Meaning and Myth

January 13, 2010
Category: Video Blogs

Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles for evangelical Christians who are resistant to the idea of evolution is a literalist reading of scripture –– in particular, the text of Genesis 1-3, which details the creation of the earth and its inhabitants.

While most biblical scholars would likely advocate a literary reading of Genesis, as opposed to a literal one, the characterization of Genesis 1-3 as a “mythic” text can make some people uneasy. This is largely due to the fact that in our American culture, “myth” has become synonymous with “not true”. From its Greek origin, however, myth is simply defined as a story or legend that has cultural significance in explaining the hows and whys of human existence, using metaphorical language to express ideas beyond the realm of our five senses.

But to suggest that Genesis is both a mythic text as well as the “inerrant Word of God” may require a leap of faith for some.

British author, pastor, and theologian Rev. Dr. N.T. Wright suggests that the mythological part has been misunderstood and discarded by many evangelicals in favor of a reading based entirely on questions of historicity.

He argues that “to flatten that [the text of Genesis] out is to almost perversely avoid the real thrust of the narrative … we have to read Genesis for all its worth and to say either history or myth is a way of saying 'I’m not going to read this text for all its worth, I am just going to flatten it out so that it conforms to the cultural questions that my culture today is telling me to ask'.”

Many might wonder—but isn’t this pursuit of contemporary context a good thing? Not so, Wright replies, “I think that’s actually a form of being unfaithful to the text itself.”

In this video clip, “Adam, Eve, and the USA”, Wright suggests that questions concerning the historicity of Genesis and the historicity of Adam and Eve get caught up in contemporary cultural issues and miss the larger story.

For more conversations about science and religion, be sure to visit our new "Conversations" section, accessible through our Audio/Video page or on our YouTube channel.

Filed Under:
science, religion, Adam, Eve, Genesis, myth, interpretation, N.T. Wright, theology, Bible, Christianity, hermenuetics, faith, creation, creationism, evolution

Comments (38)

Share |

  1. beaglelady - #2574

    January 13th 2010

    This was an excellent talk. It’s enlightening (sometimes embarrassing)  to sometimes look at ourselves as others see us. (Most but certainly not all of us here are Americans.)

    N. T. Wright has always been a favorite of mine.  He is a voice for orthodoxy in the challenging world-wide Anglican Communion.  I also love his books, and we have studied some of them in our theology class at my church.  I recommend them to one and all.

  2. Jonathan Gauntlett - #2580

    January 13th 2010

    This is an excellent post, as expected from someone of Wrights calibre.  As Christianity is an historical religion, rooted ultimately in the historicity of Christ, it can be difficult for Christians to regard Genesis 1-3, or perhaps more correctly 1-11, as a mythic text.  But we must remember that our modern tendency to find value in a text only in its literal of scientific accuracy should be placed aside when we consider that Gen 1-11 was given to an Ancient Near Eastern Culture that understood itself, its world, and its relationship to both God and other cultures in a mythological context.  I think Wright is absolutely correct to say that we do gross injustice to Genesis and greatly undervalue the depth of meaning in the text if we read it at only a literal level.  However, I think the conversation needs to be broadened to include a discussion regarding why NT authors such as Paul and Christ, for example Matt 19:4, also refer to Adam and Eve as literal historical characters.  This is because regarding Gen 1-11 as non-literal and non-historical has implications for an evangelical understanding of the NT.

  3. Mere_Christian - #2591

    January 13th 2010

    Without a real Seth, there is little for real life to be represented in the rest of the Bible. Seth had a real mother and real father.

  4. Brian - #2593

    January 13th 2010

    Genesis, perhaps rightly, gets the lions’ share of the attention, but this is not the only relevant biblical text. 

    I’m wondering how the Biologos folks interpret Rom 1, for example, which reads in part, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. “

    Seems pretty clear that Paul believes that a first century man with few tools at his disposal other than the naked eye is accountable to the god who made him.  And on what basis?  That the character of God—at least at a high level—can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” 

    I’m particularly interested in the opinions of the Biologos folks:  do the tools of modern science not add *any* value or insight whatsoever in terms of reasoning from creation back to creator?

