rhythmical construction."75 The non-poetic nature of Genesis 1 shows that its intention is to take it in its plain sense as a straightforward and accurate record of creative events.
Looking at the information provided in Genesis 1 from a perspective of comparison with other ancient Near Eastern literature, it must be concluded that "Genesis 1 has no parallel anywhere in the ancient world outside the Bible."76 Genesis 1 is the most cohesive and profound record produced in the ancient world of "how" and "when" and by "whom" and "in what manner" the world was made. There is no parallel to it from the ancient world in any type of literature. There are bits and pieces which have been compared from various cosmogonic myths and speculations, but the biblical creation account as a unit stands unique in the ancient world in its comprehensiveness and cohesiveness.77

and a little later

The creation account of Genesis 1 is a historical prose-record, written in rhythmic style, recording factually and accurately "what" took place in the creation of "the heavens and the earth," depicting the time "when" it took place, describing the processes of "how" it was done and identifying the divine Being "who" brought it forth. The result of creation week was a perfect, "very good" world with an environment suited to the utmost for created humanity to live in. This historical prose-record of creation reports correctly in specific sequences the creation events within chronological, sequential, and literal "days." These "days" inaugurate the subsequent historical process of time ordered in weekly cycles in which man and nature function under God's ultimate control. In this sense Genesis 1 is the inaugural history80 of initial beginnings which shapes from creation week onward the following flow of the history of the world and humanity.

What i find interesting in both places is the explicit acknowledgement of the rhythmic construction. For Genesis 1 is a hymn of cosmogony, it is poetically in both construction and in basic literary structure. It is not mere historical narrative like newspaper reporting or a police accident report. M.Kline, H.Blocher,C.Hyers (see: http://tinyurl.com/bmnbt) the 3 authors i find most persuasive on framework interpretation all make the same point, Genesis 1 is a very special genre.

(google 'genesis kline hymn of cosmogony') for lots more essays with the same point.

It is this literary structure that is primary not the narrative itself. The order, timing, etc is secondary to the form- 7 days, evening and morning. Like a modern hymn, or a rhyming poem, the contents have been 'squished' into a box -the literary form in order to prove a more important point then the mere historical/scientific order.

It is a hymn of praise to YHWH. Part of the prologue to the Great King of Creation it is a presentation to the throne of God in Heaven thanking Him for creating the universe just right for human life and for the thoughtful provision of all that is needed.

it is a good question- 'what genre is Genesis 1"?
or what it is not- a mere scientific account of the sequence of God's hands working with the 'wet clay of creation'.

 

[SBG]

Did you read the part about the actual usage of the language? If you aren't willing to study the hebrew and apply honest liguistic rules for the language on Genesis 1, what is the point in discussing it?

Discussing it without being honest enough to look into it deeply is to be intellectually dishonest, a thing that most all te's accuse yec's of for not looking into evolution more deeply.

And the whole point about creation, is not science, but what the Word of God says. So science shouldn't even enter the equation when trying to understand what Genesis says. But you will find Vance saying we must interpret accordingly to what science is currently saying about our origins. It is theological inept.

 

[]RiSeN[]

I found the book; The Beggining of Wisdom: Reading Genesis by Leon R. Kass to be extremly insightful on the construction and meanings of the stories found in Genesis. He is a professor of bioethics. I suggest anyone to look him up and his books. Enjoy!

 

[Vance]

SBG, how many times do I have to tell you that I concluded that Genesis should be read as a figurative account, very similar to how rwilliams describes it, BEFORE I had accepted the scientific evidence. Yes, it is true that we should allow the evidence of God's Creation itself to influence our reading of Scripture, but that is not even necessary with the Creation accounts in order to get a figurative reading.

You say look to the original languages, I say yes, AND consider the culture who wrote it, and the time they wrote it in. These are JUST as essential as the language. Now, ask any number of experts who are immersed in ALL of these fields and you will find that the vast majority of them will confirm that the original tellers, hearers, writers and readers of these accounts would not have considered them as strict literal history.

Also, keep in mind the that poetry/prose distinction really means nothing. A figurative account can be written in prose as well as poetry. The fact that the account, whether poetry or prose, follows a framework, or "rythmic" structure, is very indicative this as well.

 

[SBG]

I don't think I said anything about you before hand, did I? :/ I was just saying that you have said science must play a role in our interpretative process of the Bible.

Would you say that we can better understand the Bible today than the Apostles could in there day?

 

[Vance]

I don't think I said anything about you before hand, did I? :/ I was just saying that you have said science must play a role in our interpretative process of the Bible.

Would you say that we can better understand the Bible today than the Apostles could in there day?

Not at all. The true message of Genesis is equally accessible to all generations and all ages and all education levels. Understanding those messages is truly "understanding the Bible".

