Critique of deLange’s “Genesis Mythology” – 2

deLange’s Definition of “Myth”: Great Stuff, but It’s Not Actually Real

One of these theologians is Reformer John Knox, who argues in his book Myth and Truth that Genesis does not truly refer to a factual event. After outlining the incarnation of Christ, Knox concludes, “Of the other two great myths, one (that of God’s creation of the world and man’s estrangement) belongs to prehistory and the other [that of God’s final revelation] has to do with what will ‘happen’ after history shall have ended. Only the story of [God’s] redemptive, reconciling deed in Christ refers to an actual historical event” (52). Though Knox unequivocally denies the literal nature of the opening chapters of Genesis, he in no way denies the truth of the Bible. Instead, Knox argues that Reformed Christians need to come to a renewed understanding of myth. – Adrian deLange, “Genesis Mythology,” Calvinism for the 21st Century Conference (Dordt College, 2010), 1-2.

This is quite an explosive paragraph. In only one citation and three sentences, the historicity of Genesis is completely wrote-off (assuming Knox was interpreted rightly; I can’t get  a hold of the primary text, and, of course, assuming I’m interpreting deLange rightly). The most obvious confusion that should grab our attention is the equivocation of “literal nature of the opening chapters of Genesis” and Knox’ “actual historical event.” Given the previous quotations and references to creationists who are concerned about the age of the earth in deLange’s essay, it seems fair to say that deLange is pitting those creationists and Knox’ perspective against each other.

The problem, of course, is that it is fully unwarranted to associate the literal, age-concerned interpretation of the creationists deLange has contrasted among in previous remarks with the belief that Genesis actually happened. In other words, it is (extremely) possible to believe the historical nature of Genesis without being a fundamentalist, young-earth creationist. Many, many scholars hold to a conservative view of Genesis (it happened; narrative reflects real history) and don’t give substantial attention to the age of the earth. DeLange does not give any indication that this is even possible.

What he does assert, is that Reformed Christians should change their perspective on Genesis so that it denies actual historical events in Genesis. Sounds harsh? It is. But, we should be careful not to misrepresent deLange’s overall purpose; this denial is not the end in itself – the renewed idea of myth and realizing the significance of communal identity is his final goal. Dismissing (sacrificing) the historicity of Genesis is simply the bi-product of deLange’s more – he would argue – desirable hermeneutic.

For Knox, myth is not something to be classified as an untrue story or a “tall tale.” Instead, myth is first an imaginative narrative dealing with a cosmically significant act of God (35). To say that myth is an imaginative narrative separates it from other stories or fairy tales concerned merely with the deeds of men. That myth deals with a cosmically significant act of God categorizes it as a divine narrative: a formative account that gives identity to the community which holds to it. For Knox, myth is pervasive as it affects the entire world and not simply the people group who subscribe to it.

Not only is myth cosmically affective and normative, but Knox states that myth is also a source of solidarity for its espousing community, both bearing the marks of its original culture and yet persisting through generations and across cultural barriers (35). Knox’s contention that myth is a source of community both recognizes and affirms the culture-forming tendencies inherent in what it means to be human. Not only does myth become culturally formative, but it does so to such a degree that it also becomes indispensible to the community to which it belongs. That a myth bears the marks of culture and persists through generations is to say that its narrative is not limited to one specific time, place, or group. Instead, it spans geography, ethnicity, and epoch. Nevertheless, myth must be understood in its original context in order to be properly understood and applied within the cultural context of the community in which it is interpreted.

In both contexts—past and present—Knox argues that myth is necessarily a source of identity (35). Those in the interpretive community who subscribe to the myth are bound together by their common understanding of the narrative, which provides a specific world and life view from which to understand and engage the world. In Knox’s final contention, myth becomes an irreplaceable symbol in the lives of those who subscribe to it (36). This means not only that the myth or narrative is both distinctive and invaluable to the community’s identity, but also that these indispensible narratives are the only ones which qualify: not all “miracle accounts” are worthy of the title myth. (2-4)

Let us summarize deLange’s definition of “myth” from these paragraphs:

1. It is not “untrue.”
2. It is “an imaginative narrative dealing with a cosmically significant act of God.” That is, myths are made-up stories, but not “fairy tails concerned merely with the deeds of men,” but fairy tales concerned with “a cosmically significant act of God.”
3. Myths become strongly associated with the identity of a particular community, and “a myth bears the mark of culture.”
4. As such, myth is an “irreplaceable symbol in the lives of those who subscribe to it.”

Clearly, the problem is assertion number 2. DeLange essentially asserts that Moses made up stories to make the Israelites feel better, have a myth to associate with (because everyone else did), and obtain a creation identity:

Recognizing then, that the book of Genesis was written following Israel’s exodus from Egypt and likely after the conquer of Canaan, Israel’s direct encounter with these mythologies—not the least of which is the Ugaritic—was unavoidable. Because the Israelites had been saturated in Egyptian mythology for four hundred of years in slavery, followed by Babylonian and Ugaritic mythology in the years in Canaan, the people had an obvious need for a renewed identity. Israel needed to be told who she was and to whom she belonged. Therefore, in his effort to guide this infantile nation, God not only provided his people Israel with his law through Moses, but spoke to his confused people through oral tradition and finally the author(s) of Genesis in a language, cosmology, and mythological structure that the people could understand, while also conveying to them his covenant truth. (5)

Thus, according to deLange, Moses made up a creation story that directly contradicted the other creation myths of the day (Enuma Elish, Marduk and Ti’āmat myth, etc.).

