Genesis: O Where to Begin?
The book of Genesis is about beginnings: the beginning of creation, of humanity, and of civilization itself. Now, many of us in the modern western world simply assume the “beginning” the writer had in mind was the beginning of the material universe, and that Genesis 1 is giving us a scientific account of exactly how God did it. Therefore, many of us tend to read it according to the assumptions and parameters of the creation/evolution debate: Is Genesis 1 literal history? Is it scientifically accurate?
With that assumption, people tend to go in one of two directions: either they conclude that “modern science is right” about the origins of the universe, and the “Bible is wrong,” and they end up discounting the truthfulness of the Bible as a whole; or they insist that the “Bible is right” about the origins of the universe, and modern science is an atheistic tool to tear down our Christian culture.
The Third Way: Consider the Context
Let me suggest that neither direction is the way to go. The problem with both of those views is that they both assume that when God inspired Genesis 1-11 back then and there, that He was really addressing the questions that we in the modern world have right here and now. Neither view takes the time to step back and say, “Wait, Genesis 1-11 was originally addressed to people in ancient Israel, living in the ancient Near East (ANE)—how would they have understood it? What was it saying to them?”
And the fact is, the ancient Israelites were not modern people living in our scientific age. They were living in the ancient world, surrounded by pagan cultures, and were concerned with a whole different set of questions and issues than we are concerned with today. Simply put, if you were an ancient Israelite, and you heard or read Genesis 1, you would NOT be thinking, “Wow, this totally refutes Darwinism!” And the reason why you would not be thinking that is because that is a modern debate, and you are living in the ancient world, and Genesis 1 is addressed to you, and it isn’t addressing modern scientific questions that you would have no idea about.
So we need to realize that the key to understanding Genesis 1, Genesis 1-11, or anything in the Bible for that matter, is to try to read it from the perspective of the original audience. We need to ask, “What did this mean to them? We need to “get in the sandals” of the people of ancient Israel and read the Bible from their point of view. For what God inspired, He first and foremost inspired to reveal something to them in their own culture and situation. Once we do that, we will then be in a better position to truly translate and apply what God revealed back then and there to our lives here and now.
The Genre of Genesis 1-11
The book of Genesis essentially comes in two parts: Genesis 1-11 (known as the primordial history) and Genesis 12-50 (the stories of the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). Now even though all of it is pretty much narrative, the fact is Genesis 1-11 is considerably different than Genesis 12-50. Once we get to Abraham in Genesis 12, we find clear and recognizable names of cities, lands, geographical landmarks, and things like that. But we don’t have those things in Genesis 1-11. There is nothing you can pin down geographically or historically. Furthermore, there are numerous things in Genesis 1-11 that sound quite similar to stuff we find in other ancient Near Eastern stories that no one considers to be history.
Given that, the natural question becomes, “Well, what kind of writing is Genesis 1-11? What is its genre?” That’s really important to get straight, because understanding the literary genre of any writing or text will determine how you read it. And if you get the genre wrong, you will probably misinterpret it.
Now, I do not believe Genesis 1-11 was intended to be understood as a scientific or historical account. I think it needs to be understood as mythological literature. Now I realize that when I say that, danger signs and red flags start appearing in your head. Believe me, when I hear other people call Genesis 1-11 a “myth,” red flags appear for me too, because I don’t know what they mean when they say that. So, allow me to take a minute to explain what I mean by that.
The obvious problem with using the term, “myth,” is that some people immediately think I am saying Genesis 1-11 “is not true” or “is a fairytale.” But properly understood, “myth” is nothing more than a particular genre of literature, just like poetry, parables, and histories are distinct genres of literature. And in the ancient world, when people talked about their gods and their views regarding ultimate purpose and meaning, they didn’t write histories; they used the genre of writing that we now label as “myth.”
Case in point, the Epic of Gilgamesh contains a flood story that is really similar to the Noah story in Genesis 6-9. Therefore, since everyone labels Gilgamesh as an ancient Near Eastern myth, and since the Noah story is a lot like that, I believe it is proper to say that the Noah story fits into the same genre as Gilgamesh. Yet, I would say that Gilgamesh is not true and the Noah’s story is true—not because Gilgamesh got its facts wrong and the Noah story got them right, but because what it was teaching about the gods and mankind was wrong.
