Historicity of Genesis 1-11
I think those of us who are not all that conservative, as in moderates and liberals, do everyone a disservice with the admonition, “Don’t take it so literally.” Unless, of course, we break down “not literally” a bit further. The word “literal” has gotten muddied in the public understanding, and is often taken to mean “true,” so “not taking it so literally” is “not taking it so truthfully.” But more importantly, literal is (or should be) a fairly narrow category and “not literal” involves quite a number of possible types of literature.
But there’s another question that non-scholarly readers of the Bible have pretty regularly: Just what is it that I’m supposed to get out of this? I’ve heard this many times teaching groups of United Methodist laypeople, well educated folks, but not Bible scholars. They’re pretty well convinced they shouldn’t take it too literally, but they are often uncertain where to go from there. Then they hear anyone who doesn’t take it literally condemned as one who doesn’t believe the Bible at all.
To narrow that down again, just what historical information might one get out of a non-historical passage of scripture? In the case of Genesis 1-11, I have frequently noted that it is not narrative history. But “narrative history” is not necessarily equivalent to “no historical value at all.” There is more of a continuum (one of my favorite words) of possibilities for historical values, and a number of twists and turns.
For example, I could say that a book is a work of fiction. Does that mean that it has no historical value? Consider these examples:
- A fantasy novel/series, not set in the real world, such as Lord of the Rings
One might extract information on the time of the writer, but vanishingly little information about the real world. Even extrapolating to the time of the writer based on his themes would be a difficult proposition. - A generic novel set in the real world, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
This book is intentionally set in an indefinite future (from the time of writing) with generic titles for government officials such as head of state rather than president, for example. There are incidental references to real historical figures, numerous references to real places, but also numerous references to things that don’t exist. One would get a very skewed view of the United States if this is one’s source. Yet one would find historical data embedded in it. - A novel set in a realistic historical period, Rand’s The Fountainhead, for example.
I’m distinguishing this category from historical novel in that presenting historical information is not part of the author’s intent, yet the setting is intended to reflect a specific period. - A historical novel
Often a fictional story intended to present a realistic view of a period of history. While the actual characters and character-specific events are fictional, the background and the major historical events are generally intended as accurate. - A biography
Generally this is intended as true, yet dialog and information about the subject may limit the general historical value. - A history with a mission
Portrayal of a period of history intended to present a particular philosophy of history, or the viewpoint of a particular group or something similar. - An objective (wishfully) history
In this case, the author intends to write a sequence of events from an objective point of view in order to correctly portray those events, not accomplish some philosophical goal. Absolute objectivity is impossible, I believe. I’m speaking about the intent.
That gives a kind of summary of some of the levels of historicity that one might find. Consider the gospels briefly. It is fairly common in a course in the gospels (or one particular gospel) to note that the gospel writers did not set out with the intent of writing history. They are presenting a picture of Jesus. Many things that an objective historian (remember: intention!) might present are subordinated to the picture the writer is trying to portray. Some people here this comment as a statement that the gospels contain no historical information, or no reliable historical information. That is certainly never my intent in making the statement. I’m simply pointing out that we should expect the needs of the historian to be thoroughly subordinated to the needs of the biographer and even more so to the theologian.
So let’s briefly look at some historical options in Genesis 1-11 now that we have some loose collection of ideas to which to compare.
The first option, of course, is to regard this portion of scripture as narrative history. Many Christians have done so. This assumption leaves a number of details to be discussed. How detailed is that history? Is it chronological? This latter question can come in two parts: 1) Is it intended as sequential or descriptive in another sense? and 2) Is it intended to portray the passage of time accurately?
Young earth creationists (YEC) would answer that it is narrative history, that it is intended to be sequential, and that the passage of time is intended as an accurate portrayal. This involves two aspects of the text. First, we have the days of Genesis 1 & 2. In the YEC position, these are literal, 24 hours days. But secondly we have the years in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11. Here the YEC position is that the years are real years, are accurately portrayed, and that there are no gaps in the genealogies, in other words they are complete.
That’s a substantial number of claims. I would simply note that if you start from level ground, looking at the story in the context of ancient near eastern literature, none of these things is obvious. Nonetheless it is not my purpose to evaluate, so much as to point out the possibilities.
