Much of the discussion regarding the historicity and origin of Genesis is related to a consideration of the nature of its contents, especially the primordial events recorded in chapters 1-11. 1. Is Genesis myth? Many writers describe the contents of Genesis as myth or attribute its origin to myth. Mythological literature seeks to explain the origins of things in symbolic forms. Myth records so-called “sacred history” rather than actual history; it reports how reality came into existence through the deeds of gods and supernatural creatures. It purports to establish reality, the nature of the universe, the function of the state, and the values of life (cf. J.W. Rogerson, Myth in Old Testament Interpretation. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974). Pagan literature that records supernatural activities such as Creation, the Flood, and other divine interventions in man’s world are often compared with Genesis. Some scholars envision a wholesale borrowing of such mythologies by Israel, with a subsequent demythologizing (removal of pagan elements) to make them satisfactory for Yahwism. But when Semitic mythology is correctly understood, it is clear that this was not possible. Myths were not merely symbolic language or reflections of primitive mentality. They were ancient man’s expression of his view of reality. At the center of a myth is its doctrine of correspondence (e.g., the god dies; therefore vegetation dies). Consequently ritual based on sympathetic magic was enacted to ensure the vital forces of life and fertility. The Old Testament makes a radical break with this philosophy of the ancient world. One does not do justice to the Old Testament by saying that Israel borrowed myth, or used mythological language to describe its faith. To the Hebrew, an absolutely sovereign God brought them into existence as a nation. Their concept of time was not cyclical but eschatological; their ritual at the temple was not cosmic and magical but an enactment of their redemption; and their concept of space was not limited to the primeval world but was actualized in history. In a word, reality to Israel was within her concept of history (Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1960, p. 13). Therefore Genesis is not myth. The Hebrew faith was a radical departure from the characteristic mythical thought of the pagans. James Barr says, “The main battle of the Hebrew faith is fought against the confusion of human and divine, of God and nature” so prevalent in pagan myth (“The Meaning of Mythology‘ in Relation to the Old Testament,” Vetus Testamentum 9. 1959:3). If the Old Testament preserves any vestiges of myth, it is to show that such were done away with in Yahwism. Gerhard Hasel says that Genesis employs certain terms and motifs, partly taken from theologically incompatible predecessors and partly chosen in deliberate contrast with comparable ancient Near Eastern concepts, and uses them with a meaning that is consonant with and expressive of faith in Yahweh. It represents a parting of the spiritual ways brought about by a deliberate antimythical polemic which undermined the prevailing mythological views (“The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” Evangelical Quarterly 46. 1974: 81-102). Thus the Old Testament in general and Genesis in particular are a cemetery for lifeless myths and gods. 2. Is Genesis etiology? The narratives of Genesis have also been classified as etiologies, stories that explain some given phenomenon, a topographical, ethnological, cultic, or customary reality (see S. Mowinckel, Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töppelmann, 1964, p. 81; and Brevard S. Childs, “The Etiological Tale Re-examined,” Vetus Testamentum 24. 1974:387-97). If the etiological narrative is the tradition and not simply a motif, that is, if it is a primary etiology, then doubt is cast over the historicity of the event. John Bright correctly observes that it is impossible to prove that an etiology is the creative force of the tradition (Early Israel in Recent History Writing. London: SCM Press, 1956, p. 90). The narratives no doubt record actual events. If there is an etiological element added in the use made of the tradition, it is usually responsible for a single detail or application of the story. To say a story explains why something exists is one thing; but to say a story employs some mythical episode to form the tradition is quite another. Etiological motifs do occur in general in the Bible, especially in Genesis which explains the beginnings of many things. But these narratives cannot be referred to as etiological tales that came into being to answer certain questions. 3. Is Genesis history? All this raises the question of the historicity of the accounts. Scholars have been unwilling to use the term “history” unless it is adequately qualified as distinct from modern philosophies of history. Norman Porteous explains, “The fact that Israel’s religious traditions made frequent reference to supernatural interventions is usually enough to make the historian look askance at them and assume that the actual course of events must have been very different” (“The Old Testament and History,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 8. 