I was not discussing doctrine per se (I don’t see that as central to the conversation even though the OP implies it may have consequences) but the accounts that are written in Gen 1:1 to 11:9.
The
introduction to Genesis hosted on the USCCB is typical of modern scholarship when it describes the first eleven chapters:
Sigh.
The USCCB’s introduction is not binding; without a papal ratification it could come from any secretary hired by a bishop to add something to their web page…
You are correct in avoiding a strictly literal historical reading of Genesis; but I would caution you that “facts” vs. “truth”. isn’t going to clearly demark the issue.
The book of Genesis is one of several which is called “LAW” (Torah).
Much of Genesis is not focused on history in the sense of a sequence of events; but rather upon legal decisions which have an historical stare decisis.
Differences in stories found in Genesis and Gilgamesh, then, also reflect that different nations chose to solve legal problems in different ways.
When nations come into contact with each other – they have to reconcile their laws, and inform their subjects as to international law exceptions.
Much of what is found in the early Genesis chapters applies to legality of various kinds of worship, rulers, land rights, animal rights, and the rights and duties of people/citizens. Several of the comments in Genesis are “lawyer” speak which only are true in a very narrow sense. Ancient nations, were, in a very real sense, writing up legal briefs and recording agreements and court decisions when they wrote Genesis, Gilgamesh, the Enuma elish, etc.
It’s not surprising, then, that one court would cite another one in a legal decision; or that elements of one story would be copied into another nation’s version. When the Jew’s were deported to Babylon, Babylonians and Jews (who, remember share a geographical brotherhood dating from Abraham – as Abraham’s “Ur of the Chaldees” is where Babylon would later become a nation…) – So, Babylonians and Jews had to work out what it meant that they shared a common family heritage in the past. They had to decide what laws of worship applied to whom.
That’s why its quite important to note the subtle differences between Say, the Enuma Elish and Genesis; It’s not a topic addressable in a shallow study, or just “reading” the bible, or labeling everything a “myth” and assuming no “facts” are recorded, or that “truth” may be arbitrarily carved out of these stories at anyone’s creative whim (even bishops need to be careful!).
Its a discipline where a scholar has to learn what the limitations in scope a particular statement of fact has (and its jurisdictional limits); and these stories have to be carefully cross-examined for us to recover the full importance of much of what they say. We’ve simply lost much of the interpretive key, since these decisions don’t really affect us today in the same way as they did a much older people.
Try reading the legal language of our USA courts today, and compare them to English ones of centuries bygone. Even relatively modern law is
NOT simple for a non-attorney to accurately parse and understand; Courts that are over 3000 years older than ours can hardly be expected to be easier to understand!
