Does the Truth of Genesis 1-11 Depend on its Historical Accuracy? | The BioLogos Forum

[TJR]

Brad, to your core question," Is it possible for a passage of Scripture to still be true and authoritative even if it is written about an event that the authors thought was historical, and yet is not historical?" I would say yes you can find truth in a work of fiction. All the great works of fiction tell of some truth about the human condition. It’s the authoritative part that troubles me. We look to the Bible for authoritative answers to our questions. Often though, the answer can be ambiguous. It all depends on how a passage is interpreted. So it’s not much of an inerrant authority without an inerrant interpreter.

In the Middle Ages the Church was the authority in things spiritual. When the Reformation came along and rejected the authority of the Catholic Church the reformers needed to replace it with something else, the Bible. The only problem was that the many understandings of what the Bible is teaching has led to many denominations. We have no final or ultimate authority because everybody is free to come up with their own interpretations and find a church that agrees with them. If your church hires a woman as Pastor and you don’t think they should because of your understanding of the Bible then you are free to find another church. But if you are deciding what the Bible is saying about something then you are the authority as much as the Bible is the authority. So it’s not much use to have an inerrant Bible without an inerrant interpreter.

[mtp1032 (Michael Peterson)]

I wonder if our understanding of ‘accurate’ is being used consistently. For example, Animal Farm is a story about talking farm animals. Talking farm animals do not exist and to that extent the story is “inaccurate”. On the other hand, its message about totalitarianism is widely accepted as true so that, insofar as totalitarianism is concerned, Animal Farm is famously “accurate”.

As for either of the Genesis creation stories, I am skeptical of claims that the ancient Hebrews reacted to these stories as if they reflected physical reality. Part of my skepticism arises from the nature of biblical Hebrew - a language that depends on symbolism and metaphor far more than the more semantically rich English or Greek. The ancient Hebrews, by virtue of their language, would be much more attuned to the use of symbolism than we do (a modern, post-enlightenment, English audience). My skepticism also is rooted in the structure of both stories, especially the first. It’s cadence, its majestic prose, its references to a figure-of-time so completely at odds with experience would have immediately signaled to the audience that here was a story whose meaning was symbolic, literary in nature, not factual.

With respect to your question - “how could [the ancient Hebrews] understand an inaccurate account”; the answer, it seems to me, is that they understood the creation stories as literary myths, not literal, historically accurate accounts. Nahun Sarna and Robert Alter explain better than I that the truths arising from allegory and metaphor are often more profound, richer and affecting than the mere recitation of history.

In other words, the ancient Hebrews understood the creation stories as metaphorical, not literal. And that, it seems to me, is the answer to your question.

Blessings,

[mtp1032 (Michael Peterson)]

I apologize for being late to the conversation, but I only just found (and joined) Biologos. I’d like to respond to your core question with another: why would we assume that the authors of the flood story (or the Genesis creation accounts) were reacting to what they believed to be an historical (actual) event? Perhaps I’m missing some context here, but I might point out that a fair number of scholars (Nahun Sarna, Alter, etc.,) would argue that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are largely a reaction (a polemic really) to the prevailing myths of the cultures surrounding the ancient Hebrews. The prime example supporting this argument is the many parallels between the Genesis 1 creation account and the Enuma.

Anyway, super topic and I wish I had found this site earlier.

Blessings,

[BradKramer]

@mtp1032 Hi Michael, welcome to BioLogos. Glad to have you.

I like Sarna a lot, so I want to tread carefully here. As stated in the post, my primary goal is to understand the text on its own terms, not simply to conform it to any external standard of truth or untruth. So, when I look at the flood story in its ancient context, I see no reason not to believe that writers and hearers of Genesis had a historical, global flood in mind. Certainly they were also shaping that story to match their understanding of God as creator and redeemer, and also as a polemic against other ancient cultures. They weren’t primarily trying to be historians, for sure. But none of this means that they didn’t think of the flood as a real, global event, on some level.

