Originally Posted by weinhold

Opinions are earned, and I admit that I have not done enough research into Genesis to merit any real opinion at all. I would like, however, to offer a few highly provisional comments regarding my approach to the creation narrative found in Genesis.

The relatively recent obsession with historical accuracy in Genesis among evangelicals is needless and ultimately unhelpful. If 19th century criticism sabotaged scripture by revealing historical inaccuracies, attempting the opposite seems merely to engage in the same decreasingly interesting exercise and perpetuate the paradigmatic method of approaching Genesis in terms of its history. In my estimation, the problem evangelicals face is not historical precision but the decline of our imaginative faculties, which results from our subordination of "story" as an inferior version of "history." I hope I bring no offense by citing an example of such subordination in this very thread:

Just stories? The implication is that stories must have the support of a historical event, which, I suppose is true in some senses. Homer wrote of Troy's fall; Dante included historical figures in The Commedia; and Shakespeare's first works were history plays. None of these (or authors like them), however, restricted themselves to historical precision as the their guiding light, and yet their stories reverberate in our culture to this day. How could this be? As Wendell Berry writes in Standing By Words, "We are speaking where we stand, and we shall stand afterwards in the presence of what we have said." Shakespeare and Homer and Dante knew that, and I think the author of Genesis knew that, too. He knew the strange puissance of stories, and so his central purpose was to employ Genesis didactically, as a way of telling God's people, "This is where you come from. This is who you are," and not as a factual chronicle.

I can't prove that last part, of course. I was not there when Moses or whoever it was wrote Genesis, and I didn't ask him whether his account was factual. I doubt he would have known what I meant anyway. Neither was I (or any human being) present at the historical event of creation, making it seem rather silly to demand historical accuracy of Genesis. I think that's part of it; I think Genesis is a story that is supposed to be surrounded by mystery. A friend illumined that point for me in a recent conversation. He said that historically accurate knowledge of creation would be like a detailed account of one's own conception. It's a mystery that, if stripped naked, becomes repulsive.

So I hope you, my reader, will not consider these remarks in defense of stories too finicky. And I certainly hope that nobody reads these statements as hostile toward the historical profession. Historical approaches to scripture are important. Very important. In certain cases, such as the historicity of the resurrection, the event means everything. But I think it a false dilemma to pit historical precision against storytelling, and I think it is a mistake to subordinate one to another without examining the contingencies of a particular text. In other words, Chronicles is more concerned with historical accuracy than, say, Proverbs or Psalms--although both storytelling and historical detail occur in all three. As for my reading of Genesis? Who knows? I admit ignorance. I only attempt to approach the text as it is, without demanding that it be something else.