>Glenn seems to be using the term "myth" here in its common sense, to refer to
>a legendary story without any ties to historical reality. In a literary sense,
>however, the term "myth" can also be applied to a story which attempts to
>explain a basic truth using allegory or some other non-literal device. I
>personally think that this is the genre into which Genesis 1 properly falls
>[expressing theological truth, but not via a literal, historical narrative].
>Since "myth" implies "non-truth" to many people, other terms for this genre
>have been suggested which do not have negative connotations. For example, Karl
>Barth used "saga" in Church Dogmatics as a general category referring to
>stories which convey truth, but which are beyond the scope of modern historical
>science since they refer to non-observable, supernatural events. That doesn't
>quite work either (I tend to equate "saga" with "Norse myth", so we are back
>to myth again). I prefer to call it a "creation story", and leave it at that.
While it's certainly possible that early Genesis is allegory, there is
another possibility: It's an outline. That is, it does deal with
historical events, but they have been related in abbreviated form. Why
would God do that? To focus on what's important, I presume.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)