Genesis 1 offers many similar examples. For instance, verse 6 talks about a “vault” in the sky that holds back the ocean above the stars. Now, we know that such a vault or sky ocean does not exist. But the writers of Genesis probably did. I know that some people want to say, “well, they were just responding to other cultures, they weren’t actually trying to give us a scientifically accurate picture of the universe.” But this seems like a stretch to me. Certainly, they weren’t trying to write a science manual, but this doesn’t mean they didn’t share in ancient, pre-modern beliefs about the shape of the universe.

None of this destroys the authority of the Scriptures, but it forces us to re-examine what we mean by “authority”, and what we expect to find in the Bible.

[johnZ]

What you are describing is a typical approach, Michael, so I understand it well. But let me propose to you a different perspective. It has often been said, that things are not true because they are in the Bible; they are in the Bible because they are true. The presumption is that the Bible will not contain untruths, because it is against the nature of God, the Spirit, and the writers to put untruths in scripture. Okay, maybe you agree with that.

Metaphor is true in the sense of what it is trying to convey, assuming that it portrays truth. A metaphor of untruth would not be true. In the case of animal story, we quickly understand that the conversation of the animals is supposed to represent something else, just like the parable of the father of the prodigal son represents God interacting with his children. From there on, the conversation makes sense.

Making Genesis one into a parable or metaphor, rather than a telling of events, is like making God represent God, and first man represent first man, and world, water, sun represent world, water, sun. Because there is not a transition to a metaphorical form, we cannot know what the point of the metaphor really might be.

While it is true that certain cultures use more symbolic language than others, or use language that is more “couched” in indirect language, possibly in order to reduce emotional conflict, this is more cultural than language based. Some backwoods cultures are incredibly subtle in their communication, but when you understand and are accustomed to their use, you realize it is only subtle for outsiders, and not at all subtle for those who speak such in a daily way. It is possible to be either very direct, or very subtle in English, as well; it depends on the user and the context and the culture. This is why some people are very insulted by language that other people do not even perceive as significant.

Your comment about Hebrews understanding an inaccurate account is possibly valid, but in some way misses the point that many EC argue that Genesis 1 was written the way it was (inaccurately) because the Hebrews would not have understood the science (present day knowledge of space, etc.). This is an invalid argument because if mere understanding is the criteria, then certainly they would not have been able to “understand” how man could be created from dust, or in fact how everything could be created so quickly, or how light could exist without the sun. Understanding or lack of understanding (in otherwords, historical culture) is not a valid argument for why Genesis is written the way it was.

Finally, what evidence do you have that they understood the creation stories as metaphorical? Why would they have a reason to do so, if they did not have knowledge of nature that would contradict the facts of this story?

[mtp1032 (Michael Peterson)]

@johnZ wrote:

Finally, what evidence do you have that they understood the creation
stories as metaphorical? Why would they have a reason to do so, if they did
not have knowledge of nature that would contradict the facts of this story?

If you don’t mind, in the interests of space I’ll restrict my answer to the 1st creation story. This story is manifestly metaphorical/symbolic for a number of reasons, five of which are:

1. Numerology is everywhere in the first creation story (click here for examples). If you’re suspicious of numerology, I would recommend Umbarto Cassuto’s “A Commentary on the Book of Genesis”, Kindle locations 468-505). By the way, as you are no doubt aware, numerology was widely used among the ancient Semitic authors (not just the Hebrews) to express metaphorical concepts. Thus the numbers 7, 3, etc., are purposefully incorporated into their texts in order to signal to the audience meanings that are NOT to be found in the literal text. Again, Genesis 1 is rife with numerological (sic) references.

2. Speaking of numerology, the motif of creation over a seven day period (actually 6+1) was widely understood as a metaphor for completeness. The same motif occurs in the Enuma Elish and both of these works would have been immediately understood by their respective audiences as symbolic in nature.

3. The lyrical tone, pace, and language contructs are as close to Hebrew poetry (w/o being poetic) as occurs in the Bible. Indeed, parts of the story are manifestly poetic (e.g., 1:26-27 and 2:1-3).

4. Speaking of 2:1-3, the structure and grammar of these verses (3 fold repetition, the use of the pual form of the verb meaning completion, vay’khullu) are obvious when read/heard in Hebrew and would have alerted the audience that there is more to the story than the literal words. For a more detailed description of the symbolism of verses 2:1-3 - and its representation of the Sabbath you may want to read these two articles Lost In Translation I and Lost In Translation II.

