Over the past five years or so, I’ve written quite a lot about the creation/evolution debate, particularly on the misinterpretation of Genesis 1-11 by young earth creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis, and for a lot of concordist interpretations of Genesis 1-11. Simply put, Genesis 1-11 isn’t addressing modern scientific issues at all. Genesis 1-11 isn’t attempting to do history at all. If you attempt to interpret Genesis 1-11 so that it “fits” with modern science, if you attempt to interpret it as if it is conveying actual historical information, then you are, in actuality, misinterpreting it and missing the inspired meaning God intended for Genesis 1-11.
In that respect, although my time writing about and discussing issues in the creation/evolution debate, it always was a bit frustrating to see how so many continue to circle back to that tendency to try to interpret Genesis 1-11 as if it were doing science or history. No—it is about genre recognition. It is about properly interpreting Genesis 1-11 according to the ancient genre in which it was written. It is about interpreting Genesis 1-11 according to its historical and literary contexts. That is where the inspired meaning is to be found. Of course, that can be hard to do if one simply doesn’t know anything about the historical and literary contexts of Genesis 1-11. That is why Ben Stanhope’s recent book, (Mis)Interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible is so welcome.
An Overview of (Mis)Interpreting Genesis
Using the misinterpretation of Genesis 1-11 routinely pushed by Ken Ham’s organization Answers in Genesis as a foil, Stanhope very methodically goes through most of the “hot button issues” of biblical interpretation that are often brought up in the larger creation/evolution debate. What I most appreciate about Stanhope’s book is that he sticks to the topic at hand—namely, understanding key biblical passages in their proper ANE context—and doesn’t wander down rabbit holes of trying to make Genesis 1-11 “fit” with modern science or history. His book has one goal: Help the reader understand Genesis 1-11 (and a few other key biblical passages) in its proper biblical/ANE context. By the end of the book, it is abundantly clear that Stanhope has achieved that goal.
The first section of the book is subtitled, “Proposed Claims of Extinct Animals in the Bible.” It contains four chapters. Chapters 1-2 are devoted to addressing the proper understanding of Leviathan and Behemoth, as mentioned in the Book of Job. Ken Ham and other YECist organizations routinely claim that these creatures were literal ancient, dinosaur-like creatures, Leviathan being some sort of fire-breathing marine dinosaur and Behemoth being a Brachiosaurus. Stanhope convincingly argues that Leviathan is a reference to the mythological chaos dragon of ANE mythology and that Behemoth is a reference to the “super-ox” often paired with Leviathan throughout ANE mythology.
Chapter 3 is all but three pages. It addresses the misinterpretation of certain biblical passages (Deut. 33:17, Job 39:10, Psa. 29:6, Psa. 92:10) in the KJV, in which it uses the word unicorn. Sorry, the Hebrew word simply refers to a certain species of wild ox, nothing more.
Chapter 4 addresses Ken Ham’s claim that passages like Isaiah 6:1 and 30:6 are talking about flying dinosaurs, namely a kind of pterodactyl. Stanhope does this by engaging in a discussion regarding the Hebrew word seraph, which when paired with the word nacash, does mean “fiery serpent” or “snake of fierceness,” and simply is a reference to a venomous snake. The “flying serpent” idea comes from Isaiah’s vision of God’s throne in Isaiah 6:1-3. There, seraphim are around God’s throne, each one having six wings. Rather than suggesting that there are flying pterodactyls around God’s throne (do we really even have to point out how ridiculous that suggestion even is?), Stanhope points out that this is again mythological imagery taken primarily from Egypt, where certain divine beings tasked with guarding the gods (or the pharaoh) were portrayed as flying cobra-like beings.
