[This Article Is Part Of The Old Testament God Series]
A RECURRING criticism of the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 point to the overwhelming similiarities between them and the surrounding cultural myths of the Ancient Near East. The argument, since we can clearly see Egyptian and Mesopotamian influence on the Hebrew creation stories, is that this demonstrates an intrinsic inability to trust the validity of Scripture. After all, if the writer of Genesis simply appropriated other stories and made them Hebraic, does this not profoundly undermine the truth of the Bible?
If we read these narratives as scientific discourse, as a literal rendering teaching us of the origin of all things, then this becomes a significant issue. I am unconvinced, however, that this reading is necessary or even faithful to the text and its original audience. What if we have been reading these stories wrong?
This is not a new thought – I join a long line of prominent Christian thinkers dating back to the earliest records of the Christian movement, a chain of Church Fathers (from Origen to Augustine to Luther, Calvin, and Wesley) who understood Genesis 1 and 2 as metaphor or typology. What if the purpose of these passages was not to teach us about earth and humanity, but about God?
This is precisely what I argue in the paper attached below. Rather than adopting the mythologies of the surrounding Ancient Near East, the Hebrew cosmologies were written as a criticism of them. As theological education for an emerging Israelite nation, the purpose of these narratives was to emphasize the nature of the God of Israel in contrast to the surrounding polytheism, while also conveying His superiority over competing religions.
This is a research piece I am making available for the readers of this blog. I would love to hear your comments. How does this perspective change the way you think about the creation stories in Genesis? Is this a fair envisioning of these passages?
Download The PDF: The Cosmology of Genesis 1
Image Credit: Kevin Dooley
Rebekah Crume January 17, 2013 at 1:50 pm
First of all, this was an excellant and insightful paper! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and learned a lot!
Secondly, here is a thought I had that was sparked by your writing: In Romans 1, Paul spells out the fact that men are without excuse because God’s invisible attributes – his divine nature and eternal power – have been clearly displayed in creation since the beginning of time. Do you think that this is why most ancient religions and/or cultures have some sort of creation account? Because of creation they can sense that there is an ultimately powerful and “other worldly” if you will, being that is responsible for all that we see? Just curious to hear your thoughts on it!
Trey Medley January 17, 2013 at 2:04 pm
While I certainly agree with your overall sentiment (we need to read these stories as they were meant to be read, and that includes a critique of the surrounding “pagan” culture creation stories), I would caution against jumping on the metaphor, typology type reading. Now, maybe you didn’t mean the specific methodology used by those groups, but those types of readings tend to ignore the cultural context of the world in which the texts were initially spoken and read. One can read it “literally” without “literal” meaning reading it as a post-enlightenment scientific treatise.
T. E. Hanna January 17, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “literal” vs “reading literally”?
What I’m arguing is that Genesis 1 used already-existing creation stories as a framework to teach theological truths about the God of Israel, rather than a description of how things came to be.
Robert January 18, 2013 at 11:14 am
I enjoyed a brief visit to your site…Thanks for making your thoughts and studies available…Here’s another link you might like to do with the cosmology of Genesis…
http://www.crivoice.org/langcaan.html
Every blessing to you and yours
Robert
John Wallace January 18, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Hi I enjoyed this article very much. Check out my post “A Theology of Creation”, where I have linked to this article, you might enjoy it. Would love to hear your feedback.
clericcowan February 15, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Thought provoking perspective of creation myth. I think that the deviation within Gnostic telling of events is put into perspective when likewise not interpreted as literal. The literal neo-gnosticism of the alternative media is become a bit out of hand. If they would but consider their own beliefs with as much insight as you are demonstrating, perhaps they would be more than just a heresy?