No, Peter, I didn’t slip my exegesis past you while you were otherwise occupied. We’ve discussed weighted words in the context of a literal hermeneutic, in contrast to metaphorical or mystical words which might point to a more mythic reading. Our speculations on redactive strategies for pulling the Pentateuch into a unified document seemed quite orthodox – I thought you were on board with this approach already. I accept that the redactors of the Pentateuch faithfully preserved the creation narratives as they’d been handed down through the tradition.

My reason for opening up the True Myth was that I’d seen the idea alluded to, though never explicated, in various emerging theological discussions as a way of reconciling Genesis 1-11 with modern science. The True Myth approach provides a rationale for relaxing the literal hermeneutic without relaxing Biblical inerrancy. None of us participating in this discussion seems persuaded that the True Myth hermeneutic applies to Genesis 1. Unless and until someone comes along who sees more merit in the approach, the True Myth topic seems to have run its course. I also don’t see anyone here prepared simply to acknowledge that Genesis 1 is a myth pure and simple, the product of ancient superstition and magical thinking that shouldn’t be taken seriously even by Jews and Christians. Or am I wrong about this?

And so the conundrum remains: how to reconcile Genesis 1 with modern science? There seems to be some enthusiasm for launching a new post that delves directly into the exegetical work. It seems that an acceptable “open-source” exegesis of Genesis 1 would be: (a) literal, (b) consistent with a priori intuitions about the creator-God, and (c) consistent with the rest of the Bible – in other words, a roughly orthodox evangelical exegesis. My exegesis is literal but it purposely ignores the other two criteria. I believe the resulting interpretation of Genesis 1 is internally consistent and also consistent with modern science; it does, however, deviate significantly from the usual interpretation of the passage. And so I thought it was time for me to step away from the table. Originally I hoped that my reading would be well-received in post-evangelical circles; I no longer entertain that hope. Still, I believe it has merit and I would be happy to give it an airing here. Over the next day or two I’ll try to write a concise summary and then post it here. The crowd at Sir Toby’s can continue eating their soup undisturbed while we carry on awhile longer.