1972:22). For many, the evidence of events from Genesis is not reliable as history. Without outside sources to verify the events, historians must depend on the biblical records themselves. Even the many findings of archeology, though confirming the cultural setting of the events, do not actually prove the existence of an Abraham or a Joseph. So critical scholars hesitate to designate Genesis as factual history. However, one must remember that the Bible is a unique Book. Genesis was not intended to be a mere chronicle of events, a history for history’s sake, or even a complete biography of the nation. It is a theological interpretation of selected records of the ancestors of Israel. As with all histories, Genesis explains the causes behind the events—but its causes are divine as well as human. Because it is part of the revealed Word of God, and not merely human history comparable to ancient pagan mythologies, both the events and the explanations are true. For the Israelites some of the basic questions about life were answered within this theological interpretation of the events of their history. These events were recognized as integral parts of the God-planned and God-directed course of history, extending from Creation to the last days. In between this starting point and finishing point is biblical history. Thus faith was an essential part of understanding national and international events. At the heart of this biblical history was God’s covenant. It began with election—God chose Israel through Abram. God’s people could look back and see what God had done, and on the basis of that they could look forward to the fulfillment of the promises. Even though promise and fulfillment were predominant motifs of the biblical history, obedience to the covenant was uppermost in the minds of the narrators. So the events of the past were recounted for apologetic, polemic, and didactic reasons. The fact that Genesis is a theological interpretation of ancient events does not destroy its historicity. As Porteous says, “It would seem reasonable to suppose that interpretation is a response to something that demands interpretation” (“The Old Testament and History,” p. 107). E.A. Speiser says that while the material may not be history in the conventional sense of the term, “it cannot be set down as fancy. The author retells the events in his own inimitable way; he does not invent them. What is thus committed to writing is tradition, in the reverent care of literary genius. Where the tradition can be independently checked, it proves to be authentic. This much has been evident for some time in respect to a number of incidental details. It now turns out that the main framework of the patriarchal account has been accurately presented” (“The Biblical Idea of History in the Common Near Eastern Setting,” Israel Exploration Journal 7. 1957:202). For evangelicals, of course, it comes as no surprise that the biblical narratives prove to be authentic. 4. Is Genesis tradition? Many biblical scholars prefer to describe the Genesis narratives as “traditions” or “sagas” (which should have been used instead of “legends” in translating Gunkel’s book The Legends of Genesis). By these terms they mean the people’s recollections of historical events. In this view historicity is not endangered; it is just not assured. Gerhard von Rad says that saga is more than history because God, not man, is the subject (Genesis. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961, p. 31). Conservative scholars do not share this hesitancy to regard the narratives as true. Certainly the primeval accounts and genealogies could have been brought from Mesopotamia by the ancestors. To these would have been added the family records of the patriarchs. All the traditions—oral and written—could have been preserved in Egypt by Joseph along with his own records. Moses could then have compiled the work in essentially the form in which it exists today, being preserved from error and guided in truth by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Old Testament in Its Context: 1,” Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 59. 1971:1-9). So whether the narratives are called traditions or history, they record God’s true revelation and therefore correspond with what actually happened. Genesis is the first book of the Torah, the five Books of the Law. It may be best to classify the work as “Torah literature.” It may not be legal literature specifically, that is, laws and commandments, but it lays the foundation for the Law. It is a theological interpretation of the historical traditions behind the formation of the covenant with Israel at Sinai. Throughout Genesis one may discern that Moses was preparing his readers for the revelation of the Law. It is in this that Genesis conveys its didactic nature. But the material in Genesis is closely related to wisdom literature as well, especially in the Joseph narratives. The emphasis in the book on God’s blessing for those who walk in faithful obedience suggests many parallels with the Books of Wisdom, as will be observed. Genesis, then, is a unique book but it is also a book that is like the rest of the Bible in many ways. It is here that theology and history begin.
Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 1:18-20