The second section of the book is subtitled, “Reading Genesis Like an Ancient Israelite.” It contains seven chapters. Chapter 5 addresses the question of Genesis 1:1 and whether or not it is speaking of an absolute beginning in time. Simply put, should the verse read, “In the beginning, God created…” (a temporal clause) or “When God began to create…” (a relative clause). Ken Ham interprets Genesis 1:1 as a temporal clause, thus making 1:1-2 the first act of creation, whereas Stanhope argues that it should be interpreted as a relative clause, thus making 1:1-2 “a description of the context in which the first act of creation takes place,” namely that of light in 1:3. Simply put, the darkness and deep of Genesis 1:1-2 was already there before God created—His creation came out of that primordial darkness and deep.
Chapter 6 discusses ANE cosmology (see the picture), along with all the corresponding items of the “stretched out heavens,” the “pillars under the earth,” the “firmament,” and the “waters above/below.” To the point, all of it reflects basic ANE mythological cosmology. This shouldn’t really be surprising—after all, ancient Israel was part of the ANE. The problem with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is that they try to interpret these descriptions as actual descriptions of the material universe. Stanhope correctly points out how misguided that is: “It is wrong to assume ancient creation myths were principally concerned with material origins the way modern scientific theories are. Ancient creation stories frequently are not concerned about material origins” (92).
Piggybacking off of Chapter 6, Chapter 7 addressees the ancient Hebrew conception of the earth. Whereas YECists like Ken Ham and Henry Morris try to argue that passages like Isaiah 40:22, Proverbs 8:27, and Job 26:10, which talk about the “circle of the earth,” are actual scientific claims of a spherical globe, Stanhope argues that they rather reflect the common ANE understanding that the land was a circular area that God brought up out of the sea, and upon which He brought about His creation. This goes hand in hand with the overall ANE depiction of a three-tiered universe, with the heavens being above the dome of the firmament, the earth being the circle of land below the heavens that rests upon the waters and is supported by subterranean pillars, and sheol, which is associated with the waters of chaos.
Chapter 8 focuses on Eden and the cosmic mountain of God. Rather than the standard “lush Amazon jungle” we often assume from children’s picture Bibles, Eden was understood in mythological terms as being the mountain of God and the meeting place where YHWH the creator God would meet with the other divine beings (i.e. sons of God) of His divine council. This might strike many as odd and polytheistic, but Stanhope takes time to unpack this. He points out that the very term monotheism was a term coined in the 17th century that, while correct in the sense that it emphasizes the Hebrew belief that YHWH is the only creator God who rules all, it nevertheless can be misleading, for we tend to think that there is (A) God, then (B) angels, then (C) human beings—that’s it. What the Old Testament actually reflects, though is this: (A) God, (B) lesser divine beings known as “sons of God” who hold governance over the nations, (C) angels (God’s messengers), and (D) human beings.
Chapter 9 addresses the meaning of the seven days of creation: Are they literal days? Are they symbolic? Do they stand for millions of years? Stanhope addresses a number of related issues in this chapter, but to get to the point of the main question, he correctly states that (A) yes, in the context of Genesis 1, they are literal days, (B) no, it is wrong to try to fit in millions of years to Genesis 1, but (C) Genesis 1 isn’t attempting to give a scientific timetable to begin with. Rather, the entire chapter is essentially a Temple text that portrays the entire cosmos as God’s Temple. That is why there is so much correlation between Genesis 1 and the description of both the Tabernacle in Exodus and Solomon’s Temple in I Kings. On this point, Stanhope does a tremendous job showing all the textual parallels between Genesis 1, the Tabernacle, and Solomon’s Temple.
Chapter 10 expands beyond Genesis 1 and focuses on the lifespans mentioned in the genealogies throughout Genesis 1-11. The chapter is a bit of a slog, but the point is that the genealogies are not trying to give literally accurate lifespans. Rather, they are stylistically assembled to emphasize divine oversight in the affairs of mankind. Stanhope also briefly mentions that many scholars see these genealogies as somehow being related to the Sumerian King List, but he doesn’t dwell on it too much. Nevertheless, the patterns and formulas in the genealogies are quite interesting.