As for science playing a role in our interpretive process, you do this as well, even if you know it, or you admit it. This is discussed more completely in the thread entitled "Faith Presumptions", which very few YEC's have bothered to respond to.

 

[SBG]

I can't think of a place where I let science dictate to me what the Bible says. But I am the one who believes the Bible is not teaching geocentrism, so I see no problem with sun rise, sun set, or the sun stopping. It does not occur to me think of this in a scientific way, but rather think of it as written. (ie. the sun stopped)

But you of course can assume that you know me better than I know myself and say that I do use science to interpret scripture.

 

[Vance]

If you did not know of the scientific fact of heliocentrism, I have no doubt that you would believe that Genesis 1, along with the Joshua story and the other "earth is fixed and unmoving" Scriptures were speaking of a literal, geocentric solar system.

Your scientific knowledge that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, I would suppose, influences how you read the text in which Jesus refers to the mustard seed as the smallest seed. Without the scientific knowledge that the mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed, my guess is that you would read that text fairly literally.

If you did not know that rainbows are created by light refraction through moisture, it is VERY likely that you would consider each rainbow a specific an supernatural act of God, in remembrance of His promise to Noah.

It is easy to sit back with your modern scientific knowledge and act as if you would never have read any Scripture in a way that would contradict that knowledge, since AS YOU READ those texts, with that knowledge in place, you simply adjust your reading accordingly. As late as the 1960's, in the tract rack in the church my father pastored, we had a tract that told us not to be fooled by the modern atheist science which said the earth revolved around the sun, since the Scriptures clearly say something different. It is easy now, 40 years later, to conveniently distance yourself from such assertions.

 

[Calminian]

If you did not know of the scientific fact of heliocentrism, I have no doubt that you would believe that Genesis 1, along with the Joshua story and the other "earth is fixed and unmoving" Scriptures were speaking of a literal, geocentric solar system.

Vance you know better than this. The Earth IS fixed and not moving from our point of reference. All movement is relative. The heavenly bodies DO move around us and the sun DOES set and rise. And yes from Joshua's point of reference the sun did stop. I'll bet even you use terms like sunset and sunrise and guess what. You'd be accurate in using them. The biblical writers knew nothing about geocentrism because that would have to do with orbiting patterns in space. They knew nothing of inertia, centrifugal force and gravity. Therefore they couldn't have been geo or heliocentrists.

It is easy to sit back with your modern scientific knowledge and act as if you would never have read any Scripture in a way that would contradict that knowledge, since AS YOU READ those texts, with that knowledge in place, you simply adjust your reading accordingly.

I can honestly tell you I would never have believed that the sun orbited the earth because I wouldn’t have known what an orbit in space was. I would have believed the sun went around the earth and from my point of reference it would have been true.

 

[SBG]

Vance, I don't even know what the smallest seed is, nor do I care. I can realize by reading what Jesus said that He was talking to the listeners about a seed they planted. If He wasn't, they would not have understood what He was talking about. Simple reasoning and deduction skills tell us this. There is no need for any knowledge of science to understand that.

As far as the rest of what you said, Cal answered this well enough.

 

[Vance]

Vance, I don't even know what the smallest seed is, nor do I care. I can realize by reading what Jesus said that He was talking to the listeners about a seed they planted. If He wasn't, they would not have understood what He was talking about. Simple reasoning and deduction skills tell us this. There is no need for any knowledge of science to understand that.

Simple reasoning and deduction (the core of the scientific method) is what tells us the earth is old and a global flood did not happen.

But you are right, you must consider the world in which the speakers of the Scripture, and their listeners, lived in and not attempt to apply our own standards to their statements. A "plain" reading of that Scripture, by our modern "empirical" standard, is that Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed there is and, absent a specific knowledge that it was not actually the smallest seed there is, we would assume that is what Jesus means. The ONLY reason to read this differently is because we happen to learn that it is NOT the smallest seed, and since Jesus can not make a false statement, we must try to figure out what was really meant. You have come up with what is very likely the right solution to this, but it is almost assuredly NOT the reading you would have had absent that knowledge.

 

[SBG]

As I said, I don't have the knowledge, because it was never an issue to me, that the mustard seed is the smallest of ALL seeds or not. I have understood from the context, what Jesus is saying.

 

[Vance]

As I said, I don't have the knowledge, because it was never an issue to me, that the mustard seed is the smallest of ALL seeds or not. I have understood from the context, what Jesus is saying.

But we just TOLD you what the scientific fact was, and now you read that Scripture in the way you do. A simple consideration of the possibilities and you easily slide right into a more figurative reading. I feel confident that if someone had asked you before you came to these boards and first heard abou the mustard seed issue, you would have said that what Jesus meant was that the mustard seed WAS the smallest seed there is.

