Are the early chapters of Genesis a historical account?
We will not bore the reader with the different accepted definitions of what we mean by “history.” As important as these careful definitions are to scholarship, it is beyond our aim here. Suffice it to say, by “history,” we simply mean that the events recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis actually occurred in reality. To borrow a phrase from the late Francis Schaeffer, the events in Genesis occurred in real “space and time.”[1] That is, the events of the early chapters of Genesis actually happened.
Genesis is history
It is beyond our aim to give a robust case for why the events in Genesis are true. The aim of this paper is to identify what the author intended when he wrote these accounts. Did he intend them to be accurate accounts of the past? We think so.
First, it would be odd to treat the Bible as historical, but Genesis as mythological. Think about this. If we take the rest of the Bible to recount real events, why would we understand its foundational chapters as mere myths? After all, God is the central figure of Genesis 1:1-2:3, being mentioned more times than there are verses (36 times in 34 verses). If Genesis 1 is mythological, then is God himself also a myth?
Second, the expression “this is the account of…” (tôlēdôt) connects Genesis from beginning to end. This Hebrew term (tôlēdôt) literally means “generations.” It comes from the Hebrew root word (yld) that means “beginnings” or “births.”[2] The text of Genesis uses it 11 times (Gen 2:4; 5:2; 6:9a; 10:1; 11:10a, 11:27a; 25:12, 25:19a; 36:1, 36:9; 37:2). This structure “indicates that the narratives should be understood as historical, focusing on the origins of Israel back to Adam and Eve, the first human couple and parents of all humanity.”[3]
Therefore, it is spurious to think that one section of Genesis is mythical (Gen. 1-11), while the rest of the book is historical (Gen. 12-50). This is simply an “artificial division imposed on the text by modern interpreters, not one self-evident in the text of Genesis.”[4] Those who claim otherwise must shoulder the full burden of proof to convince us of a split between Genesis 1-11 and the rest of the book.
Third, the grammar and syntax of Genesis implies typical Hebrew prose narrative. Genesis uses what is called the waw-consecutive. The Hebrew letter waw (vav) means “and.” Genesis 1 uses the waw-consecutive 51 times (“And God said… And God saw…”). This grammatical structure is rare in Hebrew poetry, but is common with Hebrew prose narrative.[5] Furthermore, Genesis 1 uses the word ‘eth as the direct object, which is rare in poetry, but common in historical prose.[6]
Fourth, Genesis 1-3 contains historical references. Even critical scholars recognize historical markers in the early chapters of Genesis. For instance, referring to the four rivers mentioned in Genesis 2, critical scholar Gerhard Von Rad states, “This strangely profound section strives without doubt to sketch the real geographical world.”[7] Likewise, Assyriologist E.A. Speiser states that the “physical setting cannot be dismissed offhand as sheer imagination.”[8]
Fifth, other OT texts treat Genesis as historical. Many passages can make this point, but consider just one. Psalm 136 recounts the “great wonders” of God in history (v.4). These include creation (vv.5-9), the exodus (vv.10-15), the wilderness wandering (v.16), the conquest of Canaan (vv.17-24), and the contemporary moment of the author himself (vv.25-26). Psalm 136 makes no distinction between these events—as though some were mythical and others were historical.
Sixth, ancient interpreters understood Genesis to be historical. Josephus refers to the Pentateuch as “history” (istoria) in his work Antiquities of the Jews (1.15-16).
Is Genesis poetry?
We often hear that Genesis 1 is poetry. Francis Collins—a theistic evolutionist and founder of BioLogos—cavalierly calls the early chapters of Genesis “poetry and allegory.”[9] No one would dispute that the author of Genesis 1 carefully constructed this text, employing rigorous repetition and a stylized structure (e.g. “There was evening and there was morning the Nth day…” “Let there be…” “God said…” “And it was so…”). However, this does not mean that Genesis is poetry.
For one, other sections of Scripture use repetition and structure. For example, the genealogies of Genesis employ laborious repetition (Gen. 5, 10, 11), as do other passages in the Bible (Num. 7). Yet even critical scholar Gerhard Von Rad holds that the genealogies were considered to be “unmythologically… within the realm of history.”[10] We discover this same structure throughout the entire book of Genesis with the repeated use of the term tôlēdôt (Gen. 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2).
