Genesis 1-10: myth or history?

[liamconnor]

the bible is comprised of many literary genres.

Many, Christian and non, read Genesis 1-10 as intended history: that is, the author (or editor/s) believed the narrative to belong to the same genre of, say, Kings and Chronicles.

Others, myself included, believe Genesis 1-10 quite obviously belongs to the genre of myth. That is, the author wrote these chapters of Genesis in the same vein as the myth of, say, Persephone and Demeter, was written/told; he would have recognized the difference in style between it and the rest of Genesis.


What are the arguments in favor of each?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 9 by liamconnor]

So what is your point, did God communicate something that did or did not happen? Was he "borrowing" a truth or an untruth? (or a mixture of both)?

NOTE: You didn't mention Moses you mentioned God; so I asked (and continue to ask) you about the "God" you have in mind. Now I don't know the God are referring to but I presume (correct me if I am wrong) you are referirng to the Creator and Supreme ruler of the universe who would by definition know exactly how the human family got its start having instigated and personally witnesses the whole thing.

Again feel free to correct me if I have made some false assumptions as to the "God" you are referring to.

[dio9]

of course its not history no body knows how it all began. It has to be read into. Read in with our current understanding, To try to rationalize 1 to 10 is folly.

Here we are lets try to say how we got here. The seven day formula is pretty damn good. And the Adam and

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

Not sure what you are claiming.


The story of Genesis 1-3 is about the fall of mankind; so it is very important to "the story".

I am claiming that the author of these chapters did not write them as pure history. They were stories.

What I am saying is that you are buying into the myth of "pure history". There is no such thing. All history is presented from a given cultural prospective. Had England lost the battle of Britain the "pure history" of WWII would be quite different.

[peterk]

One of the challenges in this whole discussion is that people have different definitions to key words and so end up talking past each other. One key word is "myth". Many people think of a myth as "a story that contains error". It is untrue, or legendary. To use an English parallel, stories about Queen Elizabeth are history, while stories about King Arthur and Merlin are mythical.

We see a good example of this in Post #4, where Wootah says:
"Do you mean myth as in false or myth as in God inspired truths but not necessarily historically accurate?"

Now my answer to that would be: Neither. Wootah is assuming in that question that if it's myth there must be an element of error. If that's right, we need to find another word. Because I would choose option 3: Myth as in story that is not historically focussed in the first place. Myth as in story that is painted using the language and culture of the author, but focusses entirely on deep and timeless truths.

Consider these examples as a comparison:

"Rich and poor have this in common: the Lord is the maker of them all." (Proverbs 22.2)

He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.
You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth. (Psalm 104.5-9)

As a Christian who accepts the authority of the Bible I would say that both of these creation themed texts are true; they are both as true as Genesis 1. But neither of them is "historical". The Proverbs text is proverbial, while the Psalms text is liturgical and poetic.

My point here is NOT that Genesis 1 is proverb or poetry. I'm intentionally choosing not to interpret it here. My point is that we need to be very careful how we discuss this topic in the first place.[/i]

[marco]

What are the arguments in favor of each?

There are no good arguments in favour of taking Genesis as historical or as factual.

Your mention of Persephone being associated with what is observed in the seasons is relevant in showing myths explain what we observe in nature. Myth can make people wish for an afterlife or foster hope. Osiris is associated with resurrection.

The first human would have been more concerned about his safety from wild beasts than about eating forbidden fruit. The story is unsophisticated but with work from modern minds it can be given plenty of metaphorical meaning. Of course it can be argued that the poet often places in his poem deep truths of which he was not aware. So too, perhaps, with Genesis.

[liamconnor]

The first human would have been more concerned about his safety from wild beasts than about eating forbidden fruit.

On what basis are you arguing this? From all the extant literature, it seems that humans have always been concerned about the 'sacred' far more than mere survival. As soon as man could write, the idea of the 'sacred' was present and loomed larger than mere life.