The Purpose of Genesis 1-11
And that brings us to the purpose of Genesis 1-11. Although it is of the same genre, Genesis 1-11 is very different in a number of ways than ANE mythological literature. And for that reason, it is perhaps too simplistic to just say that Genesis 1-11 is “mythological literature.” For although it comes in the literary packaging of ANE myth, Genesis 1-11 ends up blowing apart the pagan worldview of the ANE. To the point, if you were an Israelite living in the ANE, familiar with the ANE myths, and then you were presented with the early chapters of Genesis, you wouldn’t be thinking, “Gee, I wonder if it was a literal six days or not? How long ago was that?” You would be struck by how different Genesis 1-11 was. You would see that it was subverting everything the ANE world believed about the gods, creation, and mankind.
You see, ANE myths were decidedly non-historical; they were about the realms of the gods who existed outside of history. In the ancient world, there really was no such thing as “history writing,” because human beings were not seen worthy enough to tell of their history. You simply had myths about the gods and the recorded annals of kings—but the concept of writing “history” about normal people like nomads, shepherds, prostitutes, and slaves was just nonexistent. At most, the ANE myths were told to solidify and justify the rule of an empire or ruler, who just wanted to maintain their power and continue to oppress the majority of what they deemed to be worthless humanity.
But what we see happening in Genesis 1-11 is something different: it starts by looking a lot like other ANE mythological literature, in that it uses that literary genre. But it ends up subverting the ANE worldview and revealing a radically different vision of God, creation, and mankind. Part of that radically different vision is the teaching that mankind is made in God’s image, and therefore has inherent dignity and worth. And therefore, because human beings have inherent dignity and worth, that means that human history is worth telling.
And so, very subtly, in the course of those eleven chapters, Genesis 1-11 takes the reader from that world of myth, and proceeds to “set the stage,” so to speak, for something that had never been done before: the telling of human history. Beginning in Genesis 12, we are ushered into that human history, namely the life of Abraham and his descendants, and from that point on, the Bible bears witness to the fact that the one Creator God has entered into a covenant with humanity within history. That history is played out on the stage that Genesis 1-11 has constructed regarding the nature of God, creation, and humanity itself.
But we must realize that the stage is not the same thing as the play. And we must remember that in order to get to the writing of history, there has to be some sort of segway or bridge from the writing of myth to the writing of history. I believe Genesis 1-11 serves that very purpose.
The Importance of Reading Genesis 1-11 in its ANE Context
Having said that, it should be obvious that I think that the way Genesis 1-11 is often used within the current “creation/evolution debate” is misguided. The fact is, the ancient Israelites were not modern 21st century Americans. They were not wrestling with the modern scientific questions we wrestle with today. They were an ancient people, living in a completely different culture, asking completely different questions about life than we tend to do today. They were living in the ancient Near East, and the ancient Near East was a thoroughly pagan and polytheistic culture.
The people at that time were taught there were many gods, and that those gods were petty, violent, and dangerous. They were taught that they themselves were insignificant, slavish peons who were at the mercy of those violent and petty gods. They were told that you had better offer your sacrifices and pay homage to those gods, not because they were “good” or “loving,” but because if you didn’t, the gods could strike down your insignificant life in a flash. That was the kind of culture that the ancient Israelites were a part of, so we need to be sure we interpret Genesis 1-11 in light of that reality.
Now, the authorship of the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) is traditionally ascribed to Moses. That means the time period we have to consider when reading, not only the Torah, but Genesis 1-11 specifically, is that of the Exodus. Since the ancient Hebrews lived in the pagan world of the ancient Near East, and since they had lived in pagan Egypt for the previous 400 years, it is pretty safe to assume that they were deeply influenced by those cultures.
In fact, in light of what happens with their worship of the golden calf at Mount Sinai, so shortly after their leaving of Egypt, I think it is safe to assume that for all practical purposes, the ancient Hebrews were effectively pagans themselves. They might have had some memory of the God of Abraham, but they clearly had no qualms about crafting images and idols and bowing down to them, not only at Mount Sinai, but throughout the history of ancient Israel.
