The Weaknesses of Factual and Historical Interpretations of Genesis 1-2 and 6-9

Pranav Venkatraman Religion 211Q: Western Religious Traditions October 11, 2013

Insiders and certain scholars have often claimed that elements of their religious tradition constitute factual truths. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, two of the most debated myths are in the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Establishing the foundation for the subsequent books of the canon of scripture, Genesis receives much attention from maximalists, individuals who interpret scripture as literal truth under the assumption that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Davies 2000). Because myths in the Hebrew Bible are so old, many of the accounts therein are arduous, if not wholly impossible, to prove or invalidate as facts. Nonetheless, of the claims maximalists have made over time, many have been incongruent with new archeological and textual evidence. In contrast, the interpretations of minimalists, or those who argue that accounts in scripture are not historical and are often allegorical, can pay less attention to the dichotomy between archeological, historical, physical, and biological evidence and scripture by focusing on aspects of religious texts other than their historicity. Namely, these include determining the premise behind texts, the connection to the religions notion of sacred reality, the texts place in the practices of religion as a whole, the connection between human nature and the sacred in texts, and the sacred truth, rather than the empirical truth, of texts (Cunningham 2013, 57). The myth of Genesis 1-2 has widely varying interpretations between maximalists and minimalists, and even between those practicing the same sect of a religion. We will discuss possible minimalist and maximalist interpretations to dissect the pitfalls of attempting to understand the myth as factual and historical. Minimalist interpretations of Genesis 1-2 have been prevalent since the Classical period; an important minimalist interpretation is that of Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher. Noting that the text has inherent contradictions, Philo effectively argues against a literal interpretation: It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in a space of time at all It would therefore be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by mean of the world, for it was heavens movement that was the

index of the nature of time (Lewis 1989, 435). Following Philo by one hundred years was Origen, who had an even stronger argument for an allegorical approach to interpreting the myth. Origen recognized that a tripartite of ways had emerged to interpreting the text, the literal, the moral, and the spiritual, but noted that the spiritual approach seemed most complete to understanding the complexities of the next, adding that the history [has] taken place in appearance, [but] not literally (Lewis 1989, 438-439). St. Augustine of Hipo, an early Christian theologian, builds on top of Philos argument, affirming that time had not been created prior to the creation of the earth and adding that it was created concurrently or subsequently to the end of the sixth day. Augustine identifies the purpose of each day in the myth to demonstrate a return to praise and love of the creator (Lewis 1989, 440). Augustine also interprets the seventh day as that which the Lord sanctified to an everlasting continuance (Lewis 1989, 440). Modern scholars also contributed much to the minimalist interpretation of text. One particular influential modern theory is the Revelation Day Theory, formulated by Wiseman, which argues that creation did not occur in six days, but were rather revealed to Moses in six days.= (Lewis 1989, 453). The theory derives from the belief that the creation narrative is not intended to teach cosmogony, but rather to inform theology. Another influential theory is the Framework Theory, which claims that Genesis divides creation into two triads (Irons 2000). Kline, a scholar of this theory, divides the triads into the first, the Creation Kingdoms and the second, the Creature Kings. The first triad is concerned with the creation of light, sky, water, land and vegetation and is created in the first three days of Genesis. The second triad is contained in the penultimate three days of genesis and deals with the creation of creature kings, that is, luminaries, birds, fish, and mankind (Kline 1996, 6). What makes this framework theory diverge from literary theories is that it insists on being figurative, arguing that the aim of the creation myth is that creation is not an end in itself but was created with the built-in eschatological goal of entering the eternal Sabbath rest of

God Himself in incorruptible glory. This eternal rest is not a singular day in history, but rather all the time that comes after the end of the sixth day, similar to Augustines interpretation. Converse to the interpretations aforementioned, maximalist interpretations of scripture are literal, in many cases so far as to overlook the broader considerations of allegory and the relationship of practices of the faith with the sacred reality in the religion itself. In Genesis 1:1, this would usually entail viewing the days of creation as exactly one day in length, and following the order of creation as is written in the text. Numerous religious scholars and philosophers have developed the literary interpretation. They include Victorinus of Pettau, who followed the text as literal, asserting that the light that the creator formed divided the night and day in the exact measure of twelve hours (Lewis 445). Basil of Caesarea, a significant church figure in the fourth century A.D, held a strictly literal interpretation of the text, writing that, I hear the word grass, I understand that g rass is meant I take it all [Genesis 1-2] in a literal sense Dismissing such an explanation as a dream interpretation and old wives tales, let us consider water as water. Basil supports his argument by explaining and mending the inconsistencies in the text, such as the use of one day instead of the first day in the Bible. Basel also asserts that the making of the firmament is a unique undertaking in itself, arguing that the making of the heaven at the beginning of Genesis 1:1 is different from the making of the firmament in the second day (Lewis 446). Modern scholars have also proposed maximalist theories, such as the Active-Gap theory, popularized by the Scofield Bible and by the writings of Harry Rimner, which claims that an earlier creation occurred at the date of the Earths formation. This creation was destroyed by a catastrophe, and the biblical creation myth in Genesis describes the recreation exactly. Another related theory is the Passive-Gap Theory, which, unlike the Active-Gap theory does not recognize Gods early creation of earth. Instead, an earth like body that was without life, form and void was all that there

