Is Genesis Narrative or Metaphor?

DMcFadden · #1 (**permalink**) 09-12-2007, 09:44 PM

I am reluctant to teach anything in Genesis as "actual historical incident," since these stories were handed down word-of-mouth for hundreds of years before Moses (or somebody) wrote them in the Torah.

Today I was left slack jawed by reading the aforementioned statement in a Baptist message board. When my mediating profs in college and seminary talked about Genesis, they scandalized me when they often spoke of the historical difficulties with "SOME" of the passages. Have we come so far that we disbelieve that ANY of it corresponds to an "actual historical incident"???

Yikes!

No wonder the "Answers in Genesis" folks have had nearly 200,000 visitors to their Creation Museum in the first three months of its operation. If the Doctors of the church are so sceptical of their primary text book, no wonder the laity are craving not credulity but creditable faith in the Bible as the Word of God.

Anton Bruckner · #2 (**permalink**) 09-12-2007, 09:58 PM

I wonder how these people would respond when they come to the Book of Jonah? They will probably do it something like this.

"Jonah wasn't actually swallowed by a fish, for the fish is allegorical. The fish represents being in the rut of our sin and disobedience. Jonah's initial disobedience led to him being swallowed up by his sinful actions. It was only after he repented that he became free from his sins, hence God used the metaphor of the fish spewing up Jonah, to represent Jonah breaking free of his stronghold"

JBaldwin · #3 (**permalink**) 09-12-2007, 10:03 PM

Yikes! If Genesis is not historically accurate, then we should just throw out the rest of Scripture. Maybe that's the intention of those who refuse to accept the truths revealed in Genesis.

Incidentally, I spoke just this evening to a college student who is struggling with doubts due to the mockery of the book of Genesis by one of his professors. I'm not surprised, however. If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

DMcFadden · #4 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 01:03 AM

Slippery,

Actually my OT profs in seminary explained that the nature of Jonah was of the genre of parable. They argued that the first two chapters corresponded to the last two in a tight literary structure, betraying a "clear" literary device rather than an historical narrative. In their minds, the point was to contrast the jingoistic nationalism of "Jonah" with the universal and inclusive love of God.

No thanks! Personally, when preaching the book, I found some of the older commentaries and expositions to be far richer and more useful than the contemporary stuff. You know, books that actually believe that Jonah was real.

weinhold · #5 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 02:06 AM

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:

Quote:

If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

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.

DMcFadden · #6 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 02:33 AM

Paul,

In your studies of Genesis, try RTS prof, Douglas Kelly, "Creation and Change." He argues for a literal reading of Genesis on exegetical and hermeneutical grounds.

AV1611 · #7 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 07:13 AM

Amazon.com: Studies in Genesis One: Books: Edward J. Young
Amazon (Thumbnails)

Amazon.com: An Introduction to the Old Testament: Books: Edward J. Young
Amazon (Thumbnails)

shackleton · #8 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

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.

I don't know where you learned this, but if you take this approach to Genesis it will lead you to take this approach to other books of the bible. You will begin to just write off most of scripture as allegory or say it is loosely based on some distant fact and before you know it you will sound like the "Jesus Seminar"people.
Find some other sources that teach the opposite view, weigh it, and think it through.

A5pointer · #9 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

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.

This should not be dismissed so easily. There is no reason for us to feel threatened by the idea that God has taught us and revealed himself through stories. It is likely that this was a legitimate way for instruction of the ancient peoples. Don't go crazy on me for this, I am not making a broad determination about Genesis, just saying we needn't feel so threatened. We have been granted the mind of Christ through the work of the Spirit to understand and believe the Gospel contained in the scriptures. Our faith is not based on every jot and title being historically acurate. The ancient audience may not have had our strict paradigm in this sense.

Peter · #10 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 10:23 AM

My 1st observation is that an allegorical and literal interpretation are not mutually exclusive. It's possible Genesis happened as literally described but that a religious message was intended to be conveyed symbolically through historical facts.

