Jackson Gordon

02 The Literal Interpretation

5 min read

Previous Lecture | Next Lecture

The Literal Interpretation

  1. Introduction to the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1

    1. This interpretation, sometimes called the “24-hour day view”, is the most straightforward reading.
    2. Some scholars, like Gerhard von Rad (cited by Pannenberg), see Genesis 1 as intending to provide a primitive scientific account, though now obsolete.
      1. Von Rad argues the “Priestly Document” (P source) integrates theological and scientific knowledge specific to its time.
      2. Pannenberg believes while the ancient science is obsolete, the project of integrating theology and contemporary science is still valid.

  2. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) View

    1. YEC also sees Genesis 1 as aiming to communicate scientific information, but argues this information is accurate.
    2. It posits God created the world in six consecutive 24-hour days approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago.
    3. Literal View: This view reads the text “prima facie,” taking it at face value or literally.
      1. YEC proponent Jonathan Sarfati defines “literal” as the grammatico-historical meaning, allowing for figures of speech (e.g., “windows of heaven” is metaphor for rain).
      2. Critique of this definition: It’s too broad and doesn’t distinguish Genesis 1 from other genres like poetry, which also have a grammatico-historical meaning.
      3. Key Question: Is Genesis 1-11 is meant to be read as a literal account of historical events?

  3. Genre of Genesis 1-11: History vs. Narrative Prose

    1. Sarfati argues Genesis 1-11 belongs to the genre of history.
      1. “waw-consecutive” verb form: Perfect tense followed by imperfect tense verbs connected by “waw” (meaning “and”.)
        1. Critique: While it indicates sequential narrative, it doesn’t prove historical narrative (myths, folk tales are also narratives).
      2. Statistical analysis: Statistics on Genesis 1:1-2:3 are used to demonstrate it is narrative prose.
        1. Critique: This only shows it’s not poetry, not that it’s history.
    2. Rebuttal: Comparison with undisputed historical books (Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Genesis 12-50):
      1. Scholars like Gordon Wenham note Genesis 1-11’s significant parallels with ancient Near Eastern myths/sagas, unlike the distinct focus of Genesis 12-50 on Abraham and his descendants.
      2. Hermann Gunkel contrasted early Genesis precisely with Israel’s historical writing.
    3. Determining genre requires considering not just the grammar and style of text, but also the function of the text in its culture (citing John Collins).

  4. Elements Suggesting Historical and Figurative Aspects

    1. Historical Aspects:
      1. Adam and Eve are presented as the first human couple, progenitors of the race, connected via genealogies to later, indisputably historical figures like Abraham.
      2. God is presented as a real, personal agent and creator, not a mere symbol.
    2. Figurative/Symbolic Aspects:
      1. Names like Adam (“man”) and Eve (“mother of all living”) carry symbolic meaning; they represent humanity.
      2. Anthropomorphic descriptions of God (walking, talking, forming man from dust) are likely figurative.
      3. Genesis 1 is highly stylized, “exalted prose” with literary polish (parallelism, repetition, number patterns), unlike a simple factual report.
      4. Presence of anachronisms (like the “ish/ishah” pun) suggests the language reflects the author’s later time, not necessarily a literal recording of primeval events.
    3. Conclusion: Genesis 1-11 likely represents a historical but figurative genre, covering historical events using poetic or figurative language. This means interpreting “yom” (day) as a literal 24-hour period might be an unwarranted demand on the text.

Discussion

  • Q1: What is meant by saying Genesis 1 is not “straightforward prose”? A: It means the text is highly polished, exhibiting artistic qualities like parallelism, repetition, specific structures, and careful choice/numbering of letters (e.g., emphasis on the number seven), unlike a simple factual account or “police report.”
  • Q2: Regarding figurative language (like God naming things or forming man), does this imply there is no literal event behind the description? A: Descriptions of God acting (like naming or forming man from dust) are likely figurative to convey theological truths about God’s transcendence and authority, as God is not constrained by human physical actions or languages. Other elements like anachronisms (the Hebrew pun on “man” and “woman”) also suggest non-literal aspects. The point is to convey profound theological truths (e.g., human equality, God’s sole divinity, humanity’s relationship with God) regardless of strict literalism.
  • Q3: The Hebrew names Adam (man) and adamah (earth/dirt) sound similar. Is this significant? A: Yes, the resemblance between Adam and adamah is noted as a symbolic pun, highlighting Adam’s origin from the earth and adding a layer of symbolic meaning beyond a simple statement of creation from dust.
  • Q4: Is it plausible that Genesis’s history was preserved through revisions over time, similar to how some ancient cultures (like Chinese history) revised their records, with God guiding the preservation? A: Yes, the idea of traditions being preserved and possibly revised over time is plausible and consistent with non-literal interpretations, especially considering potential influences from or engagement with other ancient near eastern traditions.
  • Q5: What about scholar John Walton’s view that Genesis is history but also an allegory of Earth as God’s temple, where “bara” means ordering/defining roles, and God’s rest is a state of ordered peace? A: Walton’s “functional interpretation” will be discussed later in the lecture series. The idea of the Earth/Garden of Eden as a temple or sanctuary is one scholarly view that sees a symbolic layer in the narrative.

Graph View

Backlinks