Bob,

I can’t speak for JR. (although I think he’d agree with me). For me, though, a history of religions approach doesn’t fare well when it comes to Jesus because the Gospels present him as a man of his time. That is to say that he is a figure that fits quite well into the scheme of Second Temple Judaism. Events such as miracles/signs and even the resurrection fit well into the apocalyptic expectation that laced the air during his day. In short, those lines of argumentation are far more durable (but not air-tight) than those that seek to pit the Jesus of history against the Christ of faith (a la Jesus Seminar); the two are one and the same.

Again, there is so much more to say, but time’s not on my side.

“For me, it was seeing two very different creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1:1-2:4 follows the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation epic in order of creation. We know that the Elish predates Genesis by at least 1,000 years.”

Well, there are numerous “scholars” who argue that many of the aspects of Christ’s life (the resurrection in particular) which are just borrowed from earlier myth as well. Why do you accept this line of reasoning for Genesis but not the Gospel accounts?

Next you write:
“Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 in some important ways. For instance, Adam was created before the plants and animals in 2, and Eve created last.”

Again, you yourself have said that the geneologies in Luke and Matthew are contradictory accounts. When it comes to what you see as a contradiction in Genesis’ historical accounts you come to the conclusion that it is quasi-historical, however, when (according to you) there is a contradiction in the testimonies surrounding the life of Jesus you don’t treat the gospels as quasi-historical or myth?

I can’t help but see this as anything but an unbalanced scale and an unequal weight. The same arguments (which I of course do not accept in either case thus this isn’t a problem for me) you level against Genesis can and have been leveled against the Gospel accounts themselves one of which you yourself pointed out as a “contradiction”. Given that, I can’t see how you can reach different verdicts as to the historicity of these different narratives without being inconsistent to your own arguments.

There are other ramifications as well, but this is just [what] stands out to me in light of your most recent comment on this subject.

And it looks like I am no longer the sole “liberal” that hangs out occasionally around here.

And this thread has surpassed our previous record of 47 comments of me and come crazy guy (who threatened to sue me) arguing!

Smiles and I also went at it for a while, but I don’t know if it got this long. I can’t seem to find that fun thread. Ah… here it is. I guess it was only 19 comments. Fun times.

I would recommend that you check any pretty decent Intro to Old Testament History.  These are fairly accepted scholarly opinions that you can find in any critical introduction.  I would refer you especially to the writings of Walter Brueggemann.

Also, I tried to convey that that was my thought process.  After my study and in my opinion, that seems to be the most compelling explanation.  So, I suppose I could footnote myself, but that might get redundant :)

As an example, when you someone says

…in the face of what clearly seemed to be Genesis copying the Elish

I would like to know where one could go and in what resource one would find this postulate.

I ask this in all sincerity and humility. Thanks friends.

There was a time in my hermeneutical journey (that is still far from over, I assure you) where I was at a crisis point such as you described – If I choose not to take Genesis literally, then mustn't I throw out everything else?  What settled it for me was the question "What was the point of the original writing?"  Of course, this is an unknowable question – we can't know for sure what the original writing context was; we only have our best guesses (and so I think a good deal of humility must be offered up with any interpretation).

For me, it was seeing two very different creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis 1:1-2:4 follows the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation epic in order of creation.  We know that the Elish predates Genesis by at least 1,000 years.  And so, in the face of what clearly seemed to be Genesis copying the Elish, I had to ask myself "Why would God allow, much less inspire such a thing?"  I came to see that Genesis as we now have it dates to the post-Exilic period, which was a time in which the Hebrew people was watching their unique identity as God's chosen people be subsumed into the larger Babylonian culture.  I came to read Genesis 1 as a piece of subversive, identity-affirming literature.  The authors, far from attempting to be historical, were intentionally taking Babylonian myth and stripping it of its gods and themes in order to make very important statements about the character of Yahweh and his people.

Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 in some important ways.  For instance, Adam was created before the plants and animals in 2, and Eve created last.  There is no mention of days in 2, while an essential piece of 1 is the reinforcement of the 7-day week and the Sabbath rest, as well as the festivals and Hebrew calendar (day 4).  While the texts are factually contradictory (and yes, I've read the literalist/historical attempts to reconcile them; I find them utterly non-compelling), I see them to be very much thematically compatible and complementary (but not complementarian).

So in looking at the Genesis accounts, and in looking at the final redacted piece that is Genesis 1-11, I saw that the point was not to offer a compelling historical narrative of the origins of the Earth; rather, it was to tell a story that shaped and drove the people of God to be the people of God.  I think that to ask how many facts the story contains is to miss the point of the narratives.  It may indeed, as Tom commented earlier, a worthy pursuit, but it is not one with which I concern myself.  (in contrast, part of the stated point of the Gospels is to provide compelling historical evidence for the life and work of Jesus, especially in Luke and John)

Does that help to clarify my position at all?

That’s one of those “Have you stopped beating your wife?” sort of questions. The issue isn’t “bigness” of God, everybody’s accusing opposing theologies of “putting God in boxes”, the issue is did He in inspiring Genesis 1-11 give us real history or is it myth (quasi-history as JR put it) for the mere purpose of teaching lessons.

JR, you are right, as far as your main point in the post a mythological/truly historical view has little bearing. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, to think that way is pragmatism. My issue is that you have no Biblical reason to treat the text that way. Also, as far as domino effects are concerned, I wonder why you don’t treat the Gospel accounts in the same manner. What would you say to dissuade someone from holding that the narratives of Christ feeding 5000 or walking on water are just stories intended to teach a “God inspired message”? These things didn’t really happen but it’s the message in them effecting us that counts. I mean the point is still there, right?