Why Answers in Genesis Doesn’t Get Genre

Simon Turpin of Answers in Genesis has set out to explain what makes a biblical interpretation correct. I clicked through expecting to find a response that at least attempted to be challenging, but what I found was highly simplistic and severely missing the point. Turpin starts with this:

Sometimes, after speaking at a church on the subject of biblical creation (i.e., the belief that God created the world in six 24-hour days, that there was no death before the Fall, and that there was a global Flood), I encounter the objection, “But that’s just your interpretation!”

Of course, Turpin cannot escape the fact that there are thousands of different Christian denominations, each varying slightly in how its adherents and leaders interpret the Bible. He acknowledges that there are multiple interpretations, then, but argues that his interpretation is the right one—just like nearly every other Christian pastor and evangelist. Turpin justifies his assertion with two points:

Firstly, we need to interpret Scripture using the historical-grammatical approach, which means taking the text plainly according to its literary genre (2 Corinthians 4:2). The plain meaning is the one intended by the author, and it can be determined by the literary, biblical, and historical context. Thus the plain reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is that the text describes events that took place in six 24-hour days that occurred in time-space history. This is the natural interpretation (exegesis) of the text and the one that is meant by the author.

Can we pause for a moment to note that Turpin has no way of knowing for sure what the author of Genesis meant his readers to understand? Genesis was written at a time when people wrote epics filled with both human and divine figures. Think the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance, or the Iliad and the Odyssey. Did the authors of those stories mean for them to be taken completely literally? Or did they assume their readers and listeners would understand them as myth, as embellished stories that are loosely based on past events but have meaning that is not attached to their exact factual accuracy? That’s actually a really good question, and one I would love the opportunity to put to a classics professor.

It’s also worth noting that biographies of important figures like Alexander the Great are also peppered with stories of divine interventions. When historians read biographies written before the advent of modern history, they do so with the assumption that what they’re reading is likely embellished or otherwise changed or enhanced. Part of a challenge of being an ancient historian is separating the fact from the fiction. The ancients did not practice history the way we do today, and understanding that is critical to how we approach ancient writings like Genesis. I am sure that Turpin would not be comfortable with any of that, but I’m afraid he’s the one who started it by talking about genre as though it actually matters.

It may be worth letting Turpin know that some historians and theologians have argued that Genesis 1 was actually written in the genre of ancient hebrew poetry. But then I suspect Turpin likely cares more about asserting that Genesis 1 is literally true than he actually does about its genre.

This actually ties well into Turpin’s second point:

Secondly, a correct interpretation comes from the text and not from outside ideas that are imposed upon it, such as evolution and millions of years. This was the reading of the text by most scholars before the eighteenth century including the Jewish historian Josephus, the early church fathers, Theophilus of Antioch, Lactantius, and Basil the Bishop of Caesarea, as well as the Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Before we get to the bit about evolution, I would argue that it is irresponsible to read the text of the Bible in isolation from outside information and source material. For instance, if we weren’t familiar with writings like the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Iliad or the Odyssey, or ancient biography, we would have less understanding of where the writing of the Bible fits vis a vis other ancient writings. There is also much to be learned from modern archaeology about the Old Testament accounts, and even the New Testament has to be understood within the context of first century Judaism and Roman history.

Let me ask you this—if the Bible is a divine book, would it be threatened by a deeper understanding of its creation, genre, and context? Or would this greater understanding enhance and improve one’s reading and understanding of that text?

What about Turpin’s argument that no church father before the eighteenth century read evolution into the Biblical account of Genesis? Turpin is of course speaking of Christians who, today, accept the theory of evolution—these Christians are often referred to as “theistic evolutionists.” There are several problems with Turpin’s assertion. First of all, no one knew about evolution (or even how old very the world is) before the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so we shouldn’t be surprised no one had ever tried to work out the seeming contradiction between evolution and Genesis. However, Turpin is simply wrong if he means to suggest that the church fathers universally took Genesis 1 literally up until the eighteenth century. They did not. In fact, many church fathers argued that the first chapter of Genesis was not meant to be taken literally or understood as science.

But there’s another thing to remember too—Turpin’s assertion rests on the assumption that the author of Genesis intended to convey scientific truths and not simply moral truths, and the assumption that God cared about the holy text he dictated to his followers being scientifically accurate. I don’t think either of these assumptions are merited, at least without evidence or argumentation. The Bible has long been understood as a sacred religious text. It is only more recently that there has been a concerned effort to argue that it should also be approached as a science textbook. But you wouldn’t know that from Turpin’s article.

I no longer identify as a Christian and I don’t much stake in arguments between young earth creationist Christians and theistic evolutionist Christians. I do, however, have a problem with people like Turpin so badly misusing or misunderstanding the very basics of ancient history and genre, while claiming he knows them. I don’t like seeing people being misled or lied to—and Answers in Genesis does this a lot.