# Biblical Hermeneutics and Genesis 1-3



## OttoNeubauer (Jan 11, 2014)

Without getting into science, I am curious to hear, from those who believe that Genesis 1-3 describe 24-hour days, that the earth is younger than millions of years, or that there was a historical Adam--how did you evaluate the textual/literary evidence to come to that conclusion? Specifically I would like to know how you have looked at the following elements in your interpretation.


How does the fact that Moses wrote the Pentateuch affect your interpretation? What was his pastoral purpose in writing Genesis 1-3, and how does your interpretation take that into account?
Given that Genesis is divided into nine 'chapters' by the _toledoth_ formula ("these are the generations of..."), and that the first of these occurs in 2:4, how does this affect your understanding of chapter one with respect to the rest of Genesis? Is it a different genre, or a prologue, or something else?
The _toledoth_ formula in 5:1 is different from the others (at least in my English translation), reading "This is the book of the generations of Adam." This seems like the kind of thing you would find written at the top of a scroll or tablet or something to indicate what it is. Why do you think this _toledoth_ is different from the others? Does it indicate that 5:1 was once the beginning of a text and that chapters 1-4 were later additions? 
One common argument for a literal interpretation is that because Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and in Romans 5 states that sin entered the world through "one man" and connects this "first Adam" to Christ, the "second Adam", therefore we must believe in a historical Adam, and to deny a historical Adam is to break a key link in Paul's argument. How then do we understand 1 Timothy 2:14, where Paul states that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."? If interpreted literally these contradict, so Paul must at least in one of these cases be referring to a larger group (at least the couple). How does the fact that Paul at various times describes two different individuals as the first sinner affect your understanding of Genesis 1-3?
What is your interpretation of the theological differences in creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 (for example, in Genesis 1 God creates _ex nihilo_ by speaking, while in Genesis 2-3 God creates using existing matter [dust, a rib] through physical actions)?
How do you interpret the statements in chapter 4 that so-and-so "was the father of those who" do various occupations? Are these literal or figurative statements, and how do they affect your interpretation of Genesis 1-3?
Some of the latter parts of Genesis seem not be in chronological sequence (for example, Genesis 17 states that Ishmael is 13 years old while Genesis 21 is written as if he were a baby). How does this affect your understanding of Genesis 1-3?

Thank you! I am trying to better understand how the literal perspective deals with these textual phenomena.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 11, 2014)

OttoNeubauer said:


> Without getting into science, I am curious to hear, from those who believe that Genesis 1-3 describe 24-hour days, that the earth is younger than millions of years, or that there was a historical Adam--how did you evaluate the textual/literary evidence to come to that conclusion? Specifically I would like to know how you have looked at the following elements in your interpretation.
> 
> 
> How does the fact that Moses wrote the Pentateuch affect your interpretation? What was his pastoral purpose in writing Genesis 1-3, and how does your interpretation take that into account?
> ...



I'll leave others better able to detail answers to all your points. 

I think the basic point of those who do not take a liberal theological view of this part of God's Word is that the genre of Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative, rather than something else, like apocalyptic, parable, myth, etc.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 11, 2014)

OttoNeubauer said:


> 1. How does the fact that Moses wrote the Pentateuch affect your interpretation? What was his pastoral purpose in writing Genesis 1-3, and how does your interpretation take that into account?


The days of the Exodus is the first _literary_ context for the specific construction that has been passed down to future generations. Whatever pre-existing (historical) materials were present and available to Moses (and that there was something, rather than a _de novo_ introduction, is indicated by the "toledoth" formula), Moses under inspiration preserves the authoritative, redemptive-historical version, which all hangs together as a single literary production. So, we cannot "get behind" Moses to anything more pristine, or more accurate, or suitable for interpretation as if it was a prior stand-alone legend simply appropriated by Moses.