5. The representation of time! In Genesis 1, time is represented differently than anywhere else in the Bible. Yom (day) and Layla (night) are represented as regions of space, not periods of time (see here). The author represents time in this manner presumably in order to express and convey the transcendence of Elohim (think of a film editor viewing a scene frame by frame, perhaps editing frames as necessary). By showing time as a region of space, the concept of an entity outside of that space would have been immediately obvious.

In summary, Genesis 1 is manifestly metaphorical and would have been easily understood by its audience, steeped in the language, customs, and culture of those days. I hope this answers your question.

Blessings,

Michael

[johnZ]

I disagree, Michael, and perhaps later I will explain why.

[mtp1032 (Michael Peterson)]

Just a few quick points:

@BradKramer

I see no reason not to believe that writers and hearers of Genesis had a historical, global flood in mind.

I agree in part. My [inconsequential] disagreement with your statement above is that the biblical text does not describe a global flood (e.g., the whole world). In the Hebrew the text describes a local flood. Notwithstanding the extent of the flood, I think you are correct. The author uses the flood to construct his narrative. This is very common in all of the writings of the ANE (Ancient Near East). ANE historical narrative, for example, is always triumphalist. When Joshua conquered Canaan, everything was wiped out. His was a genocide of epic proportions. This simply the way ancient authors wrote history and is, more often than not, completely at odds (quite knowingly) with reality.

@BradKramer

Genesis 1 offers many similar examples. For instance, verse 6 talks about a “vault” in the sky that holds back the ocean above the stars. Now, we know that such a vault or sky ocean does not exist.

Brad, this is not quite correct. Verses 6 & 7 describes the expanse ( רָקִיעַ) as separating the waters above (rain, clouds) from the waters below (terrestrial water such as rivers, lakes,etc.,). Accordingly, you may find this commentary of interest. [ASIDE: this is yet another example of how the biblical authors express literal concepts (rain, clouds, rivers, lakes, etc.,) using broad, figurative language.]

As for the authority of scripture I do not quite understand why one’s understanding of the Bible would (or would not) destroy the authority of the text. If physical reality contradicts the Bible, then the most likely explanation is that we do not understand the biblical text. At the end of the day, it is hubris to fear (and reject) the truths of science for the sake of the one’s understanding of the Bible. After all, all of us are of a culture based on Western thoughts and are three thousand years removed from an Ancient Near Easter culture with a vastly different world view.

Blessings,

Michael

[johnZ]

Michael, although we use the term “creation stories”, we should understand they are really two parts of the same story; they are not two contradictory stories. Just wanted to clear that up.

1. The problems with saying that numerology is everywhere, is that that provides no explanation for a particular number or its derivation. Yes, there are significant numbers, but most of them in scripture have some basis. So seven is significant because it derives from days of the week, in particular the creation week. I think you are trying to say it happened the other way around, that God decided to create in seven days because he knew people would like that number. Perhaps you would argue that we don’t know how many days it took, and the writer of genesis merely used that number because it seemed appropriate. Of course we would have to know why seven is a number of completeness, and not six or eight or ten. Otherwise it would seem most reasonable to assume that seven is “complete” because the creation week was “complete” on that day. And this then became the basis for the regular seven day week.
2. If the seven day creation is the original account, then it is not surprising that the number seven took on significance in other cultures as well.
3. You admit that Genesis one and two are not poetry… using poetic syntax and pace is certainly legitimate in a history. It is possible to combine poetry and accuracy, although admittedly more metaphors and similies and exaggerations are often used. However, to call the entire episode an allegory, that’s different. That does not even require poetry, but it does require a context, and a hint, such as an identified story teller who explains the real meaning, and usually an audience. An example: if someone were to say that “I love her sheep”, vs “I love her teeth”, then one could not understand the metaphor of sheep for teeth, unless it was previously made clear, that her teeth are like sheep. (Song of Solomon)
4. Many serious Hebrew scholars have indicated that genesis was written as to be understood not to be an allegory or metaphor. This is particularly true for the use of the word “yom”, as well as the entire context and language of the story. Certainly if the story was clearly meant to be a metaphor or allegory, then these scholars would have rejoiced in the simplicity and advantage of such a conclusion.
5. Although we can realize that God created time itself, yet this is the first time I have heard this conjecture, that time equals space in this account. It seems to make more sense, that time would be time, and space would be space. There is no sense to having seven regions of space, especially since all the activities occurred in the same space.