Therefore, in light of all that, put yourself in the sandals of the ancient Israelites. Upon reading Genesis 1-11 for the first time, what would strike you as important? How would you have read and interpreted Genesis 1-11? If you read it with what I’ve just said in mind, I think you will see that, beginning with Genesis 1, God comes out with guns blazing, ready to blow holes in the pagan worldview of the ancient Near East, and then establish a truly biblical worldview that establishes the most fundamental teachings and themes that run throughout the entire Old and New Testaments.
Do you think it would change the interpretation much if the Torah is an Exilic or even post-Exilic document, as Enns believes? Or at the very least, does it change things if the version we have today is an Exilic reinterpretation of documents that only possibly have their origin with Moses?
Well, I tend to think that Genesis 1-11 very well could have been written in the Babylonian Exile, and then added as a “prologue” to the Torah.
But whether or not it is pre-exilic or exilix, I dont really think that would change the meaning of Genesis 1-11. Abraham, after all, came from Mesopotamia. The creation story, flood story, and Babel story all clearly have connections to Babylon and their literature, and would be able to speak to the overall ANE worldview that pervaded the region in some form or another.
The picture of Genesis 1-11 providing a bridge from myth to history is pretty compelling. Having said that, do you think that there is any truth being taught about pre-human creation, particularly in Genesis 1? Certainly not physical history, but do you think it is revealing any spiritual truths? Seems like it could be using existing ANE motifs to teach about the origin of evil, the existence of other spiritual beings, etc.
Well, I think what is being taught is essentially a unique “worldview perspective.” Namely, that there is one God, not many; that creation has purpose and is good and orderly; and that mankind, being made in God’s image, has inherent dignity and worth. And I think, in terms of Genesis 3, what it is teaching about evil isn’t so much the “origin” of evil, as it is the reality that evil exists and human beings sin. I also think it certainly implies that any other spiritual beings out there are subservient to the one true Creator God.
Of course it has spiritual truths. Everything in the holy scriptures has an inner meaning and there are 4 levels of interpretation according to our Holy Fathers. Read about saint Maximus the Confessor’s sayings about 6th, 7th and 8th Day. They are all written in Philocalia.
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve always wanted to read Maximus’ writings.
Joel says: “Simply put, if you were an ancient Israelite, and you heard or read Genesis 1, you would NOT be thinking, “Wow, this totally refutes Darwinism!” And the reason why you would not be thinking that is because that is a modern debate, and you are living in the ancient world, and Genesis 1 is addressed to you, and it isn’t addressing modern scientific questions that you would have no idea about.”
Joel, this is a silly thing to say. Of course they would not think it refutes Darwinism. But the same truths when read by us who live in the Darwin era will realize that it does just that. So they will understand it differently, but truth is truth. And when we understand that truth, we have an even greater capacity to understand the implications of it. You know, kind of like when we read the OT prophecies and the law. Living in the NT era gives us the opportunity to understand the truths presented in the OT. The full meaning and implication of the prophecies was not understood by the people back then, but from our vantage point, we understand it far better than they ever did or even could. Same truth, but it means more to us. Same as in Genesis I believe.
++++++++++=
Joel says: “The book of Genesis essentially comes in two parts: Genesis 1-11 (known as the primordial history) and Genesis 12-50 (the stories of the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). Now even though all of it is pretty much narrative, the fact is Genesis 1-11 is considerably different than Genesis 12-50. Once we get to Abraham in Genesis 12, we find clear and recognizable names of cities, lands, geographical landmarks, and things like that. But we don’t have those things in Genesis 1-11. There is nothing you can pin down geographically or historically. Furthermore, there are numerous things in Genesis 1-11 that sound quite similar to stuff we find in other ancient Near Eastern stories that no one considers to be history.”
Joel, I beg to differ with you here. It simply is not true that we only find clear and recognizable names of cities, lands, geographical landmarks, and things like that once we get to chapter 12. It is to some extent because the old original lands were all destroyed by the flood so the best we could hope is to recognize names and lands post flood.
You said we don’t find names of cities, lands, recognizable names, etc. before chapter 12, but I don’t know how you can make such a claim. We have genealogies, cities, lands, specific names, even ages, etc. This is not what we find in mythical literature at all and clearly does NOT fit the myth genre. Have you read Gen. 10-11? Reread that and see if what you claim is really true? Remember, because of the flood, we would not expect to find any historical references to things in Gen. 1-5 as that was all destroyed. Here is a good article to read if anyone is interested in learning what kind of historical evidence there is for the historicity of the names and lands mentioned in Gen. 10-11. I won’t spam your website with a link, but for anyone interested, please look up Bill Cooper who wrote “The Early History of Man”. Parts 1 & 2. Very eye opening and I think it challenges the authenticity of some of your claims/beliefs in this article.
