Excursus on the Origin of Life and Evolution of Biological Complexity (Part 2): Rival Interpretations

Rival Interpretations

Last time we began our excursus on the origin of life and biological diversity. We are looking at Genesis chapter 1 with a view toward understanding the various interpretations of Genesis 1 that have been offered.

1.  Literal Interpretation

                a.  Exposition and Support

The first interpretation that we want to consider is the most straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1 – what we could call the literal interpretation (sometimes called the 24-hour day interpretation). For example, my doctoral mentor, the great systematic theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, cites the eminent German Old Testament scholar Gerhard von Rad in support of the scientific character of Genesis chapter 1. Pannenberg argues that, primitive as it might be, the intention of Genesis 1 is to give a scientific account of the origins of the world and of life.

Before I read the quotation from von Rad, a word of background will be helpful in understanding what he has to say. Old Testament scholars have identified a number of hypothetical sources behind the Pentateuch. One of these is the so-called P document – a hypothetical written source that is supposed to have been written from a priestly perspective; that is to say, the perspective of someone involved in the Levitical sacrifices that are described in the book of Leviticus. Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is usually identified as based upon this hypothetical P source. Von Rad will refer to this priestly document, and so that's what he's talking about when he says the following in his Old Testament Theology:

Pannenberg thinks that such primitive science has now been overtaken by modern science, and therefore it needs to be corrected. But Pannenberg finds motivation in the biblical author’s approach to trying to integrate theology with a scientific view of the world. The science of the P author is now obsolete and no longer valid, but nevertheless his project of trying to integrate theology with science is a worthy one, and we should follow his example in trying to integrate theology with the science of our day.

Similarly, young earth creationists take the aim of Genesis chapter 1 to be to communicate scientific information about the origin of the world and humanity. The difference between young earth creationists and theologians like von Rad and Pannenberg is that the young earth creationists take the account to be accurate. God created the world in six consecutive 24-hour days about ten to twenty thousand years ago. This interpretation reads the text in a prima facie way. That is to say, it takes the text at face value; it takes the text literally.

This raises the question as to what we mean by “literal.” The young earth creationist, Jonathan Sarfati, in his commentary on Genesis 1 to 11 says that young earth creationists are perfectly prepared to recognize metaphors and other figures of speech in Genesis 1 to 11. For example, when the flood narrative says that the windows of heaven were opened, they don't imagine this to mean that there are literal windows in the firmament. Rather, they recognize that this is a metaphor for rain. So by “literal” Sarfati means merely the grammatico-historical meaning of the text which doesn't exclude figurative language.

The problem with Sarfati’s characterization is that it ignores genre and is so general as to be almost useless. Even poetry should be interpreted literally in that sense, namely the grammatico-historical sense. What we want to know is whether Genesis 1 to 11 is to be read as an account of what actually happened.

Sarfati does defend a fundamentally non-figurative interpretation of Genesis 1 to 11 on the grounds that it is of the genre of history. Now we're getting somewhere. The key chapter in Sarfati's commentary justifying his view that Genesis 1 to 11 belonged to the genre of history is chapter 2 entitled “Genesis is History, Not Poetry or Allegory.” Immediately one notes an insufficient range of alternatives. We may all agree that Genesis 1 to 11 is neither poetry nor allegory. These chapters are prose narrative. But that doesn't imply that they belong to the genre of history. Sarfati tends to conflate narrative prose with history. For example, he observes that the early chapters of Genesis frequently use a construction in Hebrew called the “waw-consecutive.” Waw is the Hebrew word for “and.” In the waw-consecutive you have “and” + a verb in the imperfect tense. This is a distinguishing mark of a sequential narrative. A narrative typically begins with a perfect tense verb, and then it continues with imperfect tense verbs. Applying this to Genesis 1, the first verb in Genesis 1 is bara – create. In the beginning God created. That's in the perfect. The subsequent verbs are in the imperfect, and this is exactly what one would expect, Sarfati says, from a historical narrative. The problem is that it's also what one would expect from a non-historical narrative. Myths are narratives, as are folk tales and legends. They relate a story involving a sequence of events, but they're not historical narratives. Sarfati conflates narrative style with historical narrative.

In the section of his chapter entitled “Numerical analysis of the literary genre of Genesis,” he cites a statistical study of the verb forms in the Gensis narrative and in poetic texts. The study shows that Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is statistically classified as narrative with a probability of 0.9999. From this he concludes, “This analysis shows that Genesis is almost certainly historical narrative and not poetry.” This is a non-sequitur. From its being narrative, it doesn't follow that it is history; only that it's not a poem. It is narrative prose, but it doesn't follow that it’s history.

