History and pseudo-history
by Robert Gurney
Hourglass©iStockphoto/njw1224
Is Genesis 1–11 history, pseudo-history, poetry, allegory
or parable? By ‘pseudo-history’, I mean something which was written
to look like history, but was not genuine history. Before the rise of uniformitarianism
and the theory of evolution in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the vast
majority of Christians, including all the Reformers, regarded Genesis 1–11 as straightforward history. But since
then, many Bible-believing Christians have tried, in one way or another, to reconcile
these chapters with evolutionary, long-age beliefs. Some, such as the ‘gap’
theorists and ‘day-age’ theorists, have tried (unsuccessfully) to preserve
the historicity of the Bible while allowing for a pre-history of millions of years.
But others, such as the ‘literary framework’ theorists, have abandoned
any such attempt and regard these chapters as figurative or symbolic.1
Is the creation account symbolic?
The literary framework approach has become very popular amongst evangelical academics
in recent years. They argue that these chapters are not meant to be taken as real
history, but say that they still teach important theological lessons. Some academics
may accept that the biblical account looks like history, or they may describe it
as poetry, allegory or parable. But whatever they call it, they believe it is a
figurative account that only symbolizes certain truths. For example, even
if they accept that the account is describing days of creation that are 24-hour
days, they believe that they are not meant to be taken literally─they are
symbolic days.
The literary framework approach has become very popular amongst evangelical academics
in recent years.
There are many reasons why the literary-framework belief is wrong.2,3 For
example, the grammatical structure of the Hebrew is that of consecutive narrative
prose, not poetry. And the context, which includes the rest of Genesis and the rest
of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, indicates clearly that Genesis 1–11 is describing real history.4 This disqualifies all interpretations that treat
Genesis as non-historical literature, including narrative prose, such as allegory
and parable.
But another important consideration concerns the impact of the message
of Genesis. Messages conveyed by genuine history have power and authority but pseudo-history
is weak and powerless.
Genuine prediction and pseudo-prediction
We can illustrate the contrast between history and pseudo-history by looking at
prediction and pseudo-prediction. The history of Genesis 1–11 and biblical prediction are closely related
because both are concerned with history, with God’s omniscience (His limitless
knowledge, infinitely beyond man’s ken) and with the truth of what He has
revealed. One deals with His knowledge of history in the remote past, and the other
concerns His knowledge of ‘history’ in the future (relative to the time
of the prediction). By ‘pseudo-prediction’, I mean something which was
written to look like prediction, but actually was written after the ‘predicted’
events took place.
Genuine predictive prophecy conveys a powerful and authoritative message, and the
Bible attaches great importance to it. By accurately foretelling future history,
God provides evidence that He is the true God, and that His words can be trusted.
He dwells outside time, and only He can know all of history, past, present and future.
This truth is stressed repeatedly in the book of Isaiah (see 41:21–24; 44:6–7; 46:9–10; 48:3–5),
in Deuteronomy (18:21–22) and by Jesus (John 14:29).5
On the other hand, pseudo-prediction proves nothing, because it was made
after the event and was not a true prediction. It provides no solid evidence
that it comes from the true God, and that its message is true.6
Genuine history and pseudo-history
God knows the past as well as the future, and this is especially important with
regard to Creation, because God was there when it happened, and man was not! We
have seen the power and authority of genuine predictive prophecy; so what about
the power and authority of genuine history in the Bible?
Christianity is an historical religion. Its teachings are rooted and grounded in
history. It is not just a collection of ethical teachings.
Christianity is an historical religion. Its teachings are rooted and grounded in
history. It is not just a collection of ethical teachings. The Bible records the
actions of God in history, and repeatedly points to these real, historical events,
showing who God is, what He is like and what He is doing. These events include Creation,
the Fall, the Flood, the confusion of Babel, the call of Abraham, the deliverance
from Egypt, and many other events in the history of Israel, and, of course, the
birth, life, death and Resurrection of Jesus.
If the Resurrection account is no more than a story, what does it achieve and what
does it prove? If the deliverance from Egypt never happened, what does the story
prove? Why does the Bible repeatedly point to these and other episodes as crucially
important historical events which achieved God’s purposes and demonstrated
His mighty, saving power?