  5. Steve - #2594

    January 13th 2010

    Quick!  Is there any way to embed this video on Facebook?

  6. Mike Gene - #2602

    January 13th 2010

    There are three core truths that not only emerge clearly from Genesis 1-3, but also transcend literalism. 

    1.  What is sin?  Sin is rebellion against the will of God.

    2. What is the consequence of sin?  Evil, pain, suffering – existence outside the will of God.

    3. What do humans do when confronted with their own sin?  Deny it and direct the blame elsewhere.  In essence, when confronted with their own sin, they sin again.

    People sometime say to me, “Mike, but if there is no literal Adam and Eve, why did Jesus have to die?”  To which I respond, “Are you saying you are without sin?”

  7. Pete Enns - #2603

    January 13th 2010

    Jonathan,

    Just briefly, I think you are certainly correct. As I have said in other venues, the problem for a lot of Xians is not “science and faith” and not even “evolution and Genesis.” It is “Darwin and Paul” (referring to Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15; I also realize “Darwin” is just a convenient cipher—a lot has happened since Darwin).  The issue for Xians is a dual hermeneutical issue: how do we understand Genesis in a way that is in honest conversation with what we know today scientifically and in terms of ancient Near Eastern religious texts that parallel Genesis AND how do we handle Paul’s understanding of Genesis when he was not aware of the very factors that force our own reconsideration of Genesis. In my opinion, American Evangelicalism is not well equipped to address this issue because of its polemical history, some of which NTW alludes to.

  8. Stephen Barkley - #2620

    January 14th 2010

    Thanks for the excellent video.

    I wholeheartedly agree that we must allow the text to speak for itself rather than lay our 21st century North American framework on it—I just wonder whether that ideal’s possible. Could our very desire to challenge classic teaching be birthed out of the cultural shift out of modernism? Just a thought.

    Thank you for this resource.

    Steve.

  9. Gregory Arago - #2622

    January 14th 2010

    Great video! Thanks 4 posting this!

    On ‘myth’ by McLuhan:

    “Myth is the instant vision of a complex process that ordinarily extends over a long period. Myth is contraction or implosion of any process, & the instant speed of electricity confers the mythic dimension of ordinary industrial & social action today.” (1964: 38)

    ”[M]yth is the mode of simultaneous awareness of complex group causes & effects. In an age of fragmented, lineal awareness, such as produced & was in turn greatly exaggerated by Gutenberg technology, mythological vision remains quite opaque.” (1962: 266)

    “Henceforth, literature will be at war with itself & with the social mechanics of conscious goals and motivations. For the matter of literary vision will be collective & mythic, while the forms of literary expression & communication will individualistic, segmental, & mechanical. The vision will be tribal & collective, the expression private & marketable. This dilemma continues to the present to rend the individual Western consciousness. Western man knows that his values & modalities are the product of literacy. Yet the means of extending those values, technologically, seem to deny & reverse them.” (1962: 269)

    Fully agreed with Wright @ this. - Gr.

  10. Charlie - #2626

    January 14th 2010

    I think the main problem many Christians have with the Bible conflicting with science is that if they are to interpret parts of the Bible differently at the individual level, there is no way to determine if that interpretation is correct.  It is difficult to have an organized religion with multiple, personal religions.  Also, how does one exclude God as a symbol for something like the big bang instead of being a higher being, while still seeing other aspects of the Bible as symbolic?  If the Bible is taken on personal interpretation, it is impossible for Christians to know or learn what aspects of the Bible are actually fact (I’m guessing all Christians agree that Jesus existed) from something the Biblical writers were uneducated about (raqia) from myth (Adam and Eve) from something divine (believing God is a higher being).

