Genesis as Incarnational Myth? Peter Enns on Inspiration and Incarnation
EDIT: Since writing this post I have now conducted a review of the book, which you can read here on my site.
For those that still aren’t decided on how they interpret the Genesis creation account (young earth, old earth, theistic evolution, etc.), let me throw another wildcard at ya. Check out Peter Enns and his book, “Inspiration and Incarnation.” In it, he proposes (as has been done before) that the Bible is an incarnational book, both human and divine. God incarnationally meets humanity where it is at; in its culture, in its time, in its language. To paraphrase a recent reading in McKnight, God “speaks in Adam’s day in Adam’s way, in Jacob’s day in Jacob’s way, in Moses’ day in Moses’ way, in David’s day in David’s way,” etc.
Enns’ proposition is that perhaps Genesis 1-11 is God incarnationally meeting people in their culture and time, which in this ancient setting would have been in the literary genre of “epic myth.” According to his proposition (or my understanding of it), Genesis is not strictly a prose/poetry document to debate how to interpret (old or young earth?), but rather an inspired alternative account of human origin in the form of literary myth, as opposed to the pagan myths of the time. (It is important to note that in literary terms, “myth” does not mean “false;” but rather is a genre to communicate truth) Therefore, the Genesis account is God’s inspired version of a creation myth, to witness to and contrast with such competing myths as the Babylonian “Epic of Gilgamesh” and “Enuma Elish.”
A couple months ago, Enns was removed from left his position as a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, due to the controversy and disputes that arose amongst the faculty at Westminster.
Whether the theory is true or not, it absolutely makes perfect sense. If God were to reveal himself to us today, he would not use 43rd-century revelations; he would reveal himself in a 21st-century understanding, that we can meet him at. Genesis 1-11 narrates proto-historic events, which are hard to date on the historic scale (even if the events were recorded by Moses or a contemporary, circa 1400 BCE). One reason I am an old-earth creationist is because I do not believe Genesis 1 is a 21st-century scientific textbook, where each “day” of creation is an empirical unit of measurement. Could Enns’ hypothesis take this one step further, to say that neither is it traditional poetry to interpret as “old earth,” but rather literary myth altogether?
Whether you welcome it or are repulsed by it, it surely is fascinating. But I am definitely favorably inclined toward it.
You can see more of my thoughts on old-earth/young-earth at “Science and Faith: General Revelation and Special Revelation.”
-ACR
My name is Aaron Rathburn. I am a senior in philosophy at Calvin College, and formerly studied at Trinity School of Theology (Wales, UK). I am a husband, and father of two. This site is a collection of musings on theology, culture, and more. 
This sounds like an intriguing book. Based on the overview you give of his theory, I am inclined to view it quite favourably. I agree that it is an unfortunate error to read Genesis 1 as a scientific account. In my recent studies, I am less and less eager to attempt to nail down the exact nature of the earlier chapters of Genesis and more and more inclined simply to ask, what is it that God is teaching us about Himself and the origin and nature of our world. Seeing Genesis as an inspired, alternative creation myth seems to me to fit it very well (though this is not, as you rightly point out, to relegate it to mere fiction).
I admit that this thought would surely astound many evangelical Christians, but I am surprised, based on the extent of what you’ve written, that it would lead to his removal from WTS. I’m sure a fuller picture of the matter would make it clearer.
Lastly, all of this reminds me very much of my short time studying Jewish midrashic literature in Israel. Our rabbi had quite a time trying to show a group of American university students that whether or not a particular story is factually accurate is not really the most helpful question to ask.
I am also quite compelled by it, although it certainly throws by mind for a loop as to a whole new slew of questions. If literary myth, what is the historicity of the Eden account? I am certain Enns will have answered such questions in his book (I hope!), but I have it on my Amazon wishlist nonetheless.
It wasn’t the book or theory that removed Enns, but rather an internal faculty debate about the nature and direction of WTS. Should WTS be a bastion of the Reformation, or a mix of old-and-new? WTS was actually formed by splitting off of Princeton Theological Seminary, which began to slide into liberalism. So perhaps the administration wanted to maintain its conservative roots, and Enns would fit into the “Princeton” wing of the split.
Either way, you can certainly believe this theory and still be “evangelical” if it refers to taking scripture as the entire inspired word of God.
But it’s very interesting!
