#749 NT Authors’ Attitude toward the Primaeval History
September 12, 2021Hi Dr. Craig,
When sharing the Mytho-history view with my friends, One of the common issues that is raised is that the New-testament seems to be committed to the historicity of Noah. I’d like to summarize the points below that are commonly brought up in discussion . . . in order to get your critique and thoughts and wisdom on how you would tackle these points.
Passages for discussion:
2 Peter 2:4-10, The author uses God’s track record in history as evidence as to why the audience should be persuaded towards the righteous path as opposed to the false prophets.
Observation: The force of Peter’s persuasion would be severely undermined if the story were not real. The passage uses Noah alongside Lot. The story of Lot is not mytho-history. There is no indication that Peter is referring to a myth in one illustration and a historical event in the other. The examples flow seamlessly (and chronologically) and are used to illustrate the same point.
Matthew 24:37-39, In this passage Jesus uses the story of Noah as a point of reference to make a truth claim about the way in which the world will appear when Jesus returns.
Observation: Jesus seems to be referring to the Noah story as past history by his use of the phrase “so as in the days of…”. If Jesus believed in a Historical Noah I think we would be committed to that position, even if it wasn’t a part of the assertions of the Bible.
Hebrews 11:7, Noah is noted as an example of faith in which we are to exemplify in our own lives.
Observation: There is nothing to suggest that some people in the list are historical and others are not. Hebrews 12 aggregates Noah in with the others that are historical when it refers to the “great cloud of witnesses”. The force of Hebrews 12:1 is greatly diminished if the witnesses are not actually connected to Israel’s past. It is their reality that makes their example of a life lived well something to emulate.
Aaron
Canada
Dr. craig’s response
A
Aaron, this is the most difficult problem for my view and one that I wrestle with extensively in the book, especially chapter 7, “Adam in the New Testament.” The problem is that while a very plausible case can be made for the mytho-historical genre or function of the primaeval history of Genesis 1-11, that doesn’t seem to be how the New Testament authors understood it. They seem to have taken it to be straightforward history. This has led some scholars to conclude that the New Testament authors just didn’t understand this kind of literature. They were like someone who interprets, for example, Aesop’s Fables literally. That conclusion, however, occasions difficult questions for the Christian who believes in biblical inspiration. The Scriptures, being inspired by God, are true in all that they teach. So how can the NT authors teach incorrectly things like a worldwide flood that wiped out all terrestrial life?
The adherent of divine inspiration must, therefore, maintain that the New Testament authors, whatever their personal beliefs may have been, did not teach that Genesis 1-11 is literal history. This distinction between the authors’ beliefs and their teachings is perfectly plausible and is commonly accepted. For example, the New Testament authors probably believed in a geocentric cosmology, but they did not teach such a doctrine.
So how can it be made plausible that the New Testament authors in referring to events and persons of the primaeval history were not teaching the historicity of the same? Here one may distinguish between an illustrative use of a text and an assertoric use of the text. One can use mythical and fictional texts illustratively to teach certain important theological truths without asserting the historical truth of those texts. We do that all the time with Greek and Roman mythology. We might say, for example, “Trump’s big mouth proved to be his Achilles’ Heel” or “Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan opened a Pandora’s Box for the U.S.” without being committed to the historical truth of the relevant myths.
One of the original contributions of my book is showing that the New Testament authors do precisely this with stories drawn from Jewish folklore, legends, and mythology. If we insist that every illustrative use of such literature commits us to the historicity of the persons and events involved, then we shall find ourselves committed to the historicity of tales such as those of Jannes and Jambres, Michael’s dispute with Satan over the body of Moses, a rolling well that accompanied the Israelis through the desert and supplied them with water during their wilderness wandering, and so on, which nobody wants! If we allow merely illustrative use of such texts, then we must by the same token allow illustrative use of Old Testament texts.
Consider the examples you adduce:
2 Peter 2:4-10: This is one of my showcase passages in support of my claim. Here we find Peter drawing, not upon the Old Testament, but upon Greek mythology for Tartarus and Jewish folklore for Noah the herald of righteousness and Lot the righteous one. We shouldn’t think ourselves committed to such things by Peter’s illustrative use of these examples.
Matthew 24:37-39: Once again we have Jesus using an Old Testament story illustratively to teach a lesson about his second coming in judgement. I agree that Noah was a historical person, but we shouldn’t think ourselves committed to the historicity of the details of the flood story just because Jesus cites the story illustratively.
Hebrews 11:7: This passage is, I think, significantly different. While a fictional character in a story could be used illustratively as an example of faith, what’s different here is that the author goes on to assert the historicity of these persons (Hebrews 11.39-12.1). But that’s no problem for my proposal, for I agree that these Old Testament persons really lived; I just propose that their stories are written in the figurative language of myth.
- William Lane Craig