The events of Genesis 1-11 are recorded in the same historical narrative style as Genesis 12-50 with its straightforward prose, its attention to detail in names and ages, and the content of the first eleven chapters flowing seamlessly into the remaining chapters.  Genesis is not written as a parable, poem, myth, or fictional story.  Thus, to assert that Genesis is myth (or mytho-historical) is a violation of exegetical principles.  Moreover, there is no evidence that any biblical author thought of Genesis 1-11 as anything other than straightforward history.

We begin with a brief review of our analysis of William Lane Craig’s claims regarding Genesis 1-11 from his recent article on the historical Adam.  We have seen that Genesis 1-11 has all the markers of historical narrative.  Namely, it is written in the same literary style as the other historical books with long chains of the Hebrew waw-consecutive.  It lists details that are not germane to the point of the narrative, such as specific names and ages of persons (even those not involved in the main events) and highly detailed chronologies.  These indicate history and would bog down a fictional/mythical story.  Furthermore, these chronologies flow seamlessly into the historical figures mentioned in Genesis 12-50 – a section of Scripture that even Craig admits is straightforward history.  In contrast, myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh are usually written in poetic form; yet Genesis lacks the key characteristics of Hebrew poetry.  Clearly, Genesis 1-11 matches the literary form and style of Genesis 12-50.

And what about the content?  Contrary to Craig’s claims, the content of the creation account in Genesis is starkly different from the content of Ancient Near Eastern origins myths.  Pagan origins stories generally involve a very old universe that exists in a state of chaos, until a chaos monster is slain which brings about the good world of today.  Genesis starts with God who speaks the universe into existence in six days, each step being good until the final result is “very good.”  Humans introduce death into the world by sinning against God.  The events are recorded with none of the obvious symbolism or analogies present in parables, but rather as literal events.  All other references in Scripture to Genesis 1-11 take the narrative as literally historical.  Furthermore, the Bible states that the events in Genesis 1-11 have repercussions in the world today – something that is only possible if such events literally happened.  And so, if we are going to be rational and take the text as written, we must admit that Genesis 1-11 is straightforward history.

This of course contrasts with the secular claim that the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago, and that life came about as a result of evolution.  Many Christians have been duped into believing that such secular speculations are “science” or at least supported by science.  Nothing could be further from the truth since science is predicated upon the literal historicity of the Bible including biblical creation as we have explored previously.  Therefore, Christians who have mindlessly accepted evolution but still profess to believe the Bible must somehow deal with the fact that Genesis contradicts the secular origins stories.  Rather than admitting that they don’t believe Genesis 1-11, the usual tactic is to say, “I believe it, just not literally.  I don’t interpret the text the way you do.”  This of course could be done with any portion of Scripture that a person doesn’t want to accept.  A person could equally well declare “I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead – just not literally.  The Gospels are written in the form of myth.” However, the Bible does not give us permission to interpret the text any way we like.  We must interpret it according to its context.  And we have seen that Genesis 1-11 lists the events that happened in the world in straightforward, non-poetic narrative, just like Genesis 12-50.  Thus, we must interpret them accordingly.

All other books of the Bible that refer back to Genesis do so as if the events recorded therein actually happened as written.  Yet, William Lane Craig has stated that he believes that Genesis 1-11 is not to be taken as straightforward history.  So, how does he attempt to reconcile the biblical references to the history in Genesis with his belief that Genesis 1-11 is not straightforward history?  We continue to analyze his recent article on The Historical Adam.

Craig: When we turn to the New Testament, we find the figure of Adam widely deployed, most importantly by Paul.

Lisle: It is clear that Paul understood Adam and Eve to be real people, and the events of Genesis 1-11 to be real history with real consequences in the world today.  See for example, Romans 5:14-15; 1 Corinthians 15:22-23; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

Craig: Many scholars have attempted to distinguish between the literary Adam and the historical Adam. The literary Adam is a character in a story, specifically the stories of Genesis 2–3. The historical Adam is the person, if such there be, who actually existed—the actual individual whom the stories are allegedly about.

Lisle: It seems that Craig is going to suggest that New Testament references to Adam are not necessarily always asserting the historical reality of the person (the historical Adam), but possibly references to a character in a fictional, allegorical, or embellished story (the literary Adam).

Craig: By way of analogy, the Pompey of Plutarch’s Lives is the literary Pompey, whereas the Roman general who actually lived was the historical Pompey. What we want to know is how closely the literary Pompey of the Lives resembles the historical Pompey. ­Similarly, we want to know how closely the literary ­Adam of Genesis 2–3 resembles the historical Adam, if such there be—or more precisely, whether New Testament authors assert that the literary Adam of Genesis 2–3 closely resembles the historical Adam.

Lisle: Is there any evidence in the New Testament that the authors thought of Adam as merely a literary character in a story rather than a historical person?  Is there any evidence in Scripture that any of its authors thought that the events recorded in Genesis were not real history, but merely a mythical story with useful illustrations?

Quite the opposite.  Most of the biblical references to the events of Genesis would make no sense unless Genesis is real history.  For example, a fictional story cannot have real-world consequences – something that Craig himself concedes later in his article.

Read More