[mtp1032 (Michael Peterson)]

Thanks for the dialogue, JohnZ. I’m afraid this will likely be my last response as we’re leaving on vacation on Monday and I have much to do to get ready.

Numerology: Irrespective to how the numbers came to have symbolic significancem they do and we cannot ignore them and expect to understand the meanings the author is trying to convey. Understanding the figures of speech used in a particular text is to take it seriously (and objectively). In Genesis 1, the symbolism is obvious and to ignore it (or worse, write it off) is to miss the intent of the author. Finally, I reject your notion that the symbology needs to be explained (or signaled somehow) to the audience. George Orwell doesn’t explain the metaphor of Animal Farm.

I agree that there exist scholars that wish to understand Genesis to be factual (i.e., something not allegorical or metaphorical). I do not find their arguments to be compelling, if only because they violate physical reality and ignore the plain meaning of the Hebrew text. To believe that the Genesis I stories are factual is to believe that God is magician whose incantations violated the very laws He created.

The idea that time is not part of the Genesis 1 story is not mine. It comes from the text. Read Genesis 1:4-5 again. While you and I think of day and night as periods of time characterized by the presence of absence of light, the text of Genesis 1 literally says that light and dark are regions of space; i.e., they are spatially not temporally separated. Simply read the plain meaning of the text. It’s quite straightforward.

Blessings,

[johnZ]

Its funny that in this case you want to be literal, so literal as to reverse the separation of day from night? Day separated from night is separated first of all not by space, but by quality (light and absence of light), then second by time, and then in a way that may not have been understood at the time, but still factual, separated by space…as on opposite sides of the globe. However, all three aspects are literal, and address the fact that although light was created, darkness could still exist in time and space; darkness did not totally disappear. However, even though this was true that light and darkness was often in different places/spaces which could only reveal at different times, this does not somehow validate changing the actual meaning of “day” into “space”. The evening and morning description make the sense of time most significant, relative to the appearing and disappearing of light. It does not equate to space such as sense of darkness one might find in a deep cave or cavern. Separation in time is just as valid a concept as separation in space, and time is clearly indicated, especially by evening and morning.

I do agree that sometimes numbers may have a symbolic meaning, but it is ludicrous to superimpose this on the creation since the creation would be the origin of numbers, of meanings. To derive a creation from numbers is to make the story less meaningful, not more meaningful. The story describes the beginning of the significance of “seven”, which from then on becomes a special number. Yes, of course God is a magician, the only real true magician who can actually create natural laws, time, and space, and make things appear. None of this contradicts or violates his laws, because he is the lawmaker. We have no right to judge God as to his laws. In fact that is the very premise on which he sent his son to die for us, that he overcame the law of death. And we also know that creation itself was the beginning of the laws of nature, and in that beginning, when laws were not yet established, but were being established, God brought forth life.

I hope you have a great vacation… safe and fun!

[mtp1032 (Michael Peterson)]

Oh happy, happy day. It looks like we won’t be leaving for vacation until late tomorrow. So, bear with me once again.

But, rather than reply point-by-point, I think the larger issue here is how differently you and I read the text. Let me explain how I view the first (and second) creation story: I would begin with a simile (Animal Farm is like Genesis 1). Note that we do not read Orwell’s Animal Farm to learn about how to raise animals and harvest crops. When you studied Animal Farm in your Lit class, had you written a critique of the farming described in Animal Farm as false and inconsistent with what farmers know about farming, you would have received a ‘F’. Why? Because no one who reads Animal Farm thinks it’s about farming or raising barn yard animals. No one has to tell the reader that Animal Farm is not about farming. It’s self evident from the first page. Animal Farm was written to be a strident polemic against Soviet Totalitarianism not that putting pigs in charge is the right way to run a farm yard!

If literalists read Animal Farm the way they read the first creation story, they would indeed conclude that Animal Farm is about farming and that a well run farm would have talking pigs in charge of the other animals.