The Petateuch as a whole is one, undivided context important for interpreting any single portion of the text. One cannot take Gen.1 or Gen.1-3, or Gen.1-11, etc. and section it off from the rest of the Pentateuch, and the generation that experiences the Israelite departure out of Egypt, and justly propose it has another, earlier, possibly contrasting interpretation than the one received by the nation at its constitution. One of the key, interpretive texts for Gen.1:1-2:3 is Ex.20:8-11. On its own terms, Gen.1 seems pretty unambiguous regarding both content and literary genre; and a significant amount of analysis has been devoted to its language. But it is even more difficult to reinterpret the understanding of the Exodus generation regarding this piece of their primeval history as something other than a precise analogy to their own experience of a week of time. Does Moses really embed an unspoken metaphor in the phrases, "Six days you shall labor and do all your work... for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth"?

As for pastoral intent, Gen.1-3 explains the (good) origins of everything, of man in particular, and of man's sinful predicament and how that is tied into the brokenness of the world. These are perennial, serious questions asked by every generation, in every place; and in the absence of authoritative testimony, myths and legends typically arise to fill in the gap. Do the Israelites coming out of Egypt see in Gen.1-3 a "just-so" story given them by their fallible-but-earnest leader? Given the longer pattern of revelation in Scripture--not to mention the warnings in Deuteronomy concerning false prophecy--such a view is rather condescending.

The progressive narrowing of the world-story as Gen. unfolds sharpens a focus on the purposes of God in creating and then saving a people who end up in bondage. This pattern as it pertains to one nation is analogous to the wider need of the whole world and all the nations. The book of Deuteronomy as the capstone of the Pentateuch is vital for its explanatory power with reference to all that stands before it. Moreover, clear indications are found in that book that more of the story lies in the future.



OttoNeubauer said:


> 2. Given that Genesis is divided into nine 'chapters' by the _toledoth_ formula ("these are the generations of..."), and that the first of these occurs in 2:4, how does this affect your understanding of chapter one with respect to the rest of Genesis? Is it a different genre, or a prologue, or something else?


After the first section (without the formula), there are *ten* sections (as opposed to nine). The texts are:
2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth..."
5:1, "This is the book of the generations of Adam..."
6:9, "These are the generations of Noah..."
10:1, "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth..." (and see 10:32 for an inclusio)
11:10, "These are the generations of Shem..."
11:27, " Now these are the generations of Terah..."
25:12, "Now these are the generations of Ishmael..." (also v13)
25:19, "Now these are the generations of Isaac..."
36:1, "Now these are the generations of Esau..." (and see v9)
37:2, " These are the generations of Jacob..."​
Gen.1:1-2:3 is a prologue of sorts, but from a simple grammatical and syntactical examination stands as a textbook example of Hebrew historical narrative. A deeper discovery and examination of patterns and coordinates within the events described is insufficient reason to abandon the surface reading as if it was misleading to take it in a straightforward way. Why can't all of these readings comport with one another? Isn't it genius to have a multi-layered text? Why should "fiction" be the first presentation when simple history will do? Isn't God capable of ordaining such a thing?



OttoNeubauer said:


> 3. The _toledoth_ formula in 5:1 is different from the others (at least in my English translation), reading "This is the book of the generations of Adam." This seems like the kind of thing you would find written at the top of a scroll or tablet or something to indicate what it is. Why do you think this _toledoth_ is different from the others? Does it indicate that 5:1 was once the beginning of a text and that chapters 1-4 were later additions?


The variation at 5:1 seems relatively minor to this exegete, but it is possible that it stood at the head of a prior collation of a number of documents in Moses' possession. Where economy of words is useful, he only need mention such written-record once. But the material before this point came from some source--whether written, oral-history, or dictated from God himself. All the preservation and presentation *in the form we have it* has to be attributed to one extended case of divine inspiration.