  11. Jonathan Gauntlett - #2637

    January 14th 2010

    Dr Enns,

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I think that perhaps Genesis is the easy issue to tackle, but any alert evangelical will immediately notice the implications of a non-literal Genesis for a slew of other doctrines.  As you point out, Darwin and Paul is perhaps one of the most significant.  However, I think that the evolutionary creationist, or Biologos, position has the keys to constructively discuss these issues.  From reading your excellent and provocative book it is clear that the historical situation of the author influences scripture.  If we consider the following points made by yourself and Dr O. Lamoureux: 1.  The historical/cultural setting to which revelation was given.  2.  The ability of the Holy Spirit to accommodate His revelation to within the setting and 3.  The message/incidence principle, that we can in many instances still clearly discern the theological message within the vehicle in which it was given, then can we not begin to understand something of what Paul was saying and why it was said given the background from which He was coming?  It’s just that although discussion regarding Genesis is excellent and necessary, I would love to see here a scholarly post on evolution and the New Testament.

  12. Russell Ash - #2646

    January 14th 2010

    I believe Adam represents the first man and eve represents the first woman. I have a theistic evolutionary stance, but one opposition to this video if I may. It seems as if N.T. Wright near the end of this video was saying that Heaven will be on earth. Now there is where I differ. I do not believe that this world will be redeemed, but that there will be a new Heaven and new Earth completely separate from this universe. Theistic evolutionists believe in an afterlife right?

  13. Pete Enns - #2648

    January 14th 2010

    Jonathan,

    I will consider a post like that. It is needed. Actually I am writing a book (don’t hold your breath) that is aimed at addressing the hermeneutical issues concerning evolution, with an entire section on Paul and the NT. If you “get” my book, you’ll see where I am going with that. Thanks for your comments.

    Russell, yes we do believe in an afterlife. As for the New Heaven/Earth, I think NTW would say (and I would agree) that there is continuity and discontinuity with the old—much like the resurrection body. Final redemption concerns the entire cosmos. The old will be made new. NTW is trying to guard against a “heaven is sitting on clouds and playing harps” idea, which is grotesque from the point of view of biblical eschatology. Thanks too for your comments.

  14. Matt - #2673

    January 15th 2010

    Dr. Enns,

    I was wondering if you could comment on NTW’s (almost passing) comment about a belief in an original pair, even if one accepts that Gen 2-3 describes this in mythical language. (i.e., not a literal “Adam” and “Eve”, but an a literal pair.)

    Thanks,

    Matt

  15. Pete Enns - #2685

    January 15th 2010

    I’m not sure, Matt. I think NTW may be thinking in terms of an original pair that was a result of evolution but then “created” in the image of God and so became a “first pair.” That is how I hear a lot of people coming to terms with evolution while also maintaining a first pair in some sense. I think that is an issue that could be explored in great depth, both for its strengths and weaknesses, and I can’t begin to do it justice here.

  16. Matthew Walsh - #2692

    January 15th 2010

    Thanks for the response, Dr. Enns.  I lean (hope) toward that understanding, but I also recognize that it is not “air tight.”  I do think that it is an issue to be explored.  If evangelicals are comfortable with evolution, they gravitate toward that kind of understanding, as opposed to, for example, an interpretation like Denis Lemoureux’s.  That being said, I think Lemoureux et al understandings have a lot to commend to them.  An original pair takes some of the sting out of wrestling with Pauline interpretation (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15).  Thanks for your work.  As I mentioned previously (via fb), I&I has been helpful to me.

    Living in the tension,

    Matt

  17. Gregory Arago - #2709

    January 15th 2010

    “an original pair that was a result of evolution but then “created” in the image of God and so became a “first pair”.” - Dr. Enns

    Yes, this sounds like a fair ‘accommodation.’ That’s meant in a supportive sense!

    I also like M. Gene’s answer to the ‘reality of Adam and Eve.’ : )

    One problem here is when geneticists claim that there was not a ‘first pair’ but rather a ‘first group.’

    As an Adamic thinker/believer, along with all Jews, Christians and Muslims, I am offended by natural scientists who claim “there was no *real* Adam and/or Eve”.

    How can this seeming contradiction of positions be remedied?

    As a non-geneticist, I cannot tell a geneticist they are ‘wrong.’ But I can say that the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ have more than simply a ‘genetic’ meaning.

