In a previous post I attempted to briefly contrast Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8 as a way of illustrating the importance of of genre in Biblical interpretation. In this post I continue those thoughts with specific attention to how evangelical Christians–my own particular segment of Christianity, you might say–interpret Proverbs 8 vis-à-vis Genesis 1.
Why do most conservative evangelical Christians not even discuss Proverbs 8 in regards to the “creation wars?” The answer is simple. They instinctively understand that Proverbs 8 is not meant to be taken literally. Proverbs 8 is poetry, and like the rest of the Book of Proverbs it is filled with metaphor, simile, hyperbole and a plethora of other literary devices. We read Proverbs 8 and easily discern that its genre is not historical narrative. Because of this we understand that we cannot expect it to behave as a piece of historical narrative might behave. Yet, when we read Genesis 1 we often jump to the conclusion that it ought to be understood literally. Conservative evangelical Christians often jump to the further conclusion that this literal understanding is a kind of polemic against evolution. Yet neither conclusions are necessarily correct. Why should Genesis 1 be understood as historical narrative? I am, personally, unaware of any convincing argument for why its genre must be historical narrative, and not a whole host of other possibilities.
Where does this leave us? Certainly not hopelessly adrift, as some might suggest. It does reveal that understanding the Bible is not an easy thing all the time. It often takes hard work and study to understand the Bible, as it takes hard work and study to understand any piece of ancient near eastern literature. That shouldn’t dissuade anyone from studying the Bible, it ought to encourage everyone that it is a book worth studying.
It also ought to make it clear that genre is a key link in determining the purpose of a text. As I already mentioned, we instinctively understand that Proverbs 8 is poetry, specifically poetry meant to teach. It falls in the broader section of Proverbs 1-9 which is clearly addressed to young men as a means of starting them on the wise path in life. Proverbs 8 is part of this. In my opinion, Genesis 1 is a (possibly liturgical) polemic that shows how God is fundamentally different from the other gods (there are other ways to understand the genre and purpose of Genesis 1 that do not see it as historical narrative). The use of metaphorical and other non-literal language in either passage in no way takes away from what they are trying to do. Quite the opposite, the metaphorical and non-literal language in both passages adds to what they are trying to accomplish.
In the end, genre is vitally important to determining the meaning of a text. How one understands the genre of a text irrevocably impacts how how understands that text–whether as polemic, temple cosmology, ancient near eastern creation motif, chiastic hymn, or historical narrative. My own hope is that one day evangelical Christians may begin to understand that studying genre–and by extension other ancient near eastern literature which helps to flesh out a genre–is an important part of studying the Bible. In addition, I hope that one day we as Christians will understand that a disagreement over the genre and purpose of a text is normally not cause for throwing someone out of a church.
Reading psalm 49 yesterday I was struck at how the word mashal is not noted in translation – so I forced it to be visible since it is the new frame in the poem.
I will bend my ear into a proverb suchlike
I will open my riddle on a harp
and twice more with a one letter variation in the Hebrew – which I have tried to mimic in English
but the precious dust doesn’t get it
proverbial as beasts, they are undone
The other place where mashal really comes into its own is the narrator’s voice about Job – placing this miniseries where it belongs, as parable.
If we would let the play of parable and proverb rule (Hebrew mashal again!) we would listen better and have more fun too.
Calvin,
Not that I wanI’ve been mulling over your comparison b/w Gen. 1 and Prov. 8 for a few days, and I think it’s still a bit reach in asserting Gen. 1 is not historical narrative.
Obviously, you point out that it would be foolish to think of Prov. 8 is historical narrative, given the style and structure and literary devices employed. I think it’s a safe bet to say the vast majority of interpreters would agree with you; but I’m not convinced any similar elements are found in Gen. 1. It is present in a book that largely presents itself as historical narrative, and the syntax doesn’t seem to be radically different from the other parts of that book. Certainly, it is highly structured, but so too are the toledots, the flood narrative, the plague cycles in Exodus, et al. There isn’t any strong indicator I see to clearly discount a historically narrative reading.
That being said, I don’t know it that requires we hold to a literal six-day reading of it. http://bit.ly/czZA0d has a treatment of the matter I rather like. But then again, I’m always a sucker for Bavinck.