We might as well jump into this. As a way to get everyone into the conversation, here is an article to read. It’s by Gerhard Hasel and entitled, “The Significance of the Cosmology in Genesis 1 in Relation to ANE Parallels.”
Genesis 1 as a Polemic Against Ancient Near Eastern Religious Cosmologies
wow, and this was written in 1972!
God there is sooooo much to learn…great article! simply great
So:
Genesis = antimythical
ANE = mythical
Summary = no significant parallels.
Sounds good to me. I guess it amazes me that people actually spend their entire lives studying this stuff.
There are significant parallels, but much of their significance is in how the Israelite use of the material (or hinting at the content of the material) goes in a different theological direction.
Speaking of hints, is there any hint of combat in Gen as you see it, with the link to tiamat in Enuma Elish and tohu in Gen, Or is it that avoided on purpose ?
the combat pops up in the psalms but is it missing in Gen for a reason.
Interesting article and from 19782? Im impressed as Rode is.
I’ve read an article in the past entitled:
Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths
TONY L. SHETTER
This paper was presented at the second annual Student Academic Conference held at Dallas Theological Seminary in April 18, 2005.
It argues that Egyptian creation myths are much more in parallel with Gen 1 than the Babylonian accounts.
Genesis 1 is something of an amalgamation when it comes to targeting rival cosmologies. It takes shots at both Egyptian and Babylonian ideas.
Hasel was a Seventh-Day Adventist theologian known for his strongly conservative views. Raymond Cottrell described him as “ultra-conservative”, “fundamentalist”, and “obscurantist” in his interpretations; even “the ruthless personification of Adventist obscurantism.” I would heartily suggest that you read the latest research on Genesis, namely Mark Smith’s new work, THE PRIESTLY VISION OF GENESIS. He explains why Genesis 1 was probably a later composition than some other creation depictions in the Bible, and also explains why Genesis 1 was not entirely polemic either. For instance there are ancient texts among Israel’s close neighbors that do not use the names of the sun and moon, but call them simply “lights.” Great book.
Hasel’s article was not put forth to ask people to take a position; it was put forth because it’s a good introduction to the issues. I’m well acquainted with Mark Smith’s work (and if you get a chance to ever hear Mark, you should — he’s a good presenter — funny).
Also, Hasel was writing before the wealth of Ugaritic material had been analyzed, and as Smith points out in THE PRIESTLY VISION OF GENESIS, there are cognates for “the deep” found in Ugaritic literature, so the question is broader than just “tehom” and “Tiamat,” and there is evidence of a broader shared understanding and shared mythology, not just Babylonian and Hebrew, but also Ugaritic (which lay even nearer to the kingdom of Israel, geographically and linquistically).
ESSENTIAL WORKS INCLUDE:
Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998)
Luis I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970)
Richard J. Clifford, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series: Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible 26 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1994)
Furthermore, Mark S. Smith, Othmar Keel, John H. Walton, and Kenton L. Sparks (respectively, two Catholic and two Evangelical Protestant scholars) are the authors of some superb books on the meaning of Genesis 1 in its cultural context. See the following works:
Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009).
Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer, Creation: Biblical Theology in the Context of Ancient Near Eastern Religion (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, Forthcoming Spring 2010).
Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997).
John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009).
Walton, Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document, in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? Archaeology, Ancient Civilizations, and the Bible, pp. 298327, ed. D. Block (Nashville, TN.: Broadman/Holman, 2008).
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006).
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Background Studies, in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of Scripture, eds. K. Vanhoozer et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005).
Walton, New International Version Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001).
Kenton L. Sparks, Gods Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008).
Sparks, Enuma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism, Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no.4 (2007): 62548.
Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005).
The following are additional works by Evangelical Christians who agree that the ancient Near Eastern milieu of Genesis 1 needs to be taken more seriously by their fellow Evangelicals:
Paul H. Seely, The Firmament and the Water Above, Part I: The Meaning of Raqia in Gen 1:68 Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 22740, http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf;
Seely, The Firmament and the Water Above, Part II: The Meaning of The Water above the Firmament in Gen 1:68, Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) 3146, http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/seelypt2.pdf;
Seely, The Geographical Meaning of Earth and Seas in Genesis 1:10, Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997): 23155, http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely_EarthSeas_WTJ.pdf;
Seely, The Date of the Tower of Babel and Some Theological Implications, Westminster Theological Journal 63, no.1 (2001): 1538, http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely_Babel_WTJ.pdf;
Seely, The Three-Storied Universe, American Scientific Affiliation 21, no. 18 (March 1969): 1822, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1969/JASA3-69Seely.html;
Seely, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context, American Scientific Affiliation: Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith 49 (June 1997): 8595, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF6-97Seely.html;
Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008);
Lamoureux, Lessons from the Heavens: On Scripture, Science and Inerrancy, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, no. 1 (March 2008): 415, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2008/PSCF3-08Lamoureux.pdf;
Gordon J. Glover, Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation (Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press, 2007), http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/;
Stephen C. Meyers, A Biblical Cosmology (masters thesis at Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989), http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_toc.htm;
Meyers, The Bible and Science: Do the Bible and Science Agree? http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/bibleandscience.htm;
Robert J. Schneider, Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53 (September 2001): 15969, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html;
R. Christopher Heard, Why I Am Not a Creationist, Higgaion, November 18, 2005, http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/2005/11/why-i-am-not-creationist.html.
Hope you realize that some of the names on this list are just as conservative as Hasel. Frankly, one shouldn’t care if a writer is conservative or liberal — it should be well understood that ALL scholarship (not just conservative) is about presuppositions brought to the text.
I’d also like to add my own contribution to the list above, a chapter titled,
“The Cosmology of the Bible”
I cite Mark Smith’s new work as well as Walton’s. The chapter was published in a book with a controversial title, The Christian Delusion. But I can send interested parties a copy of my article in printed form if they wish to read it.
Email me direct with one’s address if you would like a copy:
leonardo3 [you know what goes here] msn [and here] com
Also, one link correction (it’s a nice little summary of info by a Christian OT scholar):
R. Christopher Heard, Why I Am Not a Creationist, Higgaion, November 18, 2005,
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=253
Chris teaches at a denominational school – I doubt he’s a random materialistic atheist Darwinist. If so, I’m sure his board would find that interesting. At any rate, he’s not in a position to evaluate intelligent design as not being science. I’m so tired of that BS that I think I’m just going to start deleting comments to that effect. I have personally known scientists who were department heads at major research universities who would not agree. And there are many who would not agree that I don’t know. Scholarship is about presuppositions — and so is science. “Total objectivity” is a myth, and we should all just get a firm grasp on that obvious point. ALL data is filtered in some way.
“Im so tired of that BