J. Barton Payne on Theistic Evolution
A friend of mine e-mailed me a link to this post on Higgaion. It’s an interesting discussion, and Payne’s attitude is far from dead today. To the excellent article, I would add only a couple of questions.
First, on what basis do people determine that Genesis 1 & 2 must be narrative history? I am regularly asked to prove that it is something else, as though by default it must be considered narrative history. But the way one usually identifies a literary genre, especially in the ancient world where things didn’t come labeled “mythology,” “history,” or “fiction,” is to build an acquaintance with related literature. Ever since I became acquainted with a much broader range of ancient near eastern literature, it has always seemed to me that this process should be reversed. Why should something that looks so very much like other ancient near eastern creation myths be regarded as narrative history?
Note here that I do not regard it as identical to those other myths, nor as directly copied from them. Rather, I regard it as the same general type of literature, which often shares common elements of cosmology and other symbolism. If we did not have the current Genesis creation account, and we found it inscribed on clay tablets in some ancient near eastern city, we would have no hesitation identifying it as a new creation myth. (Note also that I think the genre is more precisely “liturgy” for Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and “myth” for Genesis 2:4bff. See my essay Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship.)
Second, and closely related is this: Why do we have a prejudice against fiction and myth as a way to convey spiritual truth/value? One potential answer to my first question is that we Christians believe the Bible is inspired, and it must contain truth (or be true), and fiction is false. For protestants, I think there is some loss through lack of exposure to the apocrypha. Reading Judith or Tobit can help one gain appreciation for the use of fiction in the ancient world.
Thank you for the link and the additional comments, Henry! I think you have sit several nails right on their respective heads.
Good observations Henry. Your comments about the apocrypha are especially relevant. I encountered the apocrypha in my Catholic upbringing and was always a little skeptical of the way protestants seemed to take everything so literally.
I think your point about myth conveying information and even truth is very salient. Scientists practice this type of truthtelling all the time when developing new theories. Einstein was famous for his thought experiments on relativity that involved people traveling near the speed of light. Nobody can actually do that, but it conveyed truth none the less.
The controversy a while back over the Passion of the Christ is similar. The story is largely similar to a nun’s vision that was recorded. The catholic church says the vision can be helpful for understanding the crucifixion. Did she see it as it really happened? The catholic church doesn’t think so, but they believe the truth delivered by it is useful for people to here. Protestants went crazy analyzing and criticizing the details of the movie and sometimes lost the point. I would agree that maybe protestant churches need to take a look at educating it’s members on how myth can and is used.
Completely off-topic, but I thought you might be interested in this site: Common Ground. It’s a small group of Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc. that have joined up to bounce ideas off each other. Sounds like your sort of thing.
(Disclaimer: I’m not one of the participants, but I’ve been in contact with some of them for years.)