was before the six days of creation. Only subsequent to the six days of creation did biological species, the sky, water, and other earthly attributes emerge (Lewis 454). Through the aforementioned we can see some of the troubles related to extreme maximalist theories on the creation myth. First, because Maximalists innately argue that the myth is factually valid, they must compete with contradictory scientific evidence, weakening the ability of the myth from acting as designed, to disclose the ultimate truth about crucial human questions (Cunningham 2013, 58). The ultimate truth that myth attempts to reveal is not an empirical fact viewed through a historical or scientific perspective. Rather, it is a truth about cosmogony from a religious perspective. Thus, by attempting to claim a myth as factual, maximalists obfuscate, rather than elevate, its truth in a religious context. Second, the de-emphasis on the religious truth of a myth leads to a depreciation of the religious aspects of a myth other than its ultimate truth about crucial human questions (Cunningham 2013, 58). These characteristics include a myths notion of sacred reality, and the myths relationship to man today. For instance, minimalists such as Augustine viewed the seventh day of creation as an everlasting sanctification (Lewis 1989, 438) that continues eternally to today and the future. This inherently relates the sacred reality to humans, both past and present. In addition, the myth says much about the nature of the Judeo-Christian sacred reality, notably that God is immanent. Those who view the myth as an actual historical or natural event very well may overlook these important qualities in favor of scrutinizing over whether the length of the six days and nights are exactly twelve hours. Like the Genesis creation myth, Genesis 6-9 also has a large array of possible maximalist and minimalist interpretations. A prominent maximalist interpretation is that of Josephus. Josephus argued that the text constituted a historically accurate source about a true flood. So intent on proving the story true to Greek historians who criticized the validity of the story, Josephus associates Genesis 6-9 with the histories of the Greek flood story to show that the Biblical flood is

true. One of the many details he manufactures is his associating of Abraham, who lived near an oak tree called Ogynes, with an archaic King of Athens Ogygus, who suffered a flood. Ironically, the historians, such as Berossus, Hieronymous, and Nicholaus of Damascus, he cited were those that dismissed Biblical history as high tales. Ancient and modern historians have discovered a myriad of inconsistencies in Josephus research. Josephus changed many dates in the Jewish and Greek chronology in order to give off the appearance that they fit with each other (Feldman 1998). Josephus extreme approach to proving the historicity of Biblical stories highlights the key pitfalls of the approach. Namely, Josephus expended much of his time taking the defensive, proving why his religious myth is true against those who argued otherwise, rather than understanding what the myth says and how it affects the Jewish peoples understanding of their religion. In addition, Josephus had to adulterate both the Jewish and Greek religious histories support his claim of the historicity of the story. A minimalist approach avoids the problem of claiming historical truth. Philos figurative interpretation characterizes the entire flood passage as an allegory. Philo argues that the flood has an existential valuedepict[ing] occurrences that may happen in the present day experience of any person. Philo claims that the story represents both a clearing of evils and cleansing of the soul (Lewis 1978, 58-74). Another possible way to approach the Flood story can be seen in Walter Breuggemanns interpretation. Arguing that the purpose of the flood is not the flood itself, but upon the change wrought by God, which makes possible a new beginning for creation, Breugmann expands upon previous allegorical interpretations, including the aforementioned (Breugmann 73-88). Through the Genesis 6-9 story, we have again seen the problem of a maximalist approach. Regarding the words of the Hebrew Bible, or any other scripture, as factual truth, can be problematic and remove us from the religious aspects of the text as in order to defend the story as factual. We see this most clearly in such extreme maximalist interpretations as Josephus, where he

intentionally disregards the chronology of Biblical events to fit his narrow agenda of validating the Bibles historicity. Using a maximalist interpretation, we may also miss how the events of the flood, that is, a part of the sacred reality, relate to the present day experience of any person (Lewis 1978, 134). For at least these two sections of the Bible, much is lost in adhering to a literal approach that claims the events of the passages as factual. However, we must note that there are some solid arguments for maximalist interpretations of scripture. Indeed, scientific and archeological evidence has developed claiming that some books of the Bible and other Hebrew texts reflect historical fact closely. Moreover, many maximalist interpretations of text attempt to strike a bargain with allegorical interpretation. That is, while such approaches are more maximalist than minimalist, they do show some incorporation of minimalist approaches. Consider, for example, that Venerable Bedes Hexaemeron gives two separate commentaries of the scripture, one solely literal, and one that was both moral and allegorical (Lewis 1989, 448). Nonetheless, taken as a whole, the power of sacred language, that is, the language used such stories as the Genesis creation myth and the Flood story, lies not in its truth or lack thereof, but rather in its ultimate purpose to reveal religious truth.

Bibliography Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982. Cunningham, Lawrence, and John Kelsay. The Sacred Quest: An Invitation to the Study of Religion. Boston: Pearson, 2013. Davidson, Richard M. "The Genesis Flood Narrative: Crucial Issues in the Current Debate." Andrews University Seminary Studies 42, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 49-77. Accessed October 11, 2013. http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Flood/Genesis%20Flood%20Narrative. pdf. Davies, Phillip R. "What Separates a Minimalist from a Maximalist." Biblical Archeological Review 26, no. 02 (March/April 2000). Accessed October 11, 2013. http://members.bibarch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=26&Issue=02&ArticleID=02. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Irons, Lee. "The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary." Ordained Servant 9, no. 1 (January 2000): 7-11. Accessed October 11, 2013. http://opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV9N1.pdf. Kline, Maredith G. "Space and Time in Genesis Cosmology." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 15th ser., 48, no. 2 (March 1996). Accessed October 11, 2013. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html. Lewis, Jack B. "The Days of Creation: An Historical Survey of Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1989): 433-55. Accessed October 11, 2013. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/32/32-4/32-4-pp433-455_JETS.pdf. Lewis, Jack Pearl. "The Flood in Hellenistic-Jewish Writers." In A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1978.