In the same way I argue that the first creation story is not about creation. Creation is the literary device (the plot, actually) used by the [inspired] author to reveal God to the ancient Hebrews (and us). He does this using a variety of literary techniques one of which is to satirize and demythologize the pagan gods. In a very real, literal sense, the first creation story is a polemic against the pagan gods of that time just as Animal Farm is a polemic against Soviet Totalitarianism. The sequence of the creation events is structured to reveal God as transcendent (outside of time), authoritative (by virtue of His creative power), and judgmental (i.e., having expectations of His creation). Because God is transcendent, the author reveals that God makes mankind in His image granting him God’s authority to rule over His creation (see Footnote) here on earth. We are to do His will where the creation is concerned.

This view has the advantage of being perfectly consistent with scientific knowledge and is not at risk of being contradicted as scientific knowledge advances. Another huge advantage for we evangelists is that when explained in this way, the Genesis creation stories raise no red flags vis contradictory views of science and theology and can be appreciated by layman and scientist alike.

Blessings,

Michael
FOOTNOTE: Being made in the image of god is a common motif in many of the creation epics of other Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures (see Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary, p 12). In those other stories, bearing the image of a god was a badge of authority, proof of the delegation of divine ruler ship. This is why the ancient authors of other cultures described their rulers and kings as bearing the image of the god that created them. The author of Genesis also uses this motif in a surprising, unique, and original way: where other cultures describe their king as bearing a divine image, Genesis democratizes this idea. God reveals to the Genesis author that all human persons bear this image. All of us, not just our ruler(s), have a responsibility for God’s creation. The familiar Ancient Near East symbolism of the image of the divine is used by the Genesis author to reveal that God has delegated authority to us. We are His vice-regents here on earth and are responsible to Him for the management of His creation.

[TJR]

I would like to point out that Peter Enns has a blog post about the book Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters. I think it’s worth checking out.

[johnZ]

I think you have not demonstrated that Genesis 1 is like Animal Farm; just saying it is, is no more valid than just saying it isn’t. As I said before, “Making Genesis one into a parable or metaphor, rather than a telling of events, is like making God represent God, and first man represent first man, and world, water, sun represent world, water, sun. Because there is not a transition to a metaphorical form, we cannot know what the point of the metaphor really might be.”

In Animal Farm we have various animals representing different people and different archetypes. We know this because animals do not speak, nor form governments, nor carry on the types of conversations as in Animal Farm. We do not have to guess, and there is no debate. On the other hand, in Genesis 1, we have God representing himself, God. We have creation representing itself. We have light, earth, water representing themselves. Plants, fish, birds, animals representing themselves. So far the metaphor is lost on me. Then man… who does he represent? why himself also. Again, no metaphor.

So, you might argue probably, that the only metaphorical part of the thing is the term “day”, which might represent a space of time, although of course according to evolutionary theory, the species were not clearly separated by either space or time (maybe partly separated for awhile sometimes). Or day could just be a concept with no meaning whatsoever… which makes it a real interesting metaphor which has no purpose whatsoever, and thus makes the metaphor useless for anything as far as teaching us is concerned. Well, Animal Farm would be considered to be a metaphor for all times and ages and cultures; it would be understood not to be a literal reality of animals actually speaking and running a farm. But Genesis 1 would not be considered a metaphor, since it had generally been considered for at least 4 or 5000 thousand years to be an accurate account of the beginning of creation.

[mtp1032 (Michael Peterson)]

My principle is not to persuade you, JohnZ, but to achieve clarity. I think you clearly understand that I read the Genesis creation stories as literary in nature - stories whose meaning lies in the symbology (allegorical, metaphorical figures) behind the words. That you reject this way of reading these stories is evident and quite fine by me. Clarity is all I seek. So, in the spirit of ensuring you understand my view clearly, here is a [BioLogos video][1] in which N.T. Wright discusses how to read the Genesis creations stories “for all they’re worth.”

Thank you so much for the discussion. It has served to sharpen my thinking.

