The rationale for such a statement is that a good portion of the biblical texts were written in a genre that was never meant to be understood literally. Therefore, to read these texts literally will result in a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what its authors and/or editors were trying to communicate. In other words, reading each biblical text in a way that is consistent with its specific genre is what taking the Bible seriously demands.
A genre is a category of literature identified by form, content, and style. Genres allow literary critics and studies to classify compositions within the larger canon of literature. Genre is derived from the French word meaning "kind" or "type." We must read and understand any literature according to the "rules" that govern its genre. For example, we would not read poetry in the same way we would read a biography or a newspaper article.
The literary texts which comprise the Bible represent many different genres, sometimes even within the context of the same text. For example, the book of Exodus is made up of the genres of prose, poetry and law, to name only the main ones. Within the vast array of biblical texts, we would not read the book of Revelation or the last six chapters of Daniel in the same way as the Gospel of Luke or Leviticus or Proverbs.
The bottom line is that a significant portion of the texts found in the Bible are written in genres that are not meant to be taken literally. A good example, familiar to most Bible readers, is found in the parables of Jesus as recorded mainly in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matthew, Mark and Luke). Parable was the main genre Jesus used when teaching both the crowds and his disciples (Matthew 13:34). If we try to understand them literally, we would be confused and probably miss the point(s) that Jesus was trying to make. This is evidenced by the many times that either the crowds and/or the disciples did not understand the point of a particular parable (Matthew 13:36). Such figurative language as used in the parables, in poetic texts and in apocalyptic texts, is not to be read and interpreted literally. "It means what it says" does not apply to non-literal genres.
So both Brenner and Enns are trying to tell us that we are only taking the Bible seriously when we accept the reality of various genres in the biblical texts and thus read and strive to understand each text according to the "rules" or "principles" that govern its genre. Let's consider a portion of biblical text that is highly debated as to its genre and thus its interpretation: Genesis 1–11.
Does taking Genesis 1–11 seriously mean that it is to be read as literal history, and as scientifically and geographically accurate in every respect? Most conservative evangelicals and virtually all fundamentalists insist that to not read these chapters as the literal account of God's creation of the universe and mankind's first several centuries of existence, is to do misunderstand and to misrepresent the biblical text. However, some serious problems arise when we take these chapters as literal historical account. A literal understanding results in contradictions that must be reconciled and involves clear conflicts with accepted scientific and geographic knowledge that cannot be ignored.
However, when we compare much of the content of these opening chapters with the literature of the ancient Near East, (e.g., Egyptian and Mesopotamian), one easily recognizes many striking similarities which clearly indicate that these stories were transmitted as mythical accounts. While the Israelite authors made significant changes to the earlier written texts of neighbouring cultures, the genre is obviously the same. What the authors/editors of the final form of Genesis did was to shift from a polytheistic to a monotheistic perspective in order to give credit to their God alone. For them, the gods of the all other civilizations were either irrelevant or non-existent. Yahweh is the only true God, the creator, sustainer and Lord of the universe.
It is important to understand that "myth" does necessarily mean false. Even in modern usage of the word, the idea that myth is "an unfounded or false notion" is only one possible definition. The definition that best conforms to the ancient understanding of myth is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." The Koine Greek word (μῦθος = mythos) from which our English word "myth" comes means "a speech, word, saying; a story; a true narrative; a fiction, a fable or invention, a falsehood." When used in the New Testament, one must read the word in its context to determine which definition of "myth" is under consideration.
I am trying here to dispel the basic idea we have that "myth" equals something false or contrived with evil intent to lead people away from truth and faith in the God of the Bible. A myth is a story that can communicate truth or falsehood. Aesop's fables were not true (historically or scientifically), but they are intended to communicate relational and ethical truth. The stories that the authors of Genesis used in its first eleven chapters were designed to communicate truth and to demonstrate some of the differences between their God and the gods of other ancient Near East civilizations.
Yet, if we insist on reading these stories as historically, scientifically and geographical accurate depictions of the creation of the universe and the earliest centuries of human experience, we are forced to defend the indefensible. That is, a literal understanding of these chapters forces us to be hermeneutical illusionists in order to explain away internal contradictions. As well, a literal interpretation results in a worldview that is in direct conflict with accepted historical, scientific and geographic knowledge. Worse yet, we will miss the greater theological, spiritual and ethical truths the authors were trying to communicate.
If we take the Bible seriously then we will acknowledge that significant portions of the biblical texts are written in genres that were never meant to be read and understood literally. For further study:
- "Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1–11" by C. John Collins.
- "Origins: The Ancient Impact and Modern Implications of Genesis 1–11" by Douglas Jacoby and Paul Copan.
- "The Lost World of Genesis One" by John H. Walton.
No comments:
Post a Comment