OttoNeubauer said:


> 4. One common argument for a literal interpretation is that because Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and in Romans 5 states that sin entered the world through "one man" and connects this "first Adam" to Christ, the "second Adam", therefore we must believe in a historical Adam, and to deny a historical Adam is to break a key link in Paul's argument. How then do we understand 1 Timothy 2:14, where Paul states that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."? If interpreted literally these contradict, so Paul must at least in one of these cases be referring to a larger group (at least the couple). How does the fact that Paul at various times describes two different individuals as the first sinner affect your understanding of Genesis 1-3?


In the first place, Paul is making different points in different places in his writing. So, each argument deserves its own hearing on its own terms. If Paul's argument in Rom.5 depends on the historic Adam corresponding to the historic Christ, a different kind of use of Gen.3 in 1Tim.2 wouldn't necessarily disturb the facts that pertain to the other passage.

But there is also the allegation that there's some kind of contradiction between what Paul writes in one place versus another. This is a statement in serious need of defense. What exactly is the contradiction? It surely isn't a question of _historicity,_ because both arguments are contingent on the events of Gen.3 a having actually happened, and Paul knows those events as they are related in Genesis.

Rom.5 is significant for the teaching of federal-headship, of corporate representation in one man. Adam--not Eve--was the representative of all mankind, and hung the curse of God upon all his posterity. His sin--not Eve's--is counted against every person who ever lived, born by natural generation. This is what Original Sin is all about. Rom.5 doesn't even say "Adam sinned first, then Eve," nor does 1Tim.2 say "Adam didn't sin;" Paul's point in the latter discussion has to do with Eve's having not remained in her submissive role, thus making her culpable for having been _deceived_. Adam wasn't deceived the way Eve was; but has no excuse whatever for his fall, and for the ruin he engendered. But Paul isn't writing with a focus on Adam in 1Tim.2, but on Eve and on corresponding women's role in church.



OttoNeubauer said:


> 5. What is your interpretation of the theological differences in creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 (for example, in Genesis 1 God creates _ex nihilo_ by speaking, while in Genesis 2-3 God creates using existing matter [dust, a rib] through physical actions)?


The telescoping nature of the whole structure of Genesis-history teaches progressive narrowing of perspective. Allegations of serious differences between Gen.1 and Gen.2 are the result of 1) caricaturing the "literalist" position as somehow (for thousands of years, even) blind to the variation, and then 2) positing their own kind of wooden literalism as the "proper" reading of the text. Really, the issue boils down to one thing: were these passages intended by Moses to complement one another, or were they just a cobbled collection of myths that really aren't telling a coherent story at all? The latter is the liberal _starting point_, from which they mock the old orthodoxy. 



OttoNeubauer said:


> 6. How do you interpret the statements in chapter 4 that so-and-so "was the father of those who" do various occupations? Are these literal or figurative statements, and how do they affect your interpretation of Genesis 1-3?


These people are being credited with starting certain human endeavor and industries. Isn't that a natural reading of the text? In a tiny population, every man must be a "renaissance man," a jack-of-all-trades. Among a broader population base there naturally arises division of labor and specialization. This reading would seem consistent with man's origins as a single family in Gen.1-3.



OttoNeubauer said:


> 7. Some of the latter parts of Genesis seem not be in chronological sequence (for example, Genesis 17 states that Ishmael is 13 years old while Genesis 21 is written as if he were a baby). How does this affect your understanding of Genesis 1-3?


For the most part, accusations of dischronology is purely fictitious. Just take the example given, Gen.21 (vs. Gen.17). One only gets "baby" Ishmael out of Gen.21 by trying to find him there. I have a 13yr old in my house, and this person is a child.

