Re: Genesis Truth

michael farley (mifarley@indiana.edu)
Fri, 30 Jun 1995 10:30:35 -0500 (EST)

To those who maintain that Genesis is mytho-poetry, allegory, saga, or
even PRIMARILY non-historical in character, I would like to know if any
of you accept any part of Genesis as literal history. I am very sympathetic
to Glenn's view of Scripture in this case because it seems to me that the
book of Genesis is very unified in a literary sense. Do you also want to
maintain that Genesis 12-50 is primarily non-historical saga,
mytho-poetry, or allegory? Would you interpret Genesis 12-50 differently
than Genesis 1-11 with respect to the historical nature of the events
described, and if so, why? What indication is there in the text that
indicates that such an interpretive shift is warranted?
The Psalms and the writings of the prophets
are replete with references to events in Genesis, and the force of the
arguments presented in these Old Testament passages is that Israel must
remember the acts that God performed IN HISTORY. God presents himself,
indeed, distinguishes himself as the one true God who has primarily
revealed himself IN HISTORY. The New Testament also includes many
references to Noah, Abraham, Adam, and the other patriarachs. Do you want
to maintain that these are references to non-historical figures (legends,
Israelite myths, perhaps?). What do you make of Hebrews 11 (specifically,
how are the recipients of this letter supposed to be encouraged to face
real, HISOTRICAL danger and persecution by citing the faith of
people--the Genesis patriarchs--who never existed? The passages seems to
assume that all of the people referred to, even Enoch!, are historical.)
In short, if Genesis 1 is considered to be primarily non-historical in
character, I want to know how this heremeneutic can be applied to the
rest of Scripture consistently without opening the door to denying the
historical character of all of Scripture.

Anxiously awaiting a reply,

Mike Farley
Indiana University