Chapter 11 addresses the question of whether or not there was animal death before the Fall, as well as the question as to whether or not animals were all originally vegetarians (something that YECists like Ham argue). Stanhope argues that the words subdue and rule in God’s original command to the man in Genesis 1:28-30 carries with it connotations of killing. He then addresses God’s command to Noah regarding eating the animals after the flood. The new command wasn’t, “Okay, now you can eat animals,” but rather served as a prohibition not to consume the blood of animals.
The final section of the book is subtitled, “A Path Forward.” It consists of two chapters. Chapter 12 (“Why the Holy Spirit Isn’t Your Bible Commentary”) argues that while the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth and is instrumental in helping us understand how to apply the Bible to our lives, that doesn’t mean you don’t have to engage in the work of trying to understand the original context of the biblical text. Simply put, the Holy Spirit illuminates how to apply and implement the Bible; the Holy Spirit does not teach you Biblical Studies, so don’t be intellectually lazy and then use the Holy Spirit as a cover. Don’t read a passage in the Bible, conclude what it means without ever trying to make sure you understand the original context, and then say, “The Holy Spirit revealed it to me”—He didn’t. It is simply your uninformed and lazy opinion. Don’t appeal to God to cover for intellectual and spiritual laziness. (Stanhope doesn’t say it in those strong of terms, but I do!).
The final chapter, Chapter 13, gives two examples from the Bible (Paul’s mention of the rock that followed the Hebrews in the desert, and Paul’s discussion about women’s head-coverings) to show just how important it is to take the time to understand the historical and cultural contexts in the Bible, especially when it comes to problematic passages that, quite frankly, make most of us go, “WHAAA???” I’ll leave what Stanhope says to your reading of the book—I’ll just say it is quite interesting!
Conclusion
Stanhope’s is a must-read for anyone who wants to learn about the fascinating historical, literary, and cultural contexts of all those biblical passages that get brought up so much in most creation/evolution debates. If you want to know what those passages are actually saying, Stanhope’s book is a vital resource. Very readable, quite funny in parts, and immensely satisfying. If you want to properly interpret these biblical texts, you need to read (Mis)Interpreting Genesis.
Another book to add to the library.
Pax.
Lee.
Dear Dr. Anderson,
You had said that after the previous semester, you may review the atheist assyriologist Dr. Joshua Bowen’s book: does the OT condone slavery? You specialize in OT studies. Please sir, could you review it if you can.
Yours Sincerely,
The Programming Nerd
So the ”Fall” is also not meant to be read/understood literally?
What caused it, then? And how does Stanhope interpret it?
As the Human Genome Project has shown that it would have been impossible for our species to have sprung from a single breeding pair – as per the bible tale – does Stanhope accept that humans are products of evolution?
What indication, if any, is given that the character Noah, was a real historical individual?
Does Stanhope consider he was?
Genesis 1-11 is mythological narrative, not historical narrative. If you care to learn more, I invite you to read my various posts on Genesis 1-11.
Is there anywhere in your collection on Genesis where you discuss the Fall?
And if there was no Fall, why would there be a need for redemption through the human sacrifice of Jesus?
Yes…Simply put, Genesis 3 isn’t saying, “Hey, all of you are sinful BECAUSE Adam sinned and ‘fell.'” It is saying, “Hey, this story about Adam and Eve–THAT’S YOU.” It isn’t trying to point to a time in history when human being “fell” from a state of perfection into sin. It is describing the natural state of human beings–although created “in God’s image” and having inherent worth and dignity, we nevertheless as naive and immature creatures who inevitably sin. And because of that, God’s creation/salvation work isn’t done. I also did a series on Ireneaus’ view of the Adam and Eve story. You can find those in the search box. I think there are 5 posts.
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/making-sense-of-genesis-3-part-1-the-big-picture-nakedness-and-two-trees/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/understanding-genesis-3-part-2-salvation-consequences-no-plan-b/
Thanks.
So are you saying there never was a time when , according to the tale, humans were ”perfect”? Meaning sinless?
So why do some Christians believe in Original Sin and others not?
Odd then that this, doctrine isn’t made crystal clear, don’t you think?