Sarfati goes on to ask: if Genesis were history, how would you expect it to look? He says we can answer that from the style of the undisputed historical books in the Old Testament like Exodus, Joshua, Judges, and Genesis chapters 12 to 50. This argument, however, backfires, for such a comparison is precisely what leads scholars to differentiate Genesis 1 to 11 from such historical narratives. For example, the prominent evangelical Old Testament commentator Gordon Wenham observes that when Genesis 1 to 11 is compared with Genesis chapters 12 to 50 a striking difference emerges. Chapters 1 to 11 are full of parallels with ancient Near Eastern traditions, so that it looks as though Genesis is reflecting these oriental sagas, both positively and negatively. Genesis 12 to 50, by contrast, are quite different, says Wenham. Abraham and his descendants are the exclusive concern of these chapters, and there is no suggestion that the patriarchal stories are adaptations of oriental sagas. Hermann Gunkel, who was one of the earliest proponents of the view that Genesis 1 to 11 has a background in ancient Near Eastern myths, in his book The Legends of Genesis (1901), contrasted the narratives of the early chapters of Genesis precisely with the Old Testament historical books and remarks, “Contrast these narratives with Israelitish historical writing such as the central portion of the second book of Samuel, the most exquisite piece of early historical writing in Israel.”

Sarfati’s mistake may be that he restricts his analysis of literary genre to grammar and style. Those are the two elements that he considers in determining genre – grammar and style. But we must also reckon with the function of a literary text in the culture in which it was read. This is precisely the burden of Old Testament scholar John Collins’ book Reading Genesis Well, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in this subject. Collins’ criticism of those who insist on what is called the “plain meaning of the text,” which ignores function, applies directly to Sarfati’s analysis.

The question is whether the text is of the type that intends the reader to take it literally. Von Rad gives no evidence at all for his view that Genesis 1 is primitive science. He simply asserts it. Clearly, Genesis chapters 1 to 3 are intended to be historical on some level at least. Adam and Eve, for example, are presented in chapters 2 and 3 as the first couple of the human race – the progenitors of the entire human race. Adam and Eve are treated as historical individuals, not just symbols of mankind but as actual people who are connected to descendants by the genealogies in Genesis 1 to 11 and finally to indisputable historical figures like Abraham. And we mustn't overlook, after all, the central figure of Genesis 1 to 11, namely God himself. God is clearly not meant to be just a symbol or a mythological figure, but a real personal agent who created the world and humanity and then goes on to call the nation of Israel to be his special people. So the central figure of the Genesis narrative is a literal personal individual who is the creator of the world and the God of Israel.

On the other hand, the Genesis narrative is undoubtedly also meant to be symbolic or metaphorical in certain respects. For example, the name Adam (the name of the first man) just is the Hebrew word for man. And Eve is interpreted by the author to mean “the mother of all living.” So Adam and Eve are not just historical individuals, but they also represent humanity. Adam is, in a sense, every man created by God. In the stories of the creation and fall of man in Genesis 2-3, moreover, we clearly have metaphorical or anthropomorphic descriptions of God. God is described as walking in the garden and looking for Adam and Eve and calling, “Where are you?” They're hiding from God, and God must find them. Similarly, when God creates man, it says that he fashions him out of the dust of the earth and then breathes into his nostrils the breath of life. Clearly this is not intended to be a kind of literal CPR that God performs on Adam by blowing into his nose. So there are also literary and metaphorical devices that are plausibly being used in these chapters.

In fact, the whole narrative in Genesis chapter 1 is an elaborately crafted piece of Hebrew literature. It is truly unique. As I already said, it is not poetry. It is not a hymn. But it's not just straightforward prose either. Collins calls it “exalted prose.” It is a highly stylized piece of writing with a certain parallelism that is characteristic of poetry. For example, you have repeated again and again “and God said . . . and God made . . . and it was so” on the various creative days. It’s a carefully, stylistically structured chapter that exhibits a great deal of literary polish. Even the number of the Hebrew letters in Genesis 1 is carefully chosen. So it's not just a simple scientific or historical report of what happened. Therefore, most evangelical exegetes will say that these narratives are meant to be taken in a sense that is both historical and figurative. The underlying historical events actually happened, but nevertheless the narrative is told using imagery or figurative speech that shouldn't be pressed for literal precision.

So Genesis 1 seems to be a kind of historical but figurative genre of writing. That is to say, it covers historical events but using figurative language to describe them.