0083 Can the myth interscope be used to express a link between the civilizations of the ancient Near East and Genesis 2:4-11?
Yes, Craig spends two chapters (B and C) discussing each criterion for myth (M1-M10) and showing how each applies to the Primeval History, as well as to the origin myths of ancient Mesopotamia.
0084 Craig writes beautiful prose. Every sentence is well constructed. Part Two exhibits the semitic textual style. Here, the pattern is A, B, C, C’, B’, A’.
Chapter 2 covers the nature of myth (A).
Chapter 3 addresses the perspective and situation levels of the interscope of myth (B).
Chapter 4 moves to the content level (C).
Chapter 5 asks whether the term, “mytho-history”, applies to Genesis 1-11 (C’).
Chapter 6 asks whether myths are believed to be true (B’).
Chapter 7 addresses how the New Testament regards Adam as historic (A’).
0085 The first movement (A-C) asks the reader to recognize the possibility that Genesis 2:4-11 has all the family resemblances of myth.
In particular, Genesis 2:4-11 bears a family resemblance to origin myths of the ancient Near East.
The next movement (C’-A’) is crucial. The origin myths of the ancient Near East are, from a Western point of view, historical, in so far as the cuneiform tablets bearing this literature come from archaeological sites.
Thus, the stories of Adam and Eve, along with the origin myths of the ancient Near East, may be labeled, “mytho-historical”.
0086 These myths are associated with certain periods in the archaeology of southern Mesopotamia, the Ubaid (7800-6000 years ago), the Uruk (6000-5000 years ago) and the Sumerian Dynastic (starting 5000 years ago).
Perhaps, the term, “mytho-archaeological”, is more accurate.