I realise it is not real of course and nothing but theology or myth or whichever term you prefer but it is interesting how so many of you have different perspectives on this topic.
Also odd. when you consider the character Jesus was simply Yahweh in human form that you all still believe that the shedding of blood through a human sacrifice was necessary.
I’ve never been able to figure this one out and those Christians I’ve asked seem as confused about it as most are when it comes to the Trinity.
To the point, yes. As many early Church Fathers (like Irenaeus) taught, human beings were never “perfect.” Only God is perfect. Reading Genesis 3 carefully shows that although Adam and Eve were made “in God’s image,” they were still “naked and not ashamed”–like little children, who hadn’t yet matured and grown up to be “like God.” Therefore, Genesis 3 is simply describe the state of every human being–that who we are and what we do.
The actual doctrine of “Original Sin” primarily came through Augustine who was a man of his time and he simply got it wrong. I think I address in some of the posts I linked for you. Most Christians, though, aren’t well-versed in Church history and theology, and simply interpret “Original Sin” as meaning, “Human beings are sinful,” which is true, but that isn’t really what Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin said.
As for Jesus, it is theologically wrong to say he “was YHWH in human form.” That’s where the teaching of the Trinity comes into play.
As for the sacrificial language goes, that is another thing that is mistaken. In the NT, various authors use different metaphors to try to explain the significance of Christ’s death. Paul uses a legal metaphor–(A) You are guilty of sin and the sentence is death; (B) Christ is sinless, but takes your punishment; so that (C) You can be pardoned and get saved. But then there is the Temple Sacrificial metaphor, and that requires an understanding of what the OT sacrificial system actually was. The sacrifices weren’t a matter of “Here, kill this animal so that my sins can be forgiven” (Like you’re paying off a mob boss–that was what sacrifices in pagan temples were like. You sacrificed to Poseidon so he wouldn’t smite you at sea). Rather, the OT sacrificial system was bound up with the Mosaic covenant. Given the fact that the Israelites (like everyone) sinned, the sacrificial system was understood to work like this: (A) You go to God’s House (the Temple) with a sacrifice; (B) The priests basically use it for a cookout–they eat a portion (on behalf of God, as God’s representatives), then they give the rest of the cooked meat back to you, and then (C) You and your family have a meal in God’s House as a way to celebrate being reconciled with YHWH. Hence, the OT sacrifices were seen as a means of reconciliation and celebration.
Therefore, in light of Christ’s death and resurrection, the NT writers, as a way to try to explain the significance of that, they pointed to the Temple sacrificial system and essentially said, “Christ’s death is like that sacrifice–but it accomplished permanent reconciliation with God.”
Now, to the question, “Why did it have to be done in the first place?” that is a deeper question. As I explained in my posts about Irenaeus, a simple answer was it was God’s plan all along to (A) create human beings as purely natural creatures who are originally not perfect, and hence susceptible to death, but then (B) do a “stage two” of his creation–that is, to take natural creatures and through natural death, bring about transformation and resurrection, so that the created creatures could become transformed/reborn children of God. And hence, Christ’s death and resurrection paved the way for that to happen. As many early Church Fathers said, “God became man, so that man could become like God.” The plan always was to use natural death to bring about the sanctification and transformation of the natural order, human beings included, through resurrection. Hence, the death of Christ showed us the way to transformation and resurrection.
I have noticed in your posts such as your reply to Dr. Anderson below about original sin that your understnding of the Christian faith tends toward the superficial, much like Bill Mahr’s in his mockumentary *Religulous.* We aren’t all fundamemtalists, after all.
I remember one scene in *Religulous* where Bill asks a group of Protestant Holiness truckers if they’re bothered by the fact that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception isn’t actually in the New Testament. Extra points to you if you can tell me WHY Bill Mahr’s question itself was “religulous.”
Pax.
Lee.
Maybe that’s what Paul was getting at when he wrote in I Cor. 15: 26 that ” The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”
Pax.
Lee.