Last summer, when I came out with my book, The Heresy of Ham, I made it a point to send a copy to Ken Ham at the Creation Museum. Not surprisingly, I never heard back from him. But every now and then I wonder if he leafed through my book—his most recent blog post is one of those times that get me wondering, for in it, he addresses one of fundamental arguments I make in my book regarding the proper literary genre of Genesis 1-11: that it is not meant to be read as historical narrative. Rather, it is best understood as being in the literary genre of ancient myth.
Genesis 1-11 is Myth…but Here’s What That Really Means
Now, granted, on the surface that claim can sound shocking—many will automatically assume I am saying that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true. But that’s not what I argue at all. In order to assess whether or not a piece of writing is true or not, you first have to understand exactly what kind of writing that writing is—namely, its genre. Once you understand its genre, you are then better able to analyze it according to the conventions of that genre, and then come to a conclusion whether or not what it is saying is true or not.
For example, Jesus’ stories like that of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan are properly understood as parables. Although they are found within the larger Gospel narratives that tell us about the historical Jesus and what he really said and did in history, we realize that those parables are not conveying actual historical information. They are stories that the historical Jesus told as part of his teaching ministry. But the parables themselves are not historical—and we know this and are totally fine with it, because we understand that parables are a different genre than historical narrative, even though they might be found in a work that contains historical information. So what if the parables aren’t historical? They still are true in what Jesus was teaching. Simply put, the parables of Jesus are not historical, but they are most definitely true.
The same goes for Genesis 1-11. Yes, they are found within the greater book of Genesis, that contains stories about historical figures like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, but they are noticeably different in content and historically verifiable information. The places the Patriarchs are said to have gone are actual places that we can travel to today, thus the stories are rooted in a verifiable and historical geographical setting. Genesis 1-11 on the other hand simply doesn’t have any of that. On the other hand, it is demonstrably provable that the biblical stories of creation and Noah and the Flood have clear parallels and similarities to other stories from the ancient Near East that we already categorize as mythological literature.
But when we say mythological literature, we are not talking about whether or not a certain story is true; we are talking about what genre a particular story is, in just the same way we categorize the story of the Prodigal Son a parable. The genre of myth means that it isn’t trying to convey historical information in the first place—that’s not its aim. Rather, myth uses highly symbolic language to talk about, what I call, metaphysical truths about reality: is there one God or many gods? Is creation good or is it a horrible place? Are human beings worthless slaves who are meant to cower in fear of the petty and power gods, or are they created in the image of a good and just God, and therefore infused with dignity and worth?
Therefore, the determining factor as to whether or not a myth is true is not whether or not it was historically accurate. In fact, the truth claims various myths make cannot be “proven” by any scientific or historical means. You can’t “scientifically/historically prove” that creation is good or bad; you can’t “scientifically/historically prove” that there is one God who is good and just, or that there are many dangerous and petty gods; you can’t “scientifically/historically prove” that human beings have inherent worth because they are in God’s image, or that they are nothing more than worthless excrement of defeated gods.
All that is to say this: saying Genesis 1-11 falls under the literary genre of mythological literature is not saying that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true. All it’s saying is that it was never meant to be understood as history. Genesis 1-11 lays out the foundational stories that teach (A) that there is one Creator God and that He is good and just; (B) that creation is good and has purpose; (C) that human beings are created to bear God’s image and be His representatives to care for and rule over His good creation; (D) but that human beings are sinful and prone to evil, and therefore are in need of redemption so that they can fulfill their purpose as God’s image-bearers.
Those are the foundational theological truths that Genesis 1-11 puts forth, and they should shape how we understand our world. But they’re just not scientific or historical claims—and that is okay.
Ken Ham, though, just can’t understand this…
Unfortunately, in his most recent post, Ken Ham clearly displays either his inability or unwillingness to even try to understand this. He begins with, “It’s becoming increasingly popular among many Christians to claim that Old Testament characters, especially Adam and Eve, and events such as the worldwide Flood weren’t literal people or historical events. They claim they were just figures or stories created to teach some kind of theological lesson. But does biblical revelation support this position?”
As should come as no surprise, Ham answers that last question with a resounding “No!” But his entire approach just betrays a willful refusal to engage in critical thinking. From the above quote, it is quite clear that for Ham, the only kind of “truth” possible is historical facts. In making that claim, he actually ends up downplaying the importance of theological lessons. In other words, Ham is essentially saying, “The stories of Adam and Eve and Noah’s Flood don’t teach theological lessons—they’re historical facts!” (Never mind the fact that it is simply impossible to prove they were historical).
And yet, Ham does try to prove this very thing by (a) claiming the inspiration of the Bible (and that is true—the Bible is inspired), (b) lifting verses like I Timothy 2:13, I Corinthians 11:8, and Jude 1:14 completely out of context, and then making the claim that since the New Testament writers mention the Adam and Noah stories, that therefore they were affirming that they were historical events…and that biological evolution isn’t true. To that, all I can say is I still don’t see how mere mention of a person or story in the Bible equates with affirming that person/story is historical…and that biological evolution isn’t true.
News Flash: The Story of Noah IS and Example of Ancient Near Eastern Literature…and that’s okay!
He then specifically refers to the Noah story and says, “Others claim that the account of Noah and the Flood is not history but was borrowed from ancient Near Eastern cultures to teach a theological truth about God.” Again, notice how Ham actually downplays the theological truth that the Noah story is conveying, in order to argue that it must be a historical fact. Furthermore, Ham’s dismissal of seeing the literary similarities to a number of ancient Near Eastern flood myths (like that of Gilgamesh) is rather shocking, because it is demonstrably provable that genre-wise, the Noah story and Gilgamesh are very much alike.