Blessings,

Michael
[1]: Account Suspended

[johnZ]

Michael, I listened to about half the video of Nt Wright, and realized he was coming from a perspective which I understand, and completely disagree with. He was speaking as if one culture was better than another, particular european culture vs american, and as if “lightening up” is the way to approach the issue, to approach scripture. So to me this is simply dissonance and cacophony, sound and fury signifying nothing. It is as if he wants to impose his thinking on what scripture says or should say, rather than simply looking at what it says, and what it was intended, and what it is intended to say. As a Canadian, neither european nor american, I simply don’t identify nor agree with such a relativism perspective, no matter whether it is a Brit or Yank who holds it.

I simply go back to interpreting scripture with scripture. I certainly see the symbology, the metaphors, and the second degree of message behind the actual primary message. But the difference is that in this case, I believe that some of the symbology derived from this story, and it did not form the story. Animal Farm can convey some interesting truths and concepts, but it is not a great truth in itself. Genesis 1 is a great truth in itself, that God created the world, everything in it, including man, and set the parameters for man’s behaviour, obedience, disobedience, and redemption, all in this first chapter. So this chapter is not only a symbolic explanation, but the actual basis for the struggle between good and evil in the life of man, and the world. It explains exactly why God is not responsible for man’s sin. If it is a false story, contradictory to real life in the exact elements which provide the message, then the message is also false. So if you say that parts of it are metaphor, then just as in animal farm, you need to show which parts are metaphor. In animal farm, the animals and the farm were the metaphor, but the conversation was not assumed to be metaphor… this was the type of conversation which actually happened in a totalitarian system. But of course, Animal Farm is much less significant in its message than Genesis 1, merely a socio-political description and analysis, not an eternal destiny or affair of the soul relationship with God.

thanks for your words, and hope you eventually get to enjoy your vacation, perhaps enjoying God’s great creation and all the beauty in it!

[TJR]

[quote=“BradKramer, post:2, topic:572”]
Is it possible for a passage of Scripture to still be true and authoritative even if it is written about an event that the authors thought was historical, and yet is not historical? [/quote]
It looks like we have a no from Hoffmeier, a yes from Sparks, and a we don’t have to answer the question from Wenham .

Hoffmeier’s view which seems to be shared by johnZ is that the events described in the Bible actually happened just as they are described. I agree with Pete Enns assessment of Hoffmeier’s argument.
.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/05/7-problems-with-a-recent-evangelical-defence-of-the-historicity-of-genesis-1-11
If one must believe in biblical inerrancy Hoffmeier’s view is a good option, but to be consistent,one must also accept the YEC view of science.

According to Wenham, history is like a photograph and Gen 1-11 is a portrait. It seems that there is a core of historical reality in Gen 1-11, but the Biblical description doesn’t necessarily match what really took place. But historical or not, it doesn’t matter because the modern reader is "not obliged to decide whether this detail or that is historical or imaginative interpretation.” Wenham’s view allows you to fudge on inerrancy; the painting is not a photo but it’s close enough. The problem here is that sometimes they are not close at all and then inerrancy is an issue.

Michael’s comments propose a view that allows for inerrancy as the biblical authors knew they were not writing historically accurate accounts. “The ancient Hebrews understood the creation stories as metaphorical”. So the events in the Gen. 1-11 are not historical but that’s ok because the were never intended as history by the authors. The problem with this view is that although we can’t know for sure what the authors thought, there is no reason to think they saw the world any differently than their neighbors. If everybody around them thought there was a dome in the sky holding back an ocean, then the Hebrews would think so too.

Sparks’ view is that some events described in the Bible did not happen even though they were thought to have happened by the people at the time they were written down. Sparks: “Did the authors accept as historical anything which cannot in fact be historical? In some cases they did, with the flood story being the poster child. Everyone in antiquity seems to have believed that this deluge took place because they were not privy to the insights of modern geology and evolutionary biology…". This view makes use of the idea of accommodation, which is that, although the Bible is inspired by God, He did not correct for the mistaken ideas in the time of the original authors. I think this is the best approach to Gen.1-11, but it does not accommodate inerrancy.

[ssula (ss)]

How could they understand a woman being taken from the rib of a man? How could they understand everything magically appearing in seven days? How could they understand light before the sun? How could they understand God taking some dust, mixing with water, stirring, and shaping a man? This is simply one argument that does not hold water. Hope this makes sense to you.