Genesis: Myth, Truth, False Dichotomy?

When I was in middle school I began to become interested in what I know now to be theology and biblical studies.  I had heard of that dubious scientific theory called evolution, and how belief in it could only lead to the abandonment of the Scriptures.  I began to read all types of "books" by Ken Ham and others that explained how a literal interpretation of Genesis could be supported by science.  Everything from the 6,000-10,000 year age of the earth to the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans was made perfectly clear.  I was confident that the Bible fit my interpretation, and it wasn't until years later that I realized there was a problem.

As I progressed through my undergraduate education I was confronted with differing views on just about every aspect if Christian theology.  It was not merely dissent from atheists and naturalists, but of Christian scholars, all professing a high view of Scripture.  I began to think that it might be more important for me to allow the Bible to teach me truth rather then find ways to make it say what I already believed.  It is not an easy task, and I have not really had the tools to do so until beginning seminary.  I want to make clear that this post is not meant to degrade any proponents of theological positions along the spectrum.  My intention is to share how I have come to view biblical interpretation and theological formation using the creation story in Genesis as an example.

A good summation of my foundational presumption is that "all truth is God's truth".  I have come to have a great appreciation for science since my days in middle school.  I believe that science is a noble pursuit and has something to say to the theological community.  Evolutionary concepts among the fields of science (biology, geology, genetics and cosmology tending to be the most influential to theological considerations related to Genesis) is the driving force behind advances.  Not surprisingly, considering the majority consensus views in various scientific fields has forced me to examine just what Genesis can tell us about the creation of the universe, the beginning of humanity, and various other issues.  This need to reexamine my approach to Genesis has led me to take seriously other important aspects of interpreting Scripture generally and Genesis particularly.

If I have learned nothing else about biblical interpretation from my time in seminary, I have learned that context in general and historical and literary context in particular is essential for understanding.  By taking these things into account we are better able to allow the text speak the way it wants to, rather than forcing our modern preconceptions on the text.  In applying context to the creation story in Genesis, one must consider literature in the Ancient Near East (ANE) that was contemporary to it.  The early chapters of Genesis read similarly to other ANE myths as far as literary genre.  The story of Noah particularly stands out as nearly every ANE culture had a global flood story.

No doubt some Christians, maybe most, would take exception to me referring to Genesis containing  myths.  To people of the 21st Century the term "myth" is loaded with meaning.  Many people immediately think of Greek Mythology and how it is dismissed by modern people as stories that spring from the imagination of ancient people.  However, to say that a story is myth does not necessarily mean it is devoid of meaning or truth.  Peter Enns makes this point in his book Inspiration and Incarnation, which I am currently reading for my Old Testament course.  As I reflected on this point I realized that throughout history people have used stories to communicate truth, many of which are not considered be actual historical events.  Examples are the various fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel.  Most of us would agree there is little chance the events of these fairy tales are historically true.  At the same time we can still agree that these communicate truth.  It is not a good idea to walk alone through the woods or walk into a stranger's house (or oven for that matter).  My point is not to say that Genesis and fairy tales are equivalent.  The point is that we can label Genesis an ANE myth and also derive truth from it, even divine truth.

Some may say then why not say the Babylonian creation story, the Enuma Elish, has divine truth also.  Well, my first thought is that the Enuma Elish is not part of global religious tradition that has spanned 4,000 years.  Secondly, there are stark differences that make the Genesis standout among myths.  In the other ANE myths creation is the result of feuding gods.  In Genesis, a loving God creates out of nothing and with intention.  Creation is not the dirty byproduct of warring gods, but a masterpiece God called "good".  Likewise, in other ANE myths people are dirty accidents destined to be the slaves of the distant gods.  In Genesis, humanity is created with love and intention in order to be in relationship with their immanent God.  Lastly, the Genesis flood story is also meaningfully different.  In one ANE flood story humanity is wiped out for... being noisy.  The gods were fed up with all the commotion that humans were causing and so they sent to flood.  The only reason humanity survived is because a god was particularly fond of a human and told him to build a boat behind the backs of the other Gods.  In the story of Noah, humanity has become so depraved that God decides he needs to wipe the slate clean.  However, God sees that Noah is a righteous man and instructs him to build the ark to save life on earth.

It is clear even from the crude descriptions given above that the Genesis stories are radically different in the message that is intended to be conveyed compared to other ANE myths.  The Genesis stories would have been very familiar to the people of the ANE, yet the differences would have been glaring.  Genesis was written/told in a way that was meant for people of the ANE.  In order for people of the 21st Century to understand we must be willing to see the text as it was intended to be communicated.  We often are tripped up over reconciling the literal text with our modern understanding instead of focusing on the deeper, intended communication of the text.  To be frank, I believe it is an idle pursuit to continue to try and reconcile Genesis with our modern understandings.

Obviously, there are many more issues that can be discussed about Genesis that are both internal to the text and contextual.  Evolution, the age of the earth, history of humanity, and the Flood will continue to be topics of debate at seminary and in popular culture.  The seminary I attend does not specifically teach any position, rather it equips students to make interpretations by exposing us to as much scholarship as possible.  Though, I would guess that most of the faculty take view that the early chapters of Genesis are not historical in nature.  At any rate, the focus is on education and not the propagation of particular theological views.