-ACR
It is interesting that the word ‘myth’ is usually referred to as a false story. But, in actuality, the word really refers to a ‘fictional’ story to explain a truth. Hence, the Greeks used myth (fictional story) to explain real truths about their gods. I think it is Eldredge who hits on this in his short book, Epic.
It is also good to note that Genesis 1 is more written as a poem, not prose. Don’t you remember the teaching those first days at BCW.
So, Genesis 1, itself, was not written to tell us how long it took, but rather to tell us who did it and the beauty of it all.
To consider how God would reveal Himself to a modern day, 21st century, western Christian is always interesting to ponder. Maybe it is in such a form as The Shack.
Hehe, good thoughts, Scott. Great post for fleshing out the concept of a myth.
I am one of the biggest proponents of Geneses 1:1-2:3 as poetry, so I should have clarified that in my post. Oh well =).
Gordon Wenham, in his Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis 1-15, outlines a phenomenal, pointed exposition of the Hebrew poetry of the text. I actually photocopied it and brought it across the ocean, because it was so good, hehe. I plan on doing a blog post about it sometime.
-ACR
Good post Chachi – I have no problem with Enns’ thesis either. To be honest I am far more excited by the thought of a God who reveals himself incarnationally and contextually, in the language of his hearers, than any young/old earth debate. I think the first point says far more about God’s nature than the latter.
)
One thing to consider, regarding the historicity of the Eden account:
The New Testament narratives and expositions all seem to take a position where Adam is a literal, historical figure. In genealogies, Adam is listed alongside Abraham and David. Paul in Romans 5 contrasts Adam and Jesus as the two figureheads of humanity.
It looks like it would be worth reading Enns’ full proposition in his book!
-ACR
Indeed!
I don’t have any problem seeing Adam as a literal figure, and it is an interesting debate, I just don’t know how useful it is for anything other than provoking discussion. Why do we need to prove Genesis’ historicity? For reasons of apologetics? To make it seem reasonable to a scientific culture? I think you and I both agree, Chachi, that such evidential apologetics have a limited usefulness.
Saying that Genesis is scientific fact and can be ‘proven’ on such grounds says very little to me about WHO God is, and if God’s self-revelation is the purpose of the Scriptures, then I find the debate to be pretty much irrelevant (although it may be, as I say, interesting).
By the way, I definitely think you would do well to compliment your new glasses with a nice bushy beard – maybe you could look into getting implants. I genuinely feel you would do yourself a disservice if you were to leave your chin bare.
Alas, my British facial-hair-growing-friend: I have too much Japanese blood to get any hair to pop out of my face =(. Maybe implants is the way to go. In Wales I had a small scruffy-chin-thing going, hehe ;-D.
I think my question isn’t so much Genesis standing on its own (to which I agree with your assessment), but the New Testament author’s understanding of Genesis and its historicity. Does the fact that Adam appears in genealogies like everyone else, and the fact that Adam is contrasted with Christ, lead us against this proposition that Genesis 1-11 is merely mythological in nature? It appears that the New Testament authors (inspired by the Spirit) may not have understood it this way.
-ACR
Gotcha, yeah I agree. To be honest, I find it unlikely that the issue was even in their thinking.
I agree completely, it’s not likely that it would have crossed their mind. But that’s what I’m getting at-
If the NT writers (inspired by the Spirit) understand the Eden account in a certain way, shouldn’t we understand it the same way? Suggesting, hypothetically, that the NT writers do not have this mythological understanding of the Genesis account.
That’s more along the lines of what I mean. But either way, it looks like we just have to read the book, lol.
I think that even if subsequent genealogies and Paul’s statements in Romans 5 speak of Adam, this does not determine one way or the other if Genesis 1 is mythical or literal history. I think Paul and the genealogies are rather drawing on the written revelation of Genesis 1 that Adam is stated as the first man (Eve as the first woman). Therefore, to point back to the writing of Genesis 1 when speaking of Adam, or Eve, does not affirm or negate whether Genesis 1 is mythical story or literal history. It just simply is a pointing back to the revelation in making the point.
Yet, something else to consider: Many think Job was a mythical figure of which a beautiful poem was created to make the major point of the book – the suffering of the righteous. Yet Ezekiel and James refer to him later on (Ezk 14:14, 20 and James 5:11). It seems they refer to him as expecting he was a literal historical person who did exist. And, also something to consider is that, if Job was not real, doesn’t it take away the importance of the book and its theme? If you read such a poetic story about the suffering of the righteous and it speaks to your life, only to find out later this guy never even existed, wouldn’t it be like pulling the rug out from underneath your feet?