Old earth creationists (OEC), differ from this in that while most of them would hold that the sequence is intended as true, the flow of time in the narrative is not even. For example, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:6 there would be nine billion+ years, while between Genesis 1:6 and 1:11 there would be a bit less than 4 billion years, while starting with verse 14 we have some difficulties with sequence. The genealogies are assumed to contain gaps so as to provide a longer history following Adam and Eve.
Some OECs read the passage more symbolically, i.e. it contains valid historical information, but this information is presented in the form of symbols. Thus sequence, consistency of timing, and referent can be adjusted substantially while still maintaining that there is historical content.
Finally, Christians who accept evolution, but not all theistic evolutionists, most commonly see the passage as mythology, i.e. God presents truth through the medium of the cosmology and the way in which such information was presented in that culture. Now one might think this means there is no historical information in the passage, but again that is not the case. It will still present information about how the world was understood in its time, and how the authors understood themselves and their relationship to God. That is historical information, even though that is not what is intended.
Note that there are some Christian theistic evolutionists who would also see these passages symbolically and find some sense of a presentation of the way it happened in the passage. Thus there are a variety of views on the historical content of the material, and those views don’t precisely match. I have been extremely brief here and probably have left some holes. Hopefully readers will quibble with me in the comments to some can get filled in.
Two additional notes:
- I don’t regard any of this as an issue with inerrancy. I know folks who accept Biblical inerrancy who have no problem with the idea of regarding a passage as symbolic or as myth, provided that one is assuming that was the way God intended it to be presented. Then the portion that would be inerrant is whatever message God intended to present in that medium. I don’t accept inerrancy, but I like my debates over the topic to relate to actual disputes!
- I distinguish here Christian theistic evolutions as there are numerous other options for those who are theists but not Christians, including ignoring the Bible completely. Deistic views of evolution similarly have no need of discussing how Genesis is understood. This is strictly a Christian or Jewish enterprise, and is different in nature for each of those groups.
I think there is another category of historical novel which you have omitted, imaginative reconstructions of the life of real historical people. I think immediately of “I, Claudius” by Robert Graves. Also Gore Vidal has written this kind of work. I mention this because some scholars hold much of the Bible, although probably not Genesis 1-11, to be something like this, with a slant on it which is of course discernible in the novels as well.
That’s a good addition to the list, Peter, and it adds to the feel of a continuum. There isn’t a black and white break between “totally historical” and “no history at all.” Rather, there’s a continuum.
Hi Henry,
I wonder about your first comment with regard to inerrancy. The kind of inerrancy you describe is my own – that we have the Bible that God wants us to have, and that each part fulfills God’s purpose of revealing Christ to us. What objection would you have to such a view?
I wouldn’t have much objection, though just a little. I think inerrancy reflects asking the wrong question, i.e. one asks primarily whether a text is factually correct, whether that is historically, scientifically, or theologically correct. I think the better question to ask is what is being conveyed, and what is the framework within which it is being conveyed.
In the case of Genesis 1-11, I start with large themes. Who is the creator? What is his relationship with humanity? Where do the descendants of Abraham and then Jacob fit into this program? For an Israelite, it would be a fundamental question of identity, which is, after all, what myths are most truly about.
In that context, it’s hard to see the myth actually being an error, or “is this factual?” being a relevant question.
Where I do have an objection is when a standard of historical or scientific accuracy is applied that doesn’t fit in the historical context. In other words, asking whether Genesis 1-11 is scientifically accurate, whether its cosmology reflects a scientific view of the universe, is inappropriate. In order to communicate, one would have to speak within the context of the cosmology that existed.
I think most modern people underestimate the difficulty of changing someone’s basic cosmology. Picture God deciding how to communicate that he is the creator to people who think the earth is flat, though round like a dinner plate (not spherical), and who think the sky is set up like a dome above it. Should he start in by saying, “Look, the earth is a sphere, orbits the sun, which is just one of billions of stars”? Or should he perhaps just say, “You see the earth you stand on and the dome of the sky above it. I made all that!”
You and I are in total agreement. I guess for me the crux of the matter comes down especially to dealing with troublesome texts, like Numbers 31. On the one hand you get conservative inerrantists doing dreadful things, like training themselves to praise the wholesale slaughter of women and children. But on the other hand you get the intolerable levity of the liberals, who simply write off such texts as if God has nothing to say to us there, but rather it serves only as a record for how flawed a picture of God we once had. I think the question of inerrancy really is meant to (though it is indeed framed quite poorly) get down to how one approaches the text – with reverence and awe or a smug judgmentalism where the self is the measure of all things.