Reworking of the Interpretation of Genesis

The issue of genre

In terms of interpretation, this is where points of view diverge and become irreconcilable.

Here is the evangelical conservative reading. Genesis was written by Moses, through Sinai dictation
revelation. What I mean by that is that Moses received Genesis from God directly. There is no mediation
of culture. In this case, the genre is the unmediated word of God, and the “absolute truth” socially,
historically, scientifically, etc. In this scenario, divine revelation and supernatural interaction comes to
the foreground.

Another option is some kind of liberal reading. The genre of Genesis is pure myth, just like other myths
in other cultures particularly in the ANE. And we do have similar examples of ANE origin myths. In this
case, one can essentially empty out all divine revelation, and supernatural interactions, relegating
Genesis to any other ancient culture.

We see here in what we think of the genre of Genesis, really, two different diametrically opposed
worldviews: one which is committed to a God that works personally and particularly in history, and the
other, which sees God is either absent or distant in his interaction with this world. As you can see, these
two points of view are irreconcilable.

The third option, which I believe is more accurate, is a middle-of-the-road interpretation. I have to warn
you though, that this interpretation leads to a lot of complexity and unknowns, as we shall see. In this
scenario, the genre of Genesis is myth. I do not believe we can avoid this move. So the idea is not to
deny that Genesis is cast in a similar vein as other myths in the ANE. The idea is to compare the content
in the message contain in Israel’s origin stories contained in Genesis and to see in what way is it unique,
or the same. For example, it is hard to deny that Genesis 1-2, share the same cosmology as other
cultures in the ANE. This is obviously true. Israel does not present a different cosmology than these
other cultures.

Let me know digress momentarily. It is essential we grasp what the genre of Genesis is. When we say
myth, or origin story, we are already making certain assumptions about not only the content of Genesis
but also the intent of the stories, which is, etiological, that is, to explain how humanity, and the cosmos
came to be. This is true of all the other stories as well not only in the ANE but across the ancient cultures
of the world. Just about everybody has a story that explains where we came from as human beings. Do
you see the importance of genre? What Genesis is not, is supra-cultural information directly transmitted
by God to tell the actual events of how the cosmos came to be. When you do a careful evaluation of the
data, especially comparing Genesis to other ANE origin stories, and what we know from science, this
position is untenable. The only way to commit to this point of view is to bury one’s head in the sand. Of
course this position is far easier to manage. You can avoid a lot of contradictions and complexity, but
again, it is simply not tenable because he would have to reject a lot of data. To commit to such a point of
view is to commit to being unreal.

Let us return to option number three. Is it possible then to understand the genre of Genesis as myth,
and still commit to some form of divine revelation and supernatural interaction between God in this
world. This is exactly what I am trying to propose.
Let us now proceed to set up a framework of how to deal with the problem of interpreting Genesis.

What Actually Happened (WAH)?

“What Actually Happened” is a key anchor point in our problem. It is exactly as what it says, “what
actually happened?” I don’t mean just the scientific/natural and historical occurrences, but also the
times when God or other supernatural beings interact directly with our world. So I mean everything that
happened in time. Well, obviously, the we don’t have this information from the Bible! What we have are
bits and pieces, and things that are tangential at best to WAH. I am claiming that this is what we have in
the Genesis creation myths, something which is tangential to WAH.

Normally, when we read the Bible, let’s take stories about Jesus, we don’t need to talk about WAH. I am
sure someone will take what I am proposing and apply it to the accounts about Jesus so as to empty
these stories of the supernatural and historical particular. And this has already happened. People have
said that the Jesus stories are merely inventions of the early church, from the imagination of Jesus’
followers or Paul. Let me say that this is a misapplication of what I am proposing. The reason to bring
WAH to the foreground is because of the “distance” between the author of Genesis and WAH.
Obviously, the distance in time between the Gospel writers and Jesus is measured is a single life time,
whereas the distance between WAH in creation and the “author” of Genesis is not quantifiable. To be
precise, we are measuring the distance between the sources of Israel origin stories with the time of
composition of Genesis in its present form. We simply don’t know because it is too long ago, and we
actually don’t even have sources of WAH, but rather legends and myths. This is reason to explicitly
introduce as a starting point of WAH because of the uncertainties and gap in time. In the case of the
Gospel stories, this issue is much less significant.