2nd, we should avoid falling into the trap of automatically believing if we take one passage as allegorical and not literally true it will inescapably lead us into rejecting all of scripture. We should deal with the merits of each case individually and not play to the fears of irrelevant issues. Personally, I find reducing scripture to a mere science or history textbook degrading to its sacred integrity. The Bible's purpose is more elevated than that - namely, revealing to man the way of salvation in Christ.

caddy · #11 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 10:34 AM

I like how this was phrased and think it is insightful. There is much mystery in the Genesis story. So much of the "detail" we just don't have. I remember my philososphy and religion professor 20 years ago talking about the stories in Genesis and the stories of the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea. He explained to the class that the story was no less important because of the truth it conveyed even though we should call the story a myth, meaning not factual. I did not know it then, but now I find it a slippery slope.

Glad to hear you say the event means everything.

Slippery slope story which I found insightful not long ago:

The slippery slide to unbelief

Quote:

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:

Quote:

If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

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.

Mathetes · #12 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 10:50 AM

Leaving aside the issue of whether "six days" is literal or figurative, there's little in Genesis that's symbolic. There's the odd dream here and there, but the majority of it reads like it's referring to actual, historical events.

Blueridge Believer · #13 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 10:55 AM

I believe Genesis as it reads. To do anything else does great violence to the rest of scripture imo.

AV1611 · #14 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I believe Genesis as it reads. To do anything else does great violence to the rest of scripture imo.

caddy · #15 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 11:45 AM

Absolutely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

Leaving aside the issue of whether "six days" is literal or figurative, there's little in Genesis that's symbolic. There's the odd dream here and there, but the majority of it reads like it's referring to actual, historical events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I believe Genesis as it reads. To do anything else does great violence to the rest of scripture imo.

2 Tim 4:2 · #16 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 01:19 PM

Yea hath God Said....

.....Ye shall not surely die

Satan has always worked to question God's words since the begining of time. And those who fall prey to his devices should check themsleves.

weinhold · #17 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

I don't know where you learned this, but if you take this approach to Genesis it will lead you to take this approach to other books of the bible. You will begin to just write off most of scripture as allegory or say it is loosely based on some distant fact and before you know it you will sound like the "Jesus Seminar"people.

Erick, as others have indicated already, we needn't subordinate allegory to history; saying that Genesis is a story makes it very meaningful, perhaps more meaningful than a historical chronicling of the events. To my mind, this is the advantage Genesis has over any scientific approach to our beginning. When scientific claims about these things reach my ears, I find it satisfying to remember that those claims are just that, hypothetical assertions, and that Genesis is a far more beautiful story than theirs. It provides me with an identity in a way that evolution never could, and it does this precisely because it is a story.

JBaldwin · #18 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 01:53 PM

Weinhold said:

Quote:

Erick, as others have indicated already, we needn't subordinate allegory to history; saying that Genesis is a story makes it very meaningful, perhaps more meaningful than a historical chronicling of the events. To my mind, this is the advantage Genesis has over any scientific approach to our beginning. When scientific claims about these things reach my ears, I find it satisfying to remember that those claims are just that, hypothetical assertions, and that Genesis is a far more beautiful story than theirs. It provides me with an identity in a way that evolution never could, and it does this precisely because it is a story.

The problem with saying that Genesis is mere stories or allegory is that it makes the events in the Garden, including the fall of man, the entrance of sin into the world, the life of Abraham, the founding of the Israel nothing more than nice stories to teach truth. They do teach truth, and we learn so much from that. However, if they are just stories and not historical truth, than we cannot point back to an historical moment when man sinned, or an historical moment when God promised that the seed of woman would bring forth the Messiah and crush the serpent's head. These facts are foundational to our redemption. This is why we must take Genesis as historical fact, as well as stories that teach.

Southern Presbyterian · #19 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

The problem with saying that Genesis is mere stories or allegory is that it makes the events in the Garden, including the fall of man, the entrance of sin into the world, the life of Abraham, the founding of the Israel nothing more than nice stories to teach truth. They do teach truth, and we learn so much from that. However, if they are just stories and not historical truth, than we cannot point back to an historical moment when man sinned, or an historical moment when God promised that the seed of woman would bring forth the Messiah and crush the serpent's head. These facts are foundational to our redemption. This is why we must take Genesis as historical fact, as well as stories that teach.

Well said.