Regardless, you are at least indicating that you are willing to take a less literal reading by the literary context. You look at the nature of what Jesus is saying, whether it is essential that the mustard seed literally be the smallest seed, and conclude that it is isn't. So, if it is true that the mustard seed is not actually the smallest seed, your faith in Scripture is not damaged in the least.

That is what I have done with Genesis as well.

 

[SBG]

Before you even said anything about the Mustard seed, I read it the same way as I do today. If you don't want to believe me and consider me a liar on this, that is your choice.

I always look to the context what is being said and let Scripture interpret Scripture. And if I cannot understand what is being said, I first pray, then seek what the Apostles taught and what the early Church Fathers (the ones who were taught by the Apostles) believed on the subject.

Science has no place with coming into the interpretation issue of the Bible. But of course, that is just my opinion.

 

[Vance]

Then we are very similar in our approach. I also look to the context, and to the other Scripture, the theological implications, and I also pray and pray and pray. And, for theological guidance on these issues, I look to all the great Christian thinkers, including the early fathers. And, in doing this, it was very clear and obvious to me that Genesis was not meant to be read as strict literal history. Again, all of this while I was still believing that the YEC version of the science was true. If you say that you also came to your conclusion before knowing the science, that is fine, I can accept that. But then don't tell me I am being "intellectually dishonest" for saying so myself.

As for in inclusion of science, there is a very subtle distinction I don't think you are making. It is not as if Christians are taking science and then saying that Scripture somehow TEACHES that science. What so many Christians are saying is that the existence of the science makes them look more closely at their interpretation when their seems to be a conflict and, if upon doing so, they can see that a different reading of Scripture is possible, and theologically sound, then they are humble enough to consider that maybe it was there interpretation of Scripture that was wrong all along. Personally, I did not need the science to prompt me to reconsider my interpretation since it was already clear to me that a figurative reading was what was intended. But for many, they are not so stubborn about clinging to a particular interpretation just out of tradition or the attitude of "that's my story and I'm sticking to it", and the evidence from God's Creation itself is influential in determining whether Genesis is talking figuratively or as a science and strict history book in the modern sense.

I just don't see the sense in using a theology book as a basis for making scientific conclusions.

 

[Vance]

Vance you know better than this. The Earth IS fixed and not moving from our point of reference. All movement is relative. The heavenly bodies DO move around us and the sun DOES set and rise. And yes from Joshua's point of reference the sun did stop. I'll bet even you use terms like sunset and sunrise and guess what. You'd be accurate in using them. The biblical writers knew nothing about geocentrism because that would have to do with orbiting patterns in space. They knew nothing of inertia, centrifugal force and gravity. Therefore they couldn't have been geo or heliocentrists.

Oh, yes, they could. If you asked them straight out whether they believed the sphere of the sun moved around the earth or the other way around, what do you think they would have said? In fact, what would they have insisted upon? It was not just a "perspective" issue, although it was that as well. If you showed them two rocks and explained both possibilities, one with the earth spinning on its axis each day and moving around the sun each year, and the other with the earth fixed and the sun moving around it, it can not be doubted for a minute that they would have insisted that the geocentric model was the correct one. This is not only supported by their own descriptions, but we know that as soon as people began making formal speculations about this, they were all based on some form of geocentric model.

And look at how the first Creation account describes how it was all put together. The earth first, then the sun and moon as lights to serve the earth, and all the heavens built up around the primary and central earth. This screams out geocentrism, and was one of the reasons (not just the Joshua story and those "earth is fixed and unmoving" passages) heliocentrism was initially opposed on Biblical and theological grounds.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Also, the sun was created after life had been put on earth. A subtle way of God telling us He is the sustainer of life, not a star which could be made in to divinity by earlier lack of scientific knowledge.

 

[Vance]

Also, the sun was created after life had been put on earth. A subtle way of God telling us He is the sustainer of life, not a star which could be made in to divinity by earlier lack of scientific knowledge.

Yes, that is exactly the type of theological message the account was meant to provide, rather than a strict account of scientific history.

 

[Biliskner]

Simple reasoning and deduction (the core of the scientific method) is what tells us the earth is old and a global flood did not happen.

i don't like that. only because it contradicts Scripture.
right there you are telling me that you hold science above Scripture. why? you make no sense.

Col. 2:8 See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Flood, no Flood.
Scripture, science.

gee, which one looks more promising...

 

[Biliskner]

hey I posted that link... rmwilliams, you're a stirrer: you just picked and pasted what fitted with you TE. how predictable.

why not paste this section of the text
(read it and understand why he didn't use this (larger) part of text):

V. LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF CREATION "DAYS"

We shall consider the usage of "day" (Hebrew yôm) along major lines of current scholarship. There are liberal and non-liberal scholars who have concluded that the word "day" (Hebrew yôm) in Genesis 1 must be singularly understood in a literal sense. We will review some of their reasons and provide additional ones.