Just some thoughts.
I lean towards Adam being a literal historical person, but I am ok if he is not, but rather it is an incarnational myth-story in making a bigger point in the meta-narrative of Scripture.
I wonder why those so called scholars who do not at all believe that the Bible is inspired by God try to dance around an area they know nothing about. I say this is because it is evident that they do not know him, and have shown what fools they are.
what will they reply when they stand at the judgement bar when HE says welll! What do you have to say for yourself now.
What makes anyone think that God has to talk to people like they were three year old children. As I understand it those institutions of higher learning were a bastion of truth as concerning the word of God at one time….such a pity.
I personally espouse the teachings of the Dake Bible concerning the issue at hand. And I do believe the Bible is the only inspired written word from Him on the planet bar none, I’m not referring to versions per say because reading different ones you can get a fair overview. “Havinng my say” again one must invoke God in Jesus name for true understnding and wisdom of HIS word
In Christ Jesus
Audrey O’Hanlon….Maranatha
Thank-you for bringing this book to my attention. The great 19th century hermeneutist Milton Terry would have agreed with that premise. He calls Genesis 1-11 “Apocalyptic Creation.” The early church believed the days of Genesis 1 were prophetic, looking forward, not literal periods of time in the past.
P. J. Wiseman showed that Genesis 1-11 had precisely the form you’d expect if the original was written on clay tablets in Sumerian well before 2000 BC and that Genesis 12-16 looked like the original was written on ancient clay tablets in Akkadian between 2000 BC and 1600 BC.
Yehuda Radday’s work shows an evolution in the vocabulary and evidence for several unique narrators who all wrote before the time of Moses.
Walton compares Genesis 1 to ancient Mesopotamian Temple dedications.
All of this evidence points to Genesis being a written document, far older than Moses and suggests that the “creation” in Genesis 1 is not the creation of the physical heavens and earth, but of some other entity. It is a document that belongs to a culture that was as distant to Moses as Moses’ Egypt is to ours.
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Coauthor Beyond Creation Science
JL -
Could it be that the Hebrew canonical book of Genesis was Moses’ recording of those original tablets? We know Moses would have had to have sources to draw from in recording the whole book of Genesis (though some would simply claim he had visions and revelations). So I wonder if Genesis 1 was penned by Moses as he considered those tablets, all the while being directed by the Spirit of God. Or maybe that is what you believe, just trying to clarify.
In our church we are studying the Awareness Course by the Trinity Foundation of Christianity and Culture. You may have heard of Father Nadim Nassar, who co-wrote the course, from his association with Alan Scotland. This approach to mythology is very similar to the line taken there.
I think my biggest concern with the historicity of Genesis 1-11 is that *IF* (and this is a big IF) the New Testament writers assume he is a literal, historical person (genealogies, etc), then we should as well. Scripture interprets scripture, and we can better understand the Old in the light of the New.
I think I have heard Nadim Nassar speak, does he do work with Muslims?
-ACR
Chachi-
I completely agree with your statement. If Paul sees Adam as a literal, historical figure, then I believe he was. The thing is we have to see if that premise can be established from Paul’s writing.
A new interesting thought to throw in their is that we should consider Paul’s other letters concerning Adam – 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14. It is possible that he sees Adam as real, historical person in at least the Timothy context.
Not to mention that 1 Chron 1:1 lists Adam in a genealogy and Luke 3:38 lists Adam as part of Christ’s genealogy. I wonder if this helps point to a theology about the historicity of Adam.
But, also, could Paul not have referred to Adam as a real historical person, and yet not know that he was a mythical character used to teach a truth? Just wondering. Or maybe he is just by-passing trying to explain the whole deep thing about Adam being ‘mythical’ and just working with the simple assumption that Adam was a real person?
It’s tougher than we first think.
It definitely has a lot of complicated ramifications!
I am least interested in the idea that Genesis is mythological if Paul understood it to be literal. It is technically a possibility, and even (I would argue) still under the umbrella of “evangelical,” but if Paul took as literal, I am most hospitable to the idea that we should, too (although again, it probably isn’t mandatory).
Looks like we definitely have to buy and read the book, hehe. Only $10 on Amazon!