Adam, Eve, History, Truth (2)

What is literature? I think that question is fundamental when reading Genesis, especially the creation accounts.

Certainly I read the Adam and Eve story as straight history for most of my life. The question is, is it straight history? That question really has no bearing on Divine Inspiration. No one doubts that the Bible contains many different kinds of writing. The Bible is full of poetry, preaching, images and allusions. It is written with symbolic significance. It is full of puns and makes reference to things which are lost on us. As I argued in my last post, historical facts are not the full extent of truth. [Let me illustrate: proving through documentation from Roman and Jewish sources that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact crucified outside Jerusalem and buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea would certainly be historically significant. Not that I doubt any of it, but it would be useful in dealing with the skeptics who claim Jesus never existed. However, there is no document or archaealogical find which can ever prove that the crucified Jesus saved the world from sin. Understand? That is revealed truth. Further more, the factual details (did Jesus have help carrying the cross? John 19:17 "and carrying the cross by Himself" vs. "they compelled a passerby...to carry His cross...Simon") are interesting, but make no difference to the Truth of the atonement. The atonement is true whether the historical details are accurate or not. In fact, in this case one senses that the Truth of the event is shaping the telling of the story and John is making the point that Jesus Alone is carrying the cross because He is the Savior... In other words, details about events are impacted by the meaning of the event. These are theological narratives trying to tell us something, and it is much more that mere gossip.]

So, let us say, in theory, that the story of Adam and Eve has something in common with the creation stories of American Indians or Vikings. How do we imagine that those peoples, untouched by Divine Revelation, constructed their stories? What purpose did their stories serve? Can the human process of telling the story of creation and the beginning of humanity offer any insight on Israel? Is it a denial of God to ponder such things?

Now let us think about the ancient (pre-Abraham) stories of what we call The Middle East. There are many collections of the stories of creation from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and other peoples in these areas. Is it possible that the stories of Israel, our Bible stories, were written with these stories in mind? Remember, the Jews were part of this world. The ancestors of the Bible people existed for a long time before God and Abraham.

It does not make me think less of God or trust His word less to think that the ancient Israelites were telling a story which borrowed elements from the stories with which they were familiar from their neighbors. Further, it does not cause me a problem to think that what God reveals to us through the story is a corrective of the stories which the other people told. That, to me, is the point. We are not familiar with those other stories, or we assume that they have myths while we have history. BUT, that is not what the Bible says about the creation account.

I am arguing that Adam and Eve is true. But I have come to see that the context is not contemprorary discussions about the history of the world. It is an ancient setting with its own rules about how one should talk about such things. So, it is clearly possible to say that the purpose of the Adam and Eve account is theological. And if theological, then it is best understood on its own terms. We should not twist the story to answer questions we have (or demand it prove points we want to make). No. It is Divinely inspired. The word addresses us, on its terms not ours. I think, sometimes, we Christians have it backwards. SO to read Adam and Eve the way God intended is the goal. Assuming it was intended as straight history, I think, is not so clear. At any rate, it is not helpful for Christians to harshly attack each other on this issue baed on assumptions which may not be right.