The Introduction of Myth...

Today during a lecture in intro to systematics our esteemed professor rejected the idea that Genesis chapter 2: 8-25 has the earmarks of myth. "We outright deny that this is a mythological account of expression...to introduce myth here is to introduce something totally foreign" Now the point for us in class was directed at the veracity of the idea that God speaks to Adam and that He is able to do so with verbal, audible language. One might see it as historical and literal verses mythological and literary. Here we were concerned that any introduction to the idea of myth would destroy the very foundation of revelation and the religious or more emphatically, covenantal aspect of the relation between God and man. It was a wonderful discussion that underlined the import of God being friends with, having fellowship with His creation as a real and ultimate reality. Which lead to the thought that: "if some heretics will say that intercourse between God and man is too sublime for words, then the heretic who would say this is trying to be wiser than God."

As I reflected on these important things I wondered why this same force of denial of the mythological is not applied to the preceding chapter of Genesis? After all the effect of such mythology seems to do damage to the type of relationship - or rather to the mode of covenant communication that we are so keen to protect here in chapter 2. What I mean is if the "book binders" are correct in the mere literary import of chapter 1 are we not forced to conclude that God's communication bares little or no resemblance to actual history? That God teaches through a myth of creation construction the history of which is somewhere in the background, but certainly not revealed?

Granted the creation account is told to Moses not Adam (at least as far as we know) for the starting of the redemptive/covenantal-history whereas chapter 2 although recorded by Moses was also certainly spoke to Adam. But that does not diminish the idea that God's communication is in both places - normal, as a friend would speak to a friend and understandable.

From this I must infer that the normal reading of Genesis 1 - where a day means a day - an evening means the close of a day and the morning the beginning - is quite simply not mythological and natural to the type of real and understandable communication that we are so intent to keep with Adam. The idea is that God's revelation is plenary. However, the idea that Genesis 1 is not concerned to relate the plain understanding of day, evening, morning etc, is truly mythological and vague. It uses language to describe a meaning other than what is obvious, which as far as I can tell is not the way that friends speak to friends.

So much work has been done to refute the error of Barthian thinking who championed the neo-orthodox view of the "theology of the cross" - which he describes as a theology that is necessarily hidden and vague - why? Because man can not handle direct plenary revelation. To which we say a whopping NO! So why would we be tempted to start of on this same foot - on the same path of vague revelation couched in literary device unseen to the untrained eye, i.e. not clear?