Second, Genesis 1-3 lacks standard Hebrew poetic devices. Hebrew poetry uses parallelism (whether synonymous, antithetical, or synthetic parallelism), as well as intensification and personification (see “Understanding Hebrew Poetry”). On the whole, Genesis does not use these poetic devices. It’s true that Genesis 1:27; 2:23, and 3:14-19 are “some poetic verses,”[11] and these are usually rendered this way in English translations. But as a whole, Genesis “is written as a narrative of historical events.”[12] Elsewhere, we see similar poetic predictions, but these are not to be confused with thinking the text as a whole is non-history (Gen. 9:25-27; 25:23; 49:14-15).
By contrast, if we want to see a poetic genre for creation, we should read Psalm 104 or Job 38-41. These chapters serve as a stark contrast, containing the same content, but having a distinct and different genre. Even critical scholar Gerhard Von Rad denies that Genesis 1 is poetry, appealing to Psalm 104 as a contrast.[13]
Third, even if it could be shown that Genesis 1 is poetry, this would not show how Genesis 2 is poetic. Gordon Wenham—a leading commentator on the book of Genesis—writes that Genesis 2:4 and “onwards is straightforward Hebrew narrative prose.”[14]
Is Genesis mythology, legend, or saga?
Theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander considers Genesis mythology, because it depicts God walking in the Garden (Gen. 3:8). However, argues Alexander, God is not a man with legs![15]
However, this criticism is as superficial as it is misguided. He fails to note the obvious: This depiction in Genesis 3:8 is a theophany or appearance of God, which recurs throughout the Bible, including Genesis 18 when God appears directly to Abraham in a human form (Gen. 18:1-2, 13, 17). If Genesis 3 is mythological because of theophanies, then so is Genesis 18.
Interpreters take this mythological approach to Genesis largely based on the influence of ancient Near Eastern mythological accounts, which we find to be anything but parallel (see our earlier article “Did Genesis Borrow the Creation and Flood from Mesopotamian Myths?”). Others argue that Genesis is to be taken as myth based on the supernatural events recorded in its opening chapters. Yet Victor Hamilton plainly states, “It is irresponsible and incorrect to speak of these stories as myths on those bases. The worldview of Gen. 1-11, with its articulation of God, nature, and ethical choices, transcends the worldview of the mythopoeic mind. To say all this, of course, says nothing about the truthfulness or falsehood of these stories. It claims only that they are nonmythic.”[16]
What do OT specialists say regarding Genesis?
Interpreting Genesis as historical literature is not a unique understanding of the text. Leading specialists in the field of OT studies affirm the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis.
C. John Collins calls Genesis a “historical account,” by which he means “that the author wanted his audience to believe that the events recorded really happened.”[17] He considers Genesis 1 to be “exalted prose narrative,”[18] and Genesis 2-3 to be “normal prose narrative.”[19] He writes, “The genre identification for Genesis 1-11, prehistory and protohistory, does not mean that the author had no concern for real events; far from it, it implies that real events form the backbone of his story.”[20]
James Hoffmeier affirms that Genesis 1-11 is historical. While the text uses various “literary genres,” he writes that the “general tenor of the book, and Gen 1-11 in particular, is intended to be thought of as describing real events.”[21]
Gordon J. Wenham refers to Genesis as “protohistory.” What does he mean by this? He explains, “It is proto in that it describes origins, what happened first. It is also proto in that it is setting out models of God and his dealings with the human race. It is historical in that it is describing past realities and the lessons that should be drawn from them.”[22] Moreover, he writes, “It is not ordinary history that relies on contemporary sources, or at least on sources much closer to the events it describes than Gen 1-11 does.”[23] His distinction seems to rest on avoiding a literalistic description of Genesis 1-11. This is what he refers to as the author’s intent (i.e. emic) and how a modern reader would read the text (i.e. etic).