Jim,
To your first comment: My point is that if you take inspiration seriously, the first question you must ask about any passage is, “What is it addressing in the original context?” My point, therefore, is that Genesis 1 is a direct challenge to the ANE pagan worldview of that time; it is addressing THAT. It isn’t addressing modern scientific/historical questions about origins. Therefore, when you try to claim it is addressing modern scientific/historical questions about origins, you are, in fact, doing eisegesis–you are reading into the text issues you want it to address, based on your own modern presuppositions. I am saying you CANNOT do that if you take inspiration seriously. As for your claims that there could be a fuller meaning that is only revealed later–sure, but the NT writers who revealed that fuller meaning in some of the OT prophecies were inspired to reveal it. Neither you, nor I, nor Henry Morris, nor Ken Ham are inspired in that way.
As to your second comment: Your argument is basically from silence. In regard to the story of Noah’s flood, I’ll just say two things: (1) There is NO scientific evidence of there being a worldwide flood a mere 4,300 years ago. On top of that, we have king/dynasty lists from Egypt and China that go back much further than 2300 BC. (2) Noah’s flood story clearly is patterned after the Gilgamesh story. Gilgamesh is considered to be ANE mythological literature; therefore, if Gilgamesh is categorized as ANE myth, and if the Noah story clearly is patterned after Gilgamesh, common sense tells us that we should categorize Genesis 6-9 in the same way we categorize Gilgamesh. Yes, there are significant theological differences between the two stories–and that is really important. But in terms of genre of literature, they are the same genre.
I’m not going to go through everything here again. You assert it is a myth, but there is literally no indication anywhere is Scripture that this is indeed the way we are to understand it.
Again, I ask you or anyone else who thinks that Gen 1-11 is a myth to read this article on the early history of man. Parts I & II. You will find plenty of evidence to back up the historicity of the names and places listed in Gen. 10-11. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j04_1/j04_1_67-92.pdf That is part I.
Moses did not copy the Gilgamesh story. It was the exact opposite of that. https://creation.com/noahs-flood-and-the-gilgamesh-epic
Just a question about your claim that Moses copied the Gilgamesh epic, but tell me, why do you think God chose to speak His truth to the Israelites through a myth they copied from a nearby godless civilization? What??? Does that really make sense? And again, the NT writers, and Jesus Himself, all refer to the flood as if it actually happened.
The issue of the Egyptian and Chinese dynasty list is more complicated. “Chinese civilization is said to be older than 6,000 years. But the first dynasty for which there is definite historical material is the Shang, also called the Yin, dynasty, which is dated 18th–12th century BC, well within the biblical timeframe. Furthermore, ancient Chinese characters affirm the same history taught in Genesis.”
For more information on this, please see this: https://creation.com/thinking-about-chronology There are other articles about the Egyptian chronology on the site as well. The dates are not clear cut.
Joel: “As for your claims that there could be a fuller meaning that is only revealed later–sure, but the NT writers who revealed that fuller meaning in some of the OT prophecies were inspired to reveal it. Neither you, nor I, nor Henry Morris, nor Ken Ham are inspired in that way.”
Granted, both of us have our opinions about how we should understand the truths of Gen. 1-11. I base mine on the way Jesus and the other NT writers treated Genesis. You base yours on the fact that other countries around Israel had myths and therefore you think God would have spoken to His people in myths as well.
If God told His people that He created the universe in 6 days and reiterated it by writing it in stone to Moses then that truth has definite implications for the hypotheses of modern day scientists who will allow for no role whatsoever for God in creation. That truth may not have meant that to the Israelites back then since they did not have to deal with evolutionary thinking, but when we apply it in our situation, it’s application becomes quite clear. We don’t need inspiration to deduce what this means in our modern day and age where scientists reject any and all supernatural acts of God in creation or anything else for that matter.
There is no evidence for the character Moses.
Geology confirms there was never a global flood as per the bible.
Furthermore, Young Earth Creationism demands that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, a preposterous assertion for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Moses met God twice. First time was before the burning tree, second time was in Mount Sinai. Perhaps, more than all the prophets and saints throughout history.
