Dr. McLelland rather neatly categorizes the first eleven chapters of Genesis, up to the birth of Eber (the first Hebrew?) in 11:14, as Saga. Such a division of the Genesis account is quite arbitrary, to say the least, and is done to support a particular worldview or cosmology. McLelland implies that a more prevalent literal understanding did not become widespread until the 19th century rise of fundamentalism. Saga, of course, need not be synonymous with Legend, and in fact may be rooted in history. The historicity of the biblical accounts of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph was accepted both by the Israelites and the early Christian church, and is accepted by a majority of Christians today. Yet those particular chapters (Genesis 12ff.) contain many more of the elements of Saga than do the first eleven chapters.
The New Testament writings reflect the underlying historicity of those first eleven chapters. Indeed, Luke’s genealogy begins with Adam and includes the antediluvians. 1 Peter 3:17ff. appears to accept the Genesis account of Noah and the moral climate of that era as historically accurate, as does 2 Peter 2:5. And surely the writer of the letter to the Hebrews does not believe that he/she is commending a fictitious Noah as an exemplary of faith (Hebrews 11:7). Jesus himself certainly understood the Genesis account of Noah and the flood to be rooted in history (Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 17:26-27).
As for the actual creation account, particularly as it is outlined in the first chapter of Genesis, John Calvin and most of the Reformers had a fairly literal understanding. McLelland, on the other hand, seems to be paying homage to some form of evolutionary theory. However one might understand the biblical account of creation, and there are a wide range of understandings that could conceivably remain faithful to the text, an evolutionary understanding is not compatible with the plain meaning of Genesis 1. Plants, birds, fishes and mammals were brought forth “according to their kind” with the inherent God-given power to reproduce accordingly. So far there are no empirical data or experimental proofs that could give any credence to the highly fantastical theories of evolution as concerning any form of plant, animal, or human life. The vast ages attributed to the earth and to the cosmos are to a large extent speculative and based on inexact sciences. However, I will leave that particular matter alone, as at least somewhat separate from the “theory” of evolution. In conclusion, I would suggest that when we receive the hidden things of God “as little children” (Luke 18:21), we are able to perceive that this particular emperor (evolutionary theory) indeed has no clothes.