Or are you making an assumption based on an assumed worldview: assumption 1) animals are clearly preoccupied with mere survival, 2) we are derived from animals, and would therefore have been preoccupied with mere survival in our earliest stages.

I study man from the evidence he has left behind him. And all the evidence says that the 'sacred' was always there.

Thus it seem to me Genesis is very illuminating. As soon as "Man", as distinct from mere beasts, appears on the scene, we have the idea of the sacred, the forbidden. Anthropologically speaking, this is part and parcel with being 'human'.


I am not begging the question whether the 'sacred' or Otto's Idea of the Holy is true; I am merely pointing out that where we have evidence of Man, his predominant concern is not with mere animal survival, but something else.

[polonius]

I don't think it needs to be categorized exclusively as either. If one holds mythology to be an explanation in the absence of verifiable facts, and history as the statement of events from a given prospective, then Genesis is both. However, if mythology is completely divorced from reality and history is only that which can be scientifically verified, then it is neither. My personal view is that the later is totally unrealistic. Almost no communication, and nothing that can stand the test of time, is totally divorced from reality and only that which exists in the present can be scientifically verified. Therefore, all history is the use of past events and current experience to present a certain world view.

RESPONSE: It's really quite simple. It happened or it didn't really happen. Take your pick.

[marco]

The first human would have been more concerned about his safety from wild beasts than about eating forbidden fruit.

On what basis are you arguing this? From all the extant literature, it seems that humans have always been concerned about the 'sacred' far more than mere survival.

I am arguing from common sense which is helpful in these situations. Primitive man, lacking refrigerators and proper housing, might be just a tad concerned about himself being on a large tiger's menu or about sharing a cave with a bear.

We are dealing with early man, the type of man who sculpted the intriguing Venus of Vestonice statue found in a Czech cave. We have evidence they buried their dead, certainly, and later humans did concern themselves with religious ritual. But our earliest predecessors, as I said, would be running rather than praying. I don't know where you got they were "more concerned about the sacred than survival." How on earth could historians make such a deduction? Perhaps you are thinking of later civilisations.

I study man from the evidence he has left behind him. And all the evidence says that the 'sacred' was always there.

Thus it seem to me Genesis is very illuminating. As soon as "Man", as distinct from mere beasts, appears on the scene, we have the idea of the sacred, the forbidden. Anthropologically speaking, this is part and parcel with being 'human'.

We have cave drawings of animals and animal bones that were the food of the hunter. We don't from earliest man have notes of their hymns or word of their deities.

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by liamconnor]

Generally I can agree with this analysis except that it could be taken very literally if ET-AI were involved.

Most people (regardless of being atheists or abrahamic theists) seem to want to skirt this possibility by ignoring it altogether.

Nonetheless, it is possible that this is where such stories originated - from actual events.

More about this idea linked below for the reader who is interested.

The Abrahamic religious beliefs taken literally

[bluethread]

I don't think it needs to be categorized exclusively as either. If one holds mythology to be an explanation in the absence of verifiable facts, and history as the statement of events from a given prospective, then Genesis is both. However, if mythology is completely divorced from reality and history is only that which can be scientifically verified, then it is neither. My personal view is that the later is totally unrealistic. Almost no communication, and nothing that can stand the test of time, is totally divorced from reality and only that which exists in the present can be scientifically verified. Therefore, all history is the use of past events and current experience to present a certain world view.

RESPONSE: It's really quite simple. It happened or it didn't really happen. Take your pick.

It is questionable whether many things in history actually happened. It is not clear whether Socrates was an actual person, or a mythological character devised by Plato. Yet, even atheists do not consider this to be significant. Also, most of what has happened in the past is not part of our history. History is not about exactly what happened in the past. It is about what the historian considers significant. Also, mythology is not about things that did not happen. It is about explaining things using stories that may or may not have happened. The point of both is what they teach and how that effects one's life.