And we are supposed to think that he made the whole Genesis 1-11 as a bedtime story?
What if actually God placed in his intellect a capacity to understand the origin of everything and the subsequent fall?
Why should we believe that israelites were a bunch of peasants so silly that they needed a guy to tell them a child-like story to understand what was going on around them?
Mind you, God just finishes dropping the whole sea on the egyptians and drowning all their troops and horses. Do you think they needed some child-like story to know that God was God?
I rather stand behind Jim M than modern interpretation.
Thank you Joel, I appreciate your very clear treatment of the subject here. I have some theological training and I guess that helps me follow this well. Years ago I thought this kind of argument was an attack on God and his Word, but this understanding has actually helped me a great deal. Thanks again.
It is somewhat difficult to work out exactly what you are trying to convey here, Joel?
Firstly, it is myth. The Garden of Eden tale etc etc, and scientific evidence has shown why.
Scholars also know that someone called Moses did not write it, not least as there is no evidence for this character and there was certainly no 400 year Egyptian captivity. as described which leads us to question the Exodus and the Conquest, and once again, archaeology show that the tale as presented inn the bible did not happen.
If you work with the established evidence scholars and archaeologists do have then why it was (likely) written becomes , if not obvious, certainly more clear – or less blury at any rate 🙂
It is, after all, a geopolitical foundation myth.
I don’t see why you think this post is “difficult to work out.” I think I’m being quite clear.
(A) Genesis 1-11 is mythological literature, written for a specific purpose.
(B) Since the Torah is associated with Moses, the overall “setting” of Genesis-Deuteronomy is that of the Exodus.
(C) I didn’t discuss the authorship of the Torah. For the purpose of the post, it is irrelevent. What is relevant is that Genesis 1-11 is teaching the basic worldview of ancient Israel regarding God, Mankind, and the Created Order–and all of it flies in the face of the surrounding pagan mythologies and worldviews.
(D) Regarding authorship, Deuteronomy is believed to be the “Book of the Law” that Josiah found in the Temple around 620 BC. The Torah as we now have it was probably put together in its final form during the Exile. They didn’t make it up out of whole cloth. It is likely that what we find in Genesis-Numbers was derived from earlier sources that were compiled throughout the history of ancient Israel.
It seemed a bit confusing that’s all, but you know me. In all likelihood it was me not understanding. No problem.
So, myth it is.
B. I understand about the setting. Many such foundational tales require this sort of approach I’m sure. But the tale of Captivity, Exodus and Conquest as presented in the bible is, as we know, not an historical account of what happened and the archaeological evidence on the ground, so to speak, supports this.
Moses was the hero character of the tale. Nothing unusual about this I suppose.
The Josiah found it in the temple thing. I thought discovery of the scroll was credited to the priest Hilkiah?
Anyway, it’s not generally believed that this was the Original Book of the Law, (if there ever was such a thing – probably more myth) but a rather astute political move.
As CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien asserted over much of their professional writing careers (early 1930s to early late 1950s), “myths” can convey profound moral/theological truths. In fact, both men believed that certain transcendent truths could *only* be conveyed through such “myths.” “Myth” as they defined it here though does not mean a lie or made-up story.
“Myths, the atheistic seeker Lewis objected to Tolkien, were “lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver.”
“No,” Tolkien replied. “They are not lies.” Far from being lies they were the best way sometimes the only way of conveying truths that would otherwise remain inexpressible. We have come from God, Tolkien argued, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic “progress” leads only to the abyss and the power of evil.
Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their “mythopoeia” to reveal fragments of his eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing himself *through* himself, *with* himself, and *in* himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in his own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.
The Roman Catholic Tolkien’s reasoning was a key factor in Lewis’ conversion to the Anglican Church.
Pax.
Lee.
I have a question for anyone who believes that God is real and believes that Genesis 12 on is “legitimate” but that Genesis 1-11 is myth OR that evolution is real OR gap theory / old earth creationism etc. –
How do you account for death before the fall?
There is nothing in the bible that Precludes physical death (At the very least of animals) before the fall.
I can go along with Genesis 1-11 as a myth – except that Jesus seems to quote from it as historical, and St Paul uses it to argue that women should keep silent in church – which surely implies that he too took it as literal fact.