The Theological Ruminator
That's really interesting, John Mark. Many parts of the Bible are written as reactions to various occassions of heresy in or around the church.
The point of Genesis seems to be more about telling the nature of our relationship with God and with each other. I dont think it was ever meant as a scientific description of what happened.
Well, I kinda agree with you Brian. The problem is many have been teaching Gen 1-3 from a "scientific" perspective for a while now and some even use it as a test (dare I say "circumcision"?) of orthodoxy. If you don't hold to a literal 6 day creation, then you're not truly biblical or something. Obviously, the key is understanding the genre of the text. Is it meant to be a historical account or is it meant to be a literary device against the major mythological system the Hebrew people would have been fighting after coming out of Egypt?
I don't think this is new; I've been aware of the polemic argument for sometime. Even the Egyptian angle has been discussed. I'm pretty sure an evangelical archeoligist (John Currid)tackled it in the 90's (I don't know if he was pro or con)and a quick check on ATLA showed at least 10 articles dating as early as the 1960's. Admittedly, most were in German, which may make it a newer discussion in the U.S. But I didn't research the secondary sources like I was going to write on it either, so I may have missed a ton. My guess is that it's been discussed a good bit. FWIW, I'm not an OT guy but I find this avenue very compelling as well.
I've always thought that the Meso and Egyptian myths shared the same historical referant as the Bible - thus the similarities. I personally have never held to a 6 day creation and thus view the beginning of Genesis as literary and more allegorical explanation concerning God's nature and our relation (as said above) then a detailed historical account of creation. I once wrote a paper on The Epic of Gilgamesh as a creation account, in fact - I thought it was good, but it probably wasn't. Gen 1 and 2 are often spoken of in such a way, however, Gen 3 is usually held to a stricter historicity. Interesting. Anyway, who's your Hebrew prof?
Roy - don't bust my chops. At least let me "feel" cutting edge.
Matt - the prof is Gordon Johnston. He's a blast.
Good comments,all.
Matt - I also agree on the reservations on Gen 3. That's me exactly, but apparently, the Egyptian mythological parallels/contrasts are VERY strong there as well.
Why wouldn't the parallels be strong in Gen. 3? Even if there is a shift in purpose--why else the retelling of the story?--the general milieu is still one of a culture overshadowed by Egypt and, probably, Ugarit. We have trouble comprehending this because we are the dominant culture. But think of what the world calls a soft drink. I'm sure that Moses (nod to your next item!!) was no different.
I think that strong parallels would demonstrate a strong case of Gen 3 as historical fact. Think of the Bible as the depicting the true historical referant, of which other stories and myths tell of. You'd think there would be similarities. If there weren't any similarities - I would assume that it would hurt arguments for Biblical "truth."
Hi Matt, I don't know you but John Mark assures me you're not as ugly as he is.
I don't think your argument follows. You have to assume the historicity of Genesis 3 before you can say that the parallels have that type of meaning. Why couldn't I simply substitute "Enuma Elish" or "Khepri" any place you have "Genesis 3, " "Bible" or "biblical"? (Kheprical truth?? 
)
This also ignores the fact that the Egyptian stuff, in particular, predates Genesis by at least 1,000 years.
At best, I think the parallels can only demonstrate that there was a common pool of material from which various ANE cultures derived their creation myths. In positing that one has a greater claim to historicity, I think you have to first show how others derive from it and how it does not derive from others. Sort of like textual criticism for mythology!
Along those lines, wouldn't a certain degree of uniqueness be preferred in a story that was decidedly late as opposed to uniformity
Along those lines, wouldn't a certain degree of uniqueness be preferred in a story that was decidedly late as opposed to uniformity with stories of much older material?
Roy - sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean the Bible itself as the historical referant but the Biblical story - the story that the Bible records. The story recorded in the Bible is the historical referant of which other myths are derived. It could be argued that the Bible's version is the most correct version. However, you are right in that any story could be argued as such. I simply meant that similarities among cultural myths support a true historical event.
I'm not as ugly as John Mark.
Commenting by HaloScan