In other words, in his attempt to “prove” the Noah story is a historical account, Ham is actually denying the what really is provable: the Noah story and Gilgamesh are really, really similar. (Now, just to be clear, there are clear differences, but those differences are found in the theological claims that are being made).
The Tragedy of Willful Ignorance
Ham then makes another rather illogical statement when he says, “If Genesis is myth then the gospel—as it’s foreshadowed in Genesis 3:15 and 21—is myth also. The gospel is founded in Genesis and grounded in a literal Adam who literally sinned and brought literal death into creation as the penalty for sin. If Noah is a myth, then so are all those listed in Hebrews 11, such as Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, and others. Genesis is literal history!”
In response, let me just make three observations:
- He clearly shows no understanding of what “myth” actually means. Rather than understand that the issue is that of genre, Ham continues to equate “myth” with “anti-historical falsehood.” You simply cannot bring someone to understanding when that person willfully keeps his eyes closed to simple proper definitions.
- It is absolutely false that the Gospel is “grounded in a literal Adam.” Yes, the truths about humanity that are laid out in Genesis 1-11 set the stage to understand Christ’s work in history, but to say that the Gospel is dependent on whether or not there was a historical Adam who was created out of literal dust a mere 6,000 years ago, on the same day as dinosaurs…well, that’s just not true.
- Finally using Ham’s logic that if Noah is a myth then so are the Patriarchs, we would have to conclude that the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan must be historical figures, because look! They’re in the Gospels, and Jesus, Peter, James and John are all historical figures!
Ken Ham’s claims, no matter how familiar I am with them, and no matter how predictable they are, still continue to baffle and amaze me. When I first learned about Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, what they taught made me angry. And then I went through a period where it was just easy to make fun of them, for their claims are so outlandish. But now, I have to say that I read stuff like this and I just am mystified, much in the same way I am when I think about how Scientologists actually believe there was a Galactic Lord Xenu. It’s easy to write the claims of Answers in Genesis off as nonsense; but the fact is, not only is what Ken Ham is teaching false; it is actually preventing people from actually understanding the true Christian faith, and is hampering their ability to come to a full knowledge and appreciation of the Holy Scriptures.
I think it would help if we had a better, less ambiguous word than “myth” to describe Genesis 1-11. It’s one of those words whose technical and a popular meanings are almost completely the opposite of each other. It’s a bit like the word “hacker” — the technical meaning is someone who enjoys solving problems and coming up with creative and innovative solutions, while the popular meaning is someone who breaks into computer systems illegally. The result is that whether you say “Genesis 1-11 is myth” or “Joe Bloggs is a hacker,” you’re just asking to be misunderstood.
In the case of the word “hacker,” the technical side of the debate have been trying to convince the world at large to use the word “cracker” instead, but the world at large simply aren’t paying the slightest bit of attention. In the case of the word “myth,” nobody is even attempting to address the problem.
Well yes, that is the conundrum. TECHNICALLY, in terms of literary genre, “myth” is the correct term; but PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, that word is assumed to mean a whole different thing in popular culture. So what is one to do? I’ve wrestled with it for a long time. I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way is to try to teach what the proper definition of myth is, and to combat the faulty pop culture understanding of it. I’ve tried to describe Genesis 1-11 in other ways, but what I’ve found is that it work against you. If I say it’s allegorical, and someone asks a further question, I’m going to have to be honest and say, “Well, it’s not TOTALLY like allegory,” and that tends to come across to some people like I’m trying to hide something, and it raises suspicion.
So, I think if you’re to give it a label, just use the proper literary term “myth” and try to educate as to what that means. Of course, the other option is this (and I’ve used this in high school classes): Say something like, “The other pagan cultures in the ancient near east had similar stories that talked about their gods, and they talked in very symbolic, poetic ways; therefore, if Moses is going to teach the Israelites the truth about the true Creator God, he’s probably going to use language they’re familiar with, but then use it in an entirely different way, in order to show them the truth about God, creation, and mankind.”
All that is true, but I simply choose not to give Genesis 1-11 an actual literary label. If I can get those truths across without freaking them out, that’s the important thing. As they grow older, they can wrestle with the actual labeling issue later. It is possible to explain the significance of Genesis 1-11 without using the label “myth.” But at some point, as with YECists like Ken Ham, if someone keeps insisting “It HAS to be actual history and science,” you’re going to have to just “tear the band-aid off,” and say, “No, that’s the wrong genre…” and go from there. That’s where I am now.
You might have seen (re Sarfati rather than Ham):
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/a-creationist-speaker-comes-to-town/
What do you say to this? Jesus based His doctrine on marriage on Genesis 1 & 2 (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:9-10). Paul writes in Romans 5 that by one man sin came into the world, and death by sin.
Well, to your first question–Jesus is quoting Scripture to challenge the Pharisees’ justification for divorce. His point is that when two people get married, they become one, and therefore divorce is a horrible thing. He’s not making some kind of definitive statement regarding whether or not Adam and Eve were historical people.
As to your second question, I wrote somewhat of a “mini-commentary” on Romans. Here is the link in which I discuss Romans 5:12-21:
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/pauls-letter-to-the-romans-chapter-512-21-adam-and-christ-what-is-paul-really-talking-about-spoiler-alert-not-original-sin-or-the-historicity-of-adam-part-10/