Myth in OT Roots of Nonviolence

Yesterday someone asked about my description of the Genesis creation story as “myth” in my book, the Old Testament Roots of Nonviolence. He said, “I see that throughout the book elsewhere you treat the material as historical, but why did you describe the creation story as myth.”

My Answer: Myth has two principal uses. The most popular has been to think of myth as fictional. The other usage could be fictional or historical or a blend of both. As I use the term, it refers to an arch type story that tells us who we are and defines our place in the universe, usually in an abbreviated form and using a high degree of symbolism.

I believe the most important objective of Bible study is to discover ourselves in the story. The creation story tells us the origin of sin, and if come to recognize the story is as much about us as about Adam and Eve, then we get the point. We are sinners who need God to save us. We are “in Adam” at birth and share the same propensity to go our own way apart from God. In this sense the story is a myth that tells us who we are and how we came to be what we are.

Later biblical writers make use of the symbols in the creation “myth.” I find it fascinating that the canon itself is bookmarked by certain themes introduced in Genesis. The rivers that gave life to the garden in Genesis become a life-giving river flowing from the throne of God in Revelation (echoing Ezekiel as well). The two trees in Genesis become one life giving trees on both sides of the river in Revelation. The fiery sword that separates humanity from the life giving tree in Genesis becomes a lake of fire into which death itself is cast in Revelation, and into which also the snake who deceives is thrown.

The writer of Revelation uses the Genesis material in the sense of myth as I have defined the term. Therefore, I believe I am following a clearly Biblical model when using the term, myth, in this way.