Like pseudo-prediction, pseudo-history proves nothing. Its message is weak
and without authority, because it is not backed up by the historical facts. It is
rhetoric without a solid factual foundation. The lessons of the creation account
only carry weight and power if God really did create the way the Bible says He did.
If it is merely symbolical the creation account is not only conveying a weak
message but also a false message. For example, a vital part of the
message is that the original creation was “very good” (which means perfect),
and it was spoiled only after man disobeyed God at the time of the Fall. This corruption
included the entrance of human death (Genesis 2:15–17; 3:17–19; 1 Corinthians 15:20–22,26). But if the creation
account is merely symbolic, and the ‘millions of years’ are real, it
means that there was death, disease, violence, suffering and waste before
the Fall. This is a clear contradiction of the creation account’s message
(and the message of 1 Corinthians 157).
Genesis 1–11 presents itself as real history, which
is consistent with the rest of Scripture. It is only powerful and authoritative
when it is regarded as history and not some kind of non-historical compromise.
Readers’ commentsRoger B., Australia, 21 September 2011
History and prophecy are the two aspects of the Bible which clearly delineate it from any other so-called ‘holy book’. First Corinthians 15:1–6 explains this best as this is the one place where Scripture defines the Gospel (“by this Gospel you are saved”).
In that passage, we read “Christ died for our sins ‘according to the Scriptures’, that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day ‘according to the Scriptures’”.
So, we find the prophetic part, i.e. God predicted it, and it happened.
However, the passage goes on to say that Christ appeared to Peter, then the twelve and then to more than 500 others “most of whom are still alive [at the time of writing] although some have fallen asleep”. In other words, we find a historic proof that the fulfilment of God’s prophecy also had witnesses. Had that not happened, people could—and would—have easily disproved the claim.
So, it’s not surprising that those who wish to discredit the Bible either do so by attacking prophecy (for example, by suggesting these passages were written ex eventu, or ‘after the fact’) or by denying history. However, take away either and you destroy the Gospel and with it, our salvation. The truly sad thing is that many people who call themselves Christian want to remove the historic nature of the Bible without realising that they are effectively taking away their own salvation. After all, if God is NOT in control of history, how can anyone believe what He has predicted for the future?
Gordon S., United Kingdom, 19 September 2011
Events recorded in the Old Testament are said by Paul to have “happened [as] types of us” (JND translation), that is, they were real events and not simply parables or something couched in figurative language such as we get in some Psalms e.g. Psalm 19:5.
John L., Australia, 19 September 2011
A good article, showing the simplicity of simply believing what the Scriptures say. Instead, so many Christians want to give credence to man’s philosophies and godless ideas. |
Related articles
Further reading
References
- See, for example, Blocher, H., In the Beginning,
IVP, Leicester, UK, 1984. Return to text.
- Batten, D. and Sarfati, J., 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History, CMI, Brisbane,
Australia, 2006. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, Green Forest, USA,
2004, pp, 94–101. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Genesis: Bible authors believed
it to be history: The important thing is that God created, isn’t it? Creation
28(2):21–23, 2006; creation.com/gen-hist. Return to
text.
- A false prediction is an acid test of a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:20–22). Return to text.
- The book of Daniel, for example, contains some truly amazing
predictive prophecies. However, liberal scholars, followed by some professing evangelicals,
prefer to believe that most of these prophecies are pseudo-predictions. See Gurney,
R., biblicalstudies.org.uk/book_god-in-control_gurney.html, pp. 1–10. This
is a revised internet edition, 2006, of Walter, H., God in Control, Worthing,
UK, 1980. Return to text.
- Cosner, L., The Resurrection
and Genesis, Creation 32(2):48–50, 2010.
Return to text.
| “One little bit doesn’t make a difference.” It’s a good job CMI didn’t think like that. We had to start somewhere producing information, one word and one article at a time. Similarly, please don’t think your small donation doesn’t help. They can add together to bring a shower of blessings.  | | |
|
