'What sort of literature is Genesis 1?'

The question for the Christian is not 'is Genesis true?' but rather 'how do we read Genesis?' In particular I want to think about 'what sort of literature is Genesis 1?'

In Genesis 1 we see repetitive formulas like "And God said . . . And it was so", there are lots of things that occur in sevens or multiples of seven (seven is the number of completeness and perfection in the Bible), and the days are deliberately framed in three pairs - with the forth day corresponding to the first, the fifth corresponding to the second, and the sixth corresponding to the third. This highly stylized account reads very differently from the historical narratives found later in the Bible, with their concrete details of time and place.

Writing in The Briefing Sandy Grant suggests that we might refer to Genesis 1 as 'figurative history' and explains:

This is not to say that early Genesis is untrue or non-historical. But we need to recognize it as a different type of history. Perhaps we could call it 'figurative history'-that is, history which has artistic figurative elements which do not necessarily need to be taken literally. It is rather like Jesus in Matthew 21 telling the story of Israel's rejection of the prophets, culminating in its imminent rejection of him. He tells this story using the parable of the tenants, which is clearly a made-up story with symbolic elements. However, it is a profoundly true story with clear historical reference. It describes the history of Israel's apostasy and rejection of God, as well as her rejection of Jesus, but it does so using figurative, symbolic language.

While the common use of the word translated 'day' (especially when numbered) is a reference to a twenty-four hour period the text itself suggests that it does not always need to be taken as such: in 2:4 we literally read These are the generations of the heavens and earth in the day (the word 'day' is left out in the NIV) the LORD God created the earth and the heavens (see ESV) - here 'day' is not a reference to a twenty-four hour period of time.

There are certainly some who read Genesis as 'myth' and who discount any historical reality to the stories that it tells. But that is by no means the position of many evangelicals who read early Genesis as 'figurative history'. They would point out that figurative language is still very capable of referring to real, historical happenings (as Jesus' parable of the tenants does). Some details may be symbolic and figurative rather than literal, but the narrative makes little sense if the creation and fall of humanity weren't real events in space and time. . . . it is important to note that many of those who read Genesis 1 as 'figurative history' are totally committed to the reality and historicity of Adam and Eve and the Fall. Where they differ from the literal readers of Genesis is that they do not feel compelled to affirm that the creation events happened within a 144-hour period only a few thousand years ago (Grant).