    Is this a place where ‘scientism’ is exposed?

  18. Knockgoats - #2710

    January 15th 2010

    “As an Adamic thinker/believer, along with all Jews, Christians and Muslims, I am offended by natural scientists who claim “there was no *real* Adam and/or Eve”.” - Gregory Arago

    Since there wasn’t - the genetic evidence is absolutely clear - you’re offended by people telling the truth. I guess telling the truth is what you mean by “scientism”.

  19. Pete Enns - #2735

    January 15th 2010

    Mere_Christian.

    Xian is a common, accepted abbreviation. You may not know Greek, but “X” is not the English letter but the Greek letter chi, which is the first letter in the word Christ and Christian. In this context, it saves character space since we are limited.

  20. Edward T. Babinski - #2819

    January 17th 2010

    Why is the whole Bible framed by two myths? It stars with Genesis 1 and the ends with the descent of the “New Jerusalem” in Rev. What other myths not lie between those two?

  21. Martin Rizley - #3012

    January 19th 2010

    It seem to me that Dr. Wright wants to have his cake and eat it, too, in this sense:  he admits that something like a “first human pair that got it wrong” took place in the historic past, yet he wants to categorize the first three chapters of Genesis as “myth.”  My question to him is, if Genesis is truly a myth, why does there need to be a “first human pair” at all?  It seems to me that he is wanting in some sense to affirm a historic “fall of man” into sin from an original state of sinless perfection, because he understands as a theologian, that without the doctrine of original sin and racial depravity, the whole system of Christian truth simply falls apart.  Once you begin speaking of a “first human pair that got it wrong,” however, the question immediately arise—where did you get that idea from?  Certainly not from books on evolutionary science.  Clearly, he has gotten this idea from the Genesis narrative itself.  So he is virutally admitting an underlying historical basis to the event recorded in Genesis 1-3— a view that is clearly at odds with the more radical views that are commonly expressed on this website, which deny any historical basis to Genesis at all.

  22. Knockgoats - #3025

    January 20th 2010

    I completely agree with Martin Rizley - let the record show!

  23. Martin Rizley - #3028

    January 20th 2010

    Knockgoats,
    The record does in fact show that Dr. Wright got it right—despite his labelling of Genesis as “myth”— when he spoke of a “first human pair that got it wrong.”  I am speaking, of course, of the testimonial record of the inspired Scriptures, which is the most reliable record of all.

  24. Sabio Lantz - #3160

    January 22nd 2010

    I get how one can look at the “thrust” of the Myth—as Wright says.  In fact, I just posted about a Hindu myth in the Mahabharata.

    Wright seems to want it both ways.  He wants us not to judge his myth so that he can have it claiming “truths” that he wants it to say.  He is willing to let the details go, just as long as he gets to decide what the “thrust” of the myth is.

    He tells us that he believes that Genesis tells us the truth when it says that something like “a primal pair getting it wrong did happen.”  And that Genesis makes a true claim when it says this world was made to be God’s dwelling and he shared it with humans.

    Wright wants to say, “Well, not literally true” which I get, but he does want to decide exactly what part we should hang on to as true. 

    If we get a list of true claims that Wright wants the Bible to say, then we can discuss it. Unless one writes down the claims you think are made by the myths, conversations will slide all over the place as people keep moving the meaning to avoid detection.  Instead they want to use it as a sacred tribal flag.

  25. Martin Rizley - #3163

    January 22nd 2010

    Sabio,
    I couldn’t agree with you more!  To speak of the Bible as “a divine revelation which errs much of what it affirms” is indeed a slippery-slide game by people who want to cling to certain select affirmations they find “comforting,” while rejecting those other affirmations that offend one’s autonomous reason, because I am unwilling to bring one’s reason in submission to the supreme, infallible authority of Scripture.  If the Bible is only true in some of what it affirms, it is not the Word of God.  It may “contain” God’s Word, as neorthodox theologians affirm, but it is not itself the Word of God—and it is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous for people to say that they believe the Bible is the Word of God, while picking and choosing which parts of it they believe to be true; for if the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot err, since God cannot err.

