As I've studied Genesis 1-11, I've become increasingly sympathetic to the view that the genre is what John Walton called "imagistic-history."[1] This term, and others like it, such as "mytho-history"[2] or "dramatized history,"[3] are referencing a historical genre which employs figurative or mythological language. The claim is not that these imagistic elements of Genesis are errors; rather, they are given to provide rich theological meaning through the history that is being told.

My favorite example of the imagistic and historical aspects of these early chapters of Genesis is in the genealogies. On the one hand, these certainly indicate that the text is interested in telling a history that involves real people, for the genres of pure poetry or allegory do not usually feature genealogies. On the other hand, one feature about the genealogies that indicates something more figurative and theological in purpose is the ages. From Adam onwards, many of the figures live past 700, 800, or even 900 years of age. However, the long ages of the patriarchs seem to conflict with the Abraham narrative, implying the author is not intending for us to take these ages literally.

It must be noted that this point regarding Genesis is only one of many pieces of evidence that should be considered in determining the genre of Genesis 1-11; it is not enough on its own to be conclusive. With this noted, let's take a look.

Abraham's Laughter

In Genesis 17 and 18, God announces that Abraham and Sarah will have a son within the year. Abraham reacts:

Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man a hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth to a child?" (Genesis 17:17 — NASB)

Notice, Abraham finds it hilarious and impossible that he at 100 could have a child. Sarah similarly laughs at the absurdity of a "worn-out" woman and an "old" master conceiving a child, which prompts God's rebuke, "Is anything too difficult for the Lord?" (Gen 18:14). This narrative assumes that procreation at 100 for a man and 90 for a woman is impossible; otherwise, Abraham's reaction doesn't make any sense.[4]

Here's the paradox: if the lifespans of the Genesis genealogies are literal, then Abraham's laughter is unexplainable. Abraham's own father had him at the age of 130. Abraham's grandfather and his great-grandfathers all would have routinely fathered children well beyond 100. Abraham is surely aware of this, which is why we might expect him to say something like "of course I can bear a child; my own father had me at 130." So why does he believe it's impossible for him to have a child at the age of 100? It's likely because the ages of his relatives are not intended to be taken literally.

Now, how do we know that Terah had Abraham at 130? From the following three verses, we can gain the information that Terah died at 205 (Gen 11:32), Abraham was 75 when he left Haran (Gen 12:4), and Terah died before he left Haran (Acts 7:4).

The days of Terah were 205 years; and Terah died in Haran. (Genesis 11:32 — NASB)

So Abram went away as the Lord had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. (Genesis 12:4 — NASB)

Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. And from there, after his father died, God had him move to this country in which you are now living. (Acts 7:4 — NASB)

Terah died when Abraham was 75, meaning that Terah lived 75 years after he bore Abraham. Terah's age at death subtracted from Abraham's age at departure gives us the earliest age that Terah could have fathered Abraham, which is 130 (205 years - 75 years = 130 years).

Now, some may point to Genesis 11:26, which states, "Terah lived seventy years, and fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran." Sometimes it is suggested that this verse indicates that Terah fathered Abraham at age 70. While it may harmonize with Abraham's reaction, it simply creates a different inconsistency with Acts 7:4. Such a strict view of the language here also implies that Abraham, Nahor, and Haran would have to be triplets. The likely explanation is that Terah began having children at 70, with Nahor, and then later had Haran and Abraham.[5] The listing of Abraham first among his siblings is not an indication of him being the oldest, but rather an indication of prominence. This is true in the case of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, where Japheth is likely the oldest.

Other Details

This reading that the long ages of the patriarchs are figurative is also consistent with a number of other observations about Genesis:

First, the ages given in Genesis 5 all end with 0, 2, 5, and 7 (with the exception of Methuselah), which is certainly not random. The probability of this distribution, according to Kenton Sparks, is one in 15 million.[6] We must note that the ancient world used a base-60 system of counting and 60 months is exactly 5 years. All of the ages of the patriarchs can be formed by adding or subtracting multiples of 5 years and then adding or subtracting 7, the sacred number of completion. For example, Adam lives 130 (5x26), has Seth, lives 800 (5x160) more, and then dies at 930 (5x160). Likewise, Seth lives 105 (5x21), fathered Enosh, and lives 807 (5x160+7) years more, then dies at 912 (5x181+7). The only exception is Methuselah, who lived to 969, which is 955 plus 14, a multiple of 7.[7] I'm only sketching this point here; for more details, see Michael Jones' excellent video on the subject here or see Chapter 10, "The Numerological Lifespans of the Patriarchs" of Misinterpreting Genesis by Ben Stanhope.

Second, Genesis 25:8 states that Abraham "died at a good old age, an old man and satisfied with life." However, given that his relatives Eber lived to be 464 and Shelah lived to be 433, this narrative detail seems quite strange. Within a culture that views age as an indication of God's favor, Abraham's early death in comparison to his recent relatives would be seen as a sign of rapid generational decay or a divine curse. The description that Abraham lived a "good old age, full of years," given the ages are literal, is unexpected.

Third, the text of Genesis contains no record of Abraham meeting, consulting, or mentioning Noah, Shem, and Eber. Shem and Eber even outlived Abraham! This is strange given that the oldest living ancestors of ancient, patriarchal societies would have remained as rulers or spiritual guides. Isaac and Jacob make no mention of these figures either. While this is an argument from silence, it has at least some merit given how much we might expect these characters to be present in the story.

The exegetical, narrative, and mathematical evidence against a literal reading of the long ages of the patriarchs constitutes a strong piece of evidence that Genesis 1-11 is not to be taken as wholly literal. At the same time, the presence of genealogies should make us consider that the text is intending to communicate history. I believe that the dichotomy often subjected to these early chapters of Genesis between 'allegory' and 'history' is simply a false dichotomy. Can we not take the genealogies of Genesis to indicate a history retold with the use of some figurative language? I think so.