Regardless of his “protohistory” terminology, Wenham affirms, “Calling Gen 1-11 myth is at least unwise, at worst misleading, and as I shall argue, inaccurate.”[24] Later, he states that the events of Genesis 1-11 “were viewed as real events.”[25] Earlier, he notes, “We all hold that these narratives reflect real events,” even if we shouldn’t expect the literature to reflect the style of “a twenty-first-century journalist or historian.”[26]
Regarding the concept of identifying Genesis as “myth,” Wenham strongly desists. In normal vernacular, the term “myth” usually implies that the belief is false. However, Wenham writes that “this is not how the first authors or hearers of these stories would have viewed them: they would doubtless have held them in similar respect to our era’s respect for modern cosmologies or other scientific theories. For these reasons, it is prudent to avoid the term ‘myth’ in describing the genre of Gen 1-11.”[27]
Derek Kidner reflects on the NT use of Genesis, and he concludes, “These guidelines exclude the idea of myth… and assure us that we are reading of actual, pivotal events.”[28]
Vern Poythress writes that Genesis 1 is in the genre of “prose narrative.”[29] He grants that sometimes “a genre may be embedded within a larger piece of discourse that has its own genre,”[30] yet he understands Genesis to be historical. He lists OT examples where the authors showed that they “knew the difference between reality and make-believe,”[31] citing 2 Samuel 12:1-4, 2 Samuel 14:5-7, and 1 Kings 13:18; 20:39-40. He adds, “Genesis belongs to the same broad genre of narrative prose as does 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings. Since there is no literary signal to tell us that it is fiction, and since, indeed, it belongs to a continuous temporal development leading from creation to the exile, we conclude that it is nonfiction.”[32]
Poythress cites Collins who refers to Genesis 1 as “exalted prose,” but then states, “What makes it ‘exalted’? Yes, there is literary artistry. But once we distinguish formal features from content, we can see that what is most exalted about Genesis 1 is not the literary artistry but the content. God speaks and acts in majesty to create the world and everything in it. The exaltedness of God and his activity imparts exaltedness to the passage. But that is the matter of content, not genre.”[33]
Kent Hughes calls Genesis “narrative prose.” He writes, “There is no question that the Genesis account is written as history.” He calls Genesis 1 “carefully structured and worded narrative prose—history.”[34]
Entire assemblies of scholars have come to the same consensus. For instance, after two years of research, the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) produced a 92-page study on how to interpret Genesis 1-2, which they titled the “Report of the Creation Study Committee” (2000). The committee stated, “We believe that history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true.”
The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) was a collection of 334 leading evangelical scholars and leaders who convened to define and defend biblical inerrancy. The result was the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (CSBI, 1978) and the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics” (CSBH, 1982). These scholars included Gleason Archer, D.A. Carson, John Feinberg, Paul Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, R. Laird Harris, Harold Hoehner, Walter Kaiser, J.P. Moreland, J.I. Packer, J. Barton Payne, R.C. Sproul, John Wenham, and Edwin Yamauchi. The agreement of their combined scholarship stated this:
“We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood” (CSBI, Article XII).
“We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book. We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical” (CSBH, Article XXII).
“We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of Biblical teaching with the facts of nature. We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture” (CSBH, Article XXI).
Conclusion
To conclude, let’s be very clear: We are not giving evidence for why we believe the events in Genesis historically occurred; instead, we are simply establishing what the text intends to communicate. Put simply, before we can defend the historicity of Genesis, we need to know whether or not Genesis claims to be history! Based on our analysis above, as well as the consensus of various academics in the field of biblical scholarship, we reject the classification of Genesis as poetry, mythology, legend, or any other dehistoricizing genre which is alien to the text.
[1] Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972).
[2] J.D. Currid, In J. P. Moreland, S. C. Meyer, C. Shaw, A. K. Gauger, & W. Grudem (Eds.), Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), p.870.
[3] James Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (p. 24). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.32.
[4] James Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (p. 24). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.24.
[5] J.D. Currid, In J. P. Moreland, S. C. Meyer, C. Shaw, A. K. Gauger, & W. Grudem (Eds.), Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), p.860.
[6] J.D. Currid, In J. P. Moreland, S. C. Meyer, C. Shaw, A. K. Gauger, & W. Grudem (Eds.), Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), p.860.
[7] Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), p.80.
[8] E.A. Speiser, “The Rivers of Paradise,” in Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtsag am 27. August 1958 gewidment (ed. A. Moortgat et al.; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959), 473.
[9] Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 206.
[10] Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1962), p.162.
[11] See footnote. Wayne Grudem. In J. P. Moreland, S. C. Meyer, C. Shaw, A. K. Gauger, & W. Grudem (Eds.), Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), p.792.
[12] Wayne Grudem. In J. P. Moreland, S. C. Meyer, C. Shaw, A. K. Gauger, & W. Grudem (Eds.), Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), p.792.
[13] Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), p.64.
[14] Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), pp.79-80.
[15] Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd. ed. (Oxford and Grand Rapids, MI: Monarch, 2014), 198.
[16] Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), p.59.
[17] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.34.
[18] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.43.
[19] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.150.
[20] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.58.
[21] James Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.58.
[22] Emphasis mine. Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.87.
[23] Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.87.
[24] Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.83.
[25] Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.85.
[26] Gordon Wenham, “Response to James K. Hoffmeier.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.59.
[27] Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.84.
[28] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.29.
[29] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.111.
[30] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.117.
[31] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.122.
[32] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p. 124.
[33] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.126-127.
[34] R. Kent Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), pp.25-26.