  26. Martin Rizley - #3165

    January 22nd 2010

    Sabio,
    Please excuse the grammatical errors in the post above, I didn’t check it before sending it!

  27. WoundedEgo - #3665

    January 30th 2010

    I guess what he is saying is that Brits, for cultural reasons, take the story seriously, as a religious literature full of deep meaning, but that it is fiction, while Americans mistakenly take it as fact, and thus at odds with a scientific view of the universe. Fine, but he fails to show any reason for adopting a British viewpoint. Why take it as fiction?

    Personally, I’ve come to regard the whole “Bible” as fiction, largely because the whole of the scriptures presume the Cosmogeny and Cosmology of Moses, which is patently false. For example, God is *always* presumed to be “up.” How can that be so on a spinning ball? And what of the sky ceiling, with its rain hatches?:

    Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [hatch] was opened in heaven [the sky ceiling]: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

  28. Corby - #3699

    January 31st 2010

    Ethnographers see myths as important in understanding the culture they are studying.  The myths find their meaning and purpose and thus their validity in a certain culture’s context.  If Genesis 1-3 is an ancient near eastern creation myth of a Semitic tribe of people, then there is ultimately no good reason to apply it to other cultural contexts.  Divorced from its context it would have lose its power and relevance.

    However, for the Christian it still has power and meaning and it cuts across contexts.  Why?  Because it is myth?  The apostle Paul understood its power not because he was keen on myth, but because the word of God conveys a truth though time and culture that a myth could never do.

    For example, is your life impacted as a Christian, by the creation myth of the Yanamamo or the Navajo?  Can these myths be appreciated and shed light on the cultures from which they sprang?  Yes.  But they are not going to be used as examples, as Paul did with Adam, to argue the reason why Jesus Christ had to die on the cross.

    I don’t think the word “myth” is the way to go.  NTW is a smart man; perhaps he should use or even coin a new word or phrase.

  29. Wayne MacKirdy - #3845

    February 2nd 2010

    Question(s): If Genesis 1 and 2 are mythical, is Genesis 3 mythical also? How do we know one way or the other? If Genesis 3 is mythical, is Genesis 4? How about 5? How about 6-9? How about 10 and 11? How do we know when the mythical ceases and the historical begins? What criteria do we use to establish which is which? What hermeneutical principles are applied to the text to determine which is which?

  30. Pete Enns - #3866

    February 3rd 2010

    Wayne,

    I understand the logic of your questions, but this is not a helpful way forward. The questions you ask about the various episodes in Genesis are not new, but have been scoured over countless times for generations, and various answers to these questions have been and continue to be discussed and debated. But, the fact that a “mythical” reading of Genesis 1-2 could lead to a mythical reading of Gen 3 does not mean that we are on the proverbial slippery slope. We are, rather, on a path to understanding what these stories in Genesis are saying and how they are to be understood today.

  31. Jerry Wragg - #3906

    February 3rd 2010

    I so wish I’d been born in the U.K., where they don’t have to be saddled with subjectivity and childish muddling of the religious with cultural and political ideals.  I can’t imagine how briliant and free I’d be if America could only quit bothering with such trivialities as whether Genesis is actual truth, and get on with the objective kind of thinking inherent with being British.

    You’ve got to be kidding me!

  32. Philip Donald - #4079

    February 8th 2010

    I agree that the word Myth is not always useful. I think ‘analogy’ may be more useful, but as someone mentioned before, coining a new phrase may be best. Myth, also as mentioned before, does not mean fantasy, in the way that NTW uses it. Something can be a myth and be true if we take the original meaning of the word myth. But nowadays, myth is too much saddled with the meaning ‘fantasy’ for it to be useful for this debate. There is something to be commended for living in the tension between myth and historical exactness. We’re often too caught up in reaching an ideal certitude which does not exist this side of the resurrection, if ever.