4. Considerations Based on Semantics

The field of semantics in linguistic study refers to what is called signification.92 It deals with the issue of "the accurate evaluation of the meaning of expressions [words, phrases, clauses, sentences, etc.] which have actually been used."93
Semantics calls for attention to the crucial question of the exact meaning of the Hebrew word yôm. Could the designation "day" in Genesis 1 possibly have a figurative meaning in this chapter? Is it to be understood on the basis of the norms of semantics as a literal "day"? This matter of semantics is particularly important in view of the fact that the Hebrew term yôm in the singular and plural has a large variety of meanings, including extended meanings such as "time," "life time," and so on. Is it possible to import an extended meaning from the Old Testament into Genesis 1? Could this not solve the problem of the conflict of a short creation week and the long ages called for by naturalistic evolution?
The Hebrew term yôm, in its variety of forms, can mean aside from a literal "day" also a time or period of time (Judges 14:4) and in a more general sense "a month [of] time" (Genesis 29:14), "two years [of] time" (2 Samuel 13:23;14:28; Jeremiah 28:3,11), "three weeks [of] time" (Daniel 11:2, 3). In the plural form it can mean "year" (1 Samuel 27:7), a "life time" (Genesis 47:8), and so forth. Any good lexicon will provide a comprehensive listing of the various possibilities.94
It is important to keep in mind that "the semantic content of the words can be seen more clearly in their various combinations with other words and their extended semantic field."95
What are the semantic-syntactical guidelines for extended, non-literal meanings of the Hebrew term yôm? The extended, non-literal meanings of the term yôm are always found in connection with prepositions,96 prepositional phrases with a verb, compound constructions, formulas, technical expressions, genitive combinations, construct phrases, and the like.97 In other words, extended, non-literal meanings of this Hebrew term have special linguistic and contextual connections which indicate clearly that a non-literal meaning is intended. If such special linguistic connections are absent, the term yôm does not have an extended, non-literal meaning; it has its normal meaning of a literal day of 24-hours.
In view of the wealth of usages of this Hebrew term, it is imperative to study the usage of the term yôm in Genesis 1 so that it can be compared with other usages. Does this chapter contain the needed indicators by which yôm can clearly be recognized to have a literal or non-literal meaning? How is this term used in Genesis 1? Is it used together with combinations of other words, prepositions, genitive relations, construct state, and the like, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, which would indicate a non-literal meaning? It is exactly these kinds of semantic-syntactical combinations which inform us about the intention of the meaning of this term.
Let us present the facts of the usage of the term yôm, "day," in Genesis 1 as any scholar who knows Hebrew can describe them:



1. The term yôm is always used in the singular.
2. The term yôm is always joined to a numeral. In Genesis 1:5 it is a cardinal and elsewhere in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 it is always an ordinal. We will pay attention to this below.
3. The term yôm is never combined with a preposition, genitive combination, construct state, compound construction, or the like. It always appears as a plain noun.
4. The term yôm is consistently defined by a temporal phrase in the preceding sentence, "and there was evening and there was morning." This clause serves in a defining function for the word "day."
5. The complementary creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 contains a non-literal, figurative meaning of the singular of the term yôm, "day." When the non-literal meaning is intended the semantic-syntactical conventions known from the remainder of the Old Testament for such a meaning are employed. This is the case in the non-literal usage in Genesis 2:4.

Let us note these criteria as they are employed in Genesis 2:4. The noun yôm is joined to the preposition be to read beyôm. Secondly, it is used in a construct relation with the infinitive form of 'asah, "to make." It reads literally, "in the day of making." This combination of the singular with a preposition in construct with an infinitive98 makes this combination a "temporal conjunction,"99 which serves as a "general introduction of time."100
Genesis 2:4b reads literally, "in [the] day of the Lord God making the earth and heaven. Proper English calls for the literal "in [the] day of," which is syntactically a temporal conjunction that serves as a general introduction of time, to be rendered with "when." This sentence then reads, "When the Lord God made ...." This clear-cut case of an extended, non-literal use of yôm in the creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 shows that the contrary usage of yôm in Genesis 1, without any expected qualifier that marks it as a non-literal use, has a literal meaning. The term yôm in Genesis 1 has no prepositions; it is not used in a construct relation and it has no syntactical indicator expected of an extended, non-literal meaning. Thus, in Genesis 1 yôm can mean only a literal "day" of 24 hours.
In short, the semantic-syntactical usages of yôm, "day," in Genesis 1 as compared with semantic-syntactical usages and linguistic connections of this term in other Old Testament passages where it has an extended meaning, does not allow it to mean a long period of time, an age, or the like. The Hebrew language, its grammar, syntax, linguistic structures as well as its semantic usage allows for only the literal meaning of "day" for the creation "days" of Genesis 1.

that's a winner.