It was with exposure to and with an understanding of these myths that the Israelites emerged from exile, ignorant of their own identity and vulnerable to Egyptian and Babylonian mythologies. Yet so that his chosen people could understand, the Lord painted a picture for them similar in structure to those nations around them. The Lord provided for Israel a basic understanding of the world and of their identity through the narrative beginning in Genesis. (5-6)

Since theology and not history was the point of Genesis (or at least, the introductory account), deLange asserts, the persons and events recorded in Genesis are not required to have actually happened in history.

Neo-Orthodoxy Rehashed?

We should briefly note at this point, how this was the essence of Karl Barth’s position. Needless to say, the result of Barth’s faulty presuppositions infected his theology so that he ended up making absurd assertions, such as:

“We are all Adam…in the matter of human disobedience and depravity there is no ‘earlier’ in which man was not yet a transgressor and as such innocent…There never was a golden age. There is no point in looking back to one. The first man was immediately the first sinner…it is the Word of God which forbids us to dream of any golden age in the past or any real progress within Adamic mankind and history or any future state of historical perfection.” Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics vol. IVA, trans. by G. W. Bromiley, T. & T. Clark, 1956, pp. 551, 508, 511.

It would be interesting to know how much influence one of deLange’s theology professors, Jason Lief (a devout fan of Karl Barth), had in the writing of deLange’s paper. But let it suffice to state the obvious: the conclusions between Barth and deLange are the same; Adam and Eve are mere symbols and not historical persons, and Genesis is a mythical story (in the common use of the term) – one that is not necessarily rooted in actual historical events.

How one can call this “true” is as confusing to me as it probably was to the pagans that Moses was attempting to contradict/refute. Think about it. What incentive does a post-Egypt pre-Exile Israelite have in buying into a creation story – no matter how great it seemed – that didn’t happen when the rest of the pagans claim that their story really did happen? Are we to believe that Moses was making an offer to Israel that was like, “Hey, I made up a sweet story that is so much more stellar than those Egyptian wackos – it didn’t actually happen this way, but, you should believe it anyway,” and this was supposed to be more convincing and reassuring than all the pagan stories that presented their myth as historical truth? Or, are we to assume that all the other creation stories outside Scripture were presented by the Egyptians/pagans as “true” but not in the sense of it actually happening? How could we tell the difference? I mean, if an Ancient Near East Egyptian or Israelite wanted to tell someone how the cosmos actually came into being (not just a mythical story that has no binding on historical reality), are we automatically supposed to assume that they are incapable of such a task because that kind of narrative just wasn’t the norm for their day? If not, how would we know they were presenting their myth as historical fact, and not as simply made-up and ahistorical?

The Two Polemic Views of Genesis

This liberal polemic theory of Genesis, which assumes that Moses can’t be telling actual history, is confusing on all sides. Did Moses realize he was making up stories that didn’t actually happen? How do we know? And, where on earth does the work of the Holy Spirit in the writing of the Scriptures come in – and, does that not destroy the entire infallibility and trustworthiness of the Scriptures? (listen to my quotes of Bavinck on inerrancy) After all, who is to say any part of the Old Testament (or any of Scripture for that matter) wasn’t the product of deception or unintentional lying by its authors? Were the Israelites really accustomed to believing myths in the sense that deLange argues, or, do they not have the freedom to be curious about the actual historical past, and not simply a “imaginative narrative” that has no binding in the past?

This is why it scares me when people say Calvin College is “liberal” and Dordt is “conservative,” as if being less liberal is to all of a sudden cross a line into “conservative.” (The fact is, when everyone’s on the left and moving further to the left, no one is on the right!) This kind of historical skepticism that liberalism consistently demands is almost breathtaking. And we’ve seen this happen numerous times with Bart Ehrman, Robert Price, etc. It is certainly happening with the Genesis debate.

In any case, DeLange then begins the enterprise of comparing and contrasting different mythologies to demonstrate how Genesis was designed to specifically respond to the false myths of the day.

Clearly, the one option that deLange doesn’t seem to acknowledge is a conservative polemic. That is, the text of Genesis seems to be a refutation of false mythologies, but it remains a historically reliable narrative. DeLange’s essay proves quite useful for liberals and conservatives alike since he gives evidence of the polemic. But, upon what basis do we conclude that Moses made the Genesis story up instead of simply writing down the direct revelation of God as he did with so many other writings? That is, why must we believe that Genesis does not correspond to historical fact just because it’s a possible polemic? One can easily hold to a polemical view of Genesis without denying its historicity.

Before one can make broad, sweeping assertions about Genesis 1 (i.e. Moses made up a bunch of stories that aren’t real, but had great theological truth), we have to at least admit that we know very little about its context, authorship, purpose, date, etc. When we do that, arguing for a liberal-minded polemic theory of Genesis becomes, well, a bit mythological.