There still can be minor dischronologies in the Gen. story. An obvious example is the death of Abraham, in Gen.25. If Isaac is 60yrs old when he has his children, Gen.25:26, and he was born when Abraham was 100, then when Abraham dies at 175 (Gen.25:8), we rightly infer that this record comes in advance of the birth narrative of Jacob and Esau. The story is told this way for convenience sake. It is hardly necessary to foist all manner of chronological confusion on the text. It reads well as a fundamentally progressive story. And if there is a helpful summary and dismissal of some part of the story (such as the genealogies of Esau and Ishmael), how does such become a detraction from what appears to be an historic survey? And why should the existence of such set-asides have an impact on reading the first chapters of the book?


***********************
Anyway, I hope this contribution is useful to you.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 11, 2014)

OttoNeubauer said:


> How does the fact that Moses wrote the Pentateuch affect your interpretation? What was his pastoral purpose in writing Genesis 1-3, and how does your interpretation take that into account?



His purpose in beginning with creation was to establish the authority of God to a people who had been raised among Egyptian paganism.




OttoNeubauer said:


> Given that Genesis is divided into nine 'chapters' by the toledoth formula ("these are the generations of..."), and that the first of these occurs in 2:4, how does this affect your understanding of chapter one with respect to the rest of Genesis? Is it a different genre, or a prologue, or something else?



Before you can have the generations of anything, there must first be creation.




OttoNeubauer said:


> The toledoth formula in 5:1 is different from the others (at least in my English translation), reading "This is the book of the generations of Adam." This seems like the kind of thing you would find written at the top of a scroll or tablet or something to indicate what it is. Why do you think this toledoth is different from the others? Does it indicate that 5:1 was once the beginning of a text and that chapters 1-4 were later additions?



Scholars have often used such arguments to suggest that one person could not have written the entire Pentateuch, however similar results have occurred when this same type of scrutiny has been applied to the work of modern authors. We don't know exactly why he did this, but authors just sometimes change things up.




OttoNeubauer said:


> One common argument for a literal interpretation is that because Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and in Romans 5 states that sin entered the world through "one man" and connects this "first Adam" to Christ, the "second Adam", therefore we must believe in a historical Adam, and to deny a historical Adam is to break a key link in Paul's argument. How then do we understand 1 Timothy 2:14, where Paul states that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."? If interpreted literally these contradict, so Paul must at least in one of these cases be referring to a larger group (at least the couple). How does the fact that Paul at various times describes two different individuals as the first sinner affect your understanding of Genesis 1-3?



The big picture here is that if Adam and Eve were not real people, then the fall was not a real event, and that brings into question the entire rest of Scripture. As far as Paul's distinctions, sin technically entered the world through Adam because he, as the husband, was responsible for protecting her and leading her. The passage in Timothy deals with whether or not women should teach and Paul argues that because Eve was the one who was first deceived, that men should be the one's who exercise spiritual authority in the church. There is no contradiction here, just two sides of the same coin.




OttoNeubauer said:


> What is your interpretation of the theological differences in creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 (for example, in Genesis 1 God creates ex nihilo by speaking, while in Genesis 2-3 God creates using existing matter [dust, a rib] through physical actions)?



Genesis 1 is an overview of creation, while Genesis 2 and 3 highlight the special creation of man. The fact that God creates man differently is the entire point.




OttoNeubauer said:


> How do you interpret the statements in chapter 4 that so-and-so "was the father of those who" do various occupations? Are these literal or figurative statements, and how do they affect your interpretation of Genesis 1-3?



People in this time often did the same thing their father did because there was no colleges or trade schools. I really don't understand why this is an issue.




OttoNeubauer said:


> Some of the latter parts of Genesis seem not be in chronological sequence (for example, Genesis 17 states that Ishmael is 13 years old while Genesis 21 is written as if he were a baby). How does this affect your understanding of Genesis 1-3?



This is an assumption on your part. Just because she left him under a tree does not mean that he was an infant. It simply means she left him in the shade because it was hot. If he were an infant, it seems doubtful that he could have drank from a wineskin as verse 19 of chapter 21 tells us. I fail to see what any of this has to do with chapters 1-3.


----------