  33. woodenheadedliteralist - #4603

    February 16th 2010

    Oh, now I see, I am finally on the path to understanding.  I don’t have to be saddled with this clunky historical account.  I can be set free to embrace the major thematic thrusts of this ancient book.  Before I thought the events presented in the books of the Bible actually happened in history and that major thematic themes were taking place congruently, what a fool I have been.  Now I don’t have to marvel at how an all powerful all wise God could create the universe in six 24 hr days because the truth is that He didn’t do it and I refuse to accept that He could.  Doing so might flatten out the real thrust.

  34. Jerry Wragg - #4725

    February 17th 2010

    Philip -

    You said: “We’re too often caught up in reaching an ideal certitude which does not exist this side of the resurrection, if ever.”

    So, let me get this straight: You say that being “caught up” in the search for certitude is, in fact, certainly futile because no such objective certainty is, in fact, certainly or definitively reachable in this life.

    So much for your attempt at remaining uncertain!

  35. Russ - #5294

    February 25th 2010

    I think there is some historical significance to Adam and Eve. Not in the sense that Genesis 2 and 3 literally happened in that way, but that Adam and Eve are used in the story because of theological significance, in fact, an almost prophetic significance. Luke’s genealogy takes Jesus all the way back to Adam. The historical couple are thus used in the myth as examples of mankind’s relationship with God and what caused mankind to fall away from God. This particular couple is highlighted to show that Jesus is going to redeem their (mankind’s) mistake. My only reason for asserting that there probably was a couple who’s names were Adam and Eve is because of their historical appearance within the text (Adam is given an age and he and Eve beget children). As far as I am concerned, once chapter four starts, myth ends and history begins.

  36. #John1453 - #5329

    February 25th 2010

    woodenheadedliteralist is, though sarcastic, on the path to understanding. First, understand that myths can be historically true, or false. The legend of Troy was though to be fictional, but found to be true (though that legend is not a myth in the sense of a overacrhing story that has cultural significance and defines one’s understanding of oneself and the world).

    Second, use your own 21st century culture and needs to make demands of the text that it has no interest in addressing. Being part of a culture that sees “history” as only being of one kind and that is still fighting a culture war narrows too much one’s reading of Genesis.

    Third, God is sovereign and can have the Bible written anyway he wants to; he does not have to conform to any of our ideas about how the Bible must be written in order to be a valid revelation of himself and his relationship to humans. We need to investigate and understand how the Bible understands itself and defines itself and how God used people of a particular time, place and culture to communicate himself to both them and the wider world.

    regards,
    #John

  37. William Smith - #5719

    March 3rd 2010

    How does N. T. Wright get taken seriously.  His lack of education is stunning.  One glaring example: In his book SIMPLY CHRISTIAN (the worst non-fiction book I have ever finished) has compared Old Testament (i.e. Hebrew) history to a “Wagnerian leitmotif.” As any educated person knows, Wagner was a virulent anti-Semite who wrote a book about what he regarded as the malevolent Jewish influence in German culture.  His views helped pave the way for Hitler. 

    More than this, in an age when a focus on social justice and communal worship (rather than on love for your individual neighbor and each individual’s loving obedience of God’s commandments) has just about destroyed the church, Wright entitles his first chapter “justice” and says (repeatedly and clumsily) that Jesus came to “put the world to rights.” 

    Forget N. T. Wright and go back (I guess) to reading a truly great mind from a greater era in the church: C. S. Lewis. His “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” is especially good medicine for the all-community, no-individual warping of the church.

  38. Drane Reynolds - #6016

    March 6th 2010

    I have no problem with the idea that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are essentially mythological, though with some vague historical connections. (Real history only begins with Abraham, though there are some mythological elements here and later in scripture as well) . For instance, there appears to be some evidence of a great flood in the Ancient Near East, though the story of Noah’s ark is unlikely at best. The meaning of those stories, however carry important theological and human truth. I think Wright, whom I greatly respect as a New Testament scholar, is too conservative here. Evolution has carried the day in science and Christians must be able to reconcile that view with their view of God as creator.

    • Add Your Comment