if any readers have been led to perceive that the religious teaching of Genesis lies precisely in that legendary element whose existence is here maintained. Our chief task is to discover the meaning of the legends as they stand, being assured that from the nature of the case these religious ideas were operative forces in the life of ancient Israel. It is a suicidal error in exegesis to suppose that the permanent value of the book lies in the residuum of historic fact that underlies the poetic and imaginative form of the narratives.[1]
§ 3. Myth and legend—Foreign myths—Types of mythical motive.
1. Are there myths in Genesis, as well as legends? On this question there has been all the variety of opinion that might be expected. Some writers, starting with the theory that mythology is a necessary phase of primitive thinking, have found in the OT abundant confirmation of their thesis.[2] The more prevalent view has been that the mythopœic tendency was suppressed in Israel by the genius of its religion, and that mythology in the true sense is unknown in its literature. Others have taken up an intermediate position, denying that the Hebrew mind produced myths of its own, but admitting that it borrowed and adapted those of other peoples. For all practical purposes, the last view seems to be very near the truth.
For attempts to discriminate between myth and legend, see Tuch, pp.
I-XV; Gu. p. XVII; Höffding, Phil. of Rel. (Eng. tr.), 199 ff.; Gordon,
77 ff.; Procksch, Nordhebr. Sagenbuch, i. etc.—The practically important
distinction is that the legend does, and the myth does not, start
from the plane of historic fact. The myth is properly a story of the
gods, originating in an impression produced on the primitive mind by
the more imposing phenomena of nature, while legend attaches itself to
the personages and movements of real history. Thus the Flood-story
is a legend if Noah be a historical figure, and the kernel of the narrative
an actual event; it is a myth if it be based on observation of a
