**NOTE - I disagree with the "mytho-historical" approach to Genesis 1-11, and I believe that Craig and others who hold to this position are wrong. I am here, simply presenting how they came to that view.
Mytho-history can be understood as narratives that blend mythical or legendary elements with historical facts or settings. These stories might not be strictly accurate in historical terms but serve to convey deeper cultural, moral, or existential truths through a historical framework. This method of understanding has been applied to the first book of the Bible, particularly Genesis, chapters 1-11. Today, one of the well-known proponents of this approach is William Lane Craig. Why does Craig land there?
William Lane Craig's approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis, including the story of Adam and Eve, draws from a combination of biblical scholarship, historical theology, philosophy, and scientific findings. His rationale stems primarily from his view that Genesis 1-11, particularly the creation and flood accounts, should be read as a type of "mytho-historical" literature rather than as straightforward history. He has stated that he has never been a proponent of a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Here are some key factors influencing his interpretation:
1. Genre Analysis and Ancient Near Eastern Context
Craig argues that understanding the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 is critical. He believes that these chapters incorporate elements of mythology common to ancient Near Eastern cultures but are presented with a historical orientation unique to the Hebrew Scriptures. In his view, the text is not pure myth nor purely historical but a blend he calls "mytho-history." He sees this genre as containing figurative or symbolic language meant to convey theological truths rather than literal historical details. For instance, he interprets Adam and Eve as historical figures but does not take every detail about them in Genesis 2-3 literally. Dr. Craig is often influenced by scholarship and in this regard, he was influenced heavily by two men (Bill Arnold and Thorkild Jacobsen).
Arnold has published extensively, with notable works including Encountering the Old Testament (co-authored with Bryan E. Beyer), a widely used textbook that introduces students to Old Testament studies, as well as Genesis in the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series. In his scholarship, he emphasizes the literary, cultural, and theological nuances of Old Testament texts, often examining how ancient Near Eastern contexts inform our understanding of Genesis and other foundational books. His work also explores themes of covenant, creation, and the theological message of the Old Testament as a unified whole.
Arnold suggests that parts of Genesis, particularly Genesis 1-11, might be better understood through a genre-sensitive reading that considers both theological intent and literary form (i.e., "mytho-history"). This perspective began to inform Craig’s own approach when he heard Arnold at a conference on "Creation in Trinity." It was during this lecture that Arnold mentioned the name and work of Thorkild Jacobsen, who had done work on Genesis, especially in seeing Genesis as "mytho-history." Craig uses this term to describe a blend of core historical content mingled with mythic elements.
Thorkild Jacobsen is an Assyriologist. Jacobsen is considered a renowned historian of ancient Near Eastern literature. He popularized the modern concept of "mytho-history" to describe narratives that blend mythical elements with historical facts. He analyzed the Sumerian creation account, known as the Eridu Genesis, and identified parallels with the biblical Genesis, such as themes of creation, kingship, city-building, and a great flood. Jacobsen argued that both accounts share a chronological sequence of cause and effect and include historical genealogies, suggesting they belong to the genre of mytho-history.
Craig draws upon Arnold's and Jacobsen's insights to support his view that Genesis 1-11 should be read as mytho-history. This approach acknowledges the presence of mythical elements while maintaining that the narratives convey historical and theological truths. By integrating Jacobsen's genre analysis, Craig contends that the early Genesis chapters are not purely mythical but are historical narratives presented in a mythological framework.
It is evident here that one must be extremely careful whom one allows to be an influence in one's life. Sometimes "scholars" are easily influenced by other "scholars. Smart people can be wrong, and we shouldn't necessarily follow them just because they are smart!
2. Philosophical and Theological Reasoning
Craig’s philosophical background also shapes his approach. He is known for applying rigorous logical analysis to questions of biblical interpretation and Christian doctrine. In reconciling Genesis with the scientific understanding of the universe’s age and humanity's origins, Craig argues that reading Genesis 1-11 figuratively aligns with theological convictions about God’s nature and the Bible's inspiration without requiring a strict literalism that would conflict with scientific evidence.
3. Scientific Considerations
Craig states that he has never been a "young earth" creationist. Craig acknowledges what he considers to be the vast evidence from fields such as cosmology, geology, and evolutionary biology, which points to an ancient universe and the gradual emergence of human beings. Rather than dismissing this evidence, Craig incorporates it into his interpretation, seeing it as consistent with a figurative reading of the early Genesis chapters. He is especially influenced by evolutionary science and paleoanthropology, which he believes are compatible with a non-literal reading of Adam and Eve's story.
Craig remains committed to the authority of Scripture and aims for an interpretation that is theologically coherent and faithful to the text’s intended message. For him, the figurative approach to Genesis 1-11 preserves the Bible's theological truths—such as humanity's fall, the need for salvation, and God as Creator—while allowing for a nuanced interpretation that does not conflict with modern scientific understanding.
This has consistently been Craig's downfall: Seeking to harmonize biblical narrative with "modern scientific understanding." He seems to fail in the realization that there is a legitimate scientific understanding that does not do violence to the biblical text.
4. Historical Theology and Church Tradition
Craig also draws on the insights of various church fathers and scholars throughout church history who viewed certain aspects of Genesis as figurative. For example, early theologians like Augustine and Origen did not always interpret Genesis 1-3 literally and instead saw it as using symbolic language. Augustine, in particular, speculated on the nature of time and creation in ways that align with some non-literal interpretations. This historical precedent provides Craig with theological support for reading Genesis as a mytho-history rather than a strictly historical narrative.
Craig has chosen this avenue despite the Church Fathers who did not lean in this direction: Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 236 AD), Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD), Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240 AD), Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325 AD), Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306 – 373 AD),, John Chrysostom (c. 347 – 407 AD),
In summary, Craig’s justification for reading Genesis figuratively is rooted in genre analysis, philosophical reasoning, scientific evidence, historical theology, and a desire for theological coherence. He believes that a mytho-historical interpretation allows Christians to affirm the spiritual truths of Genesis while engaging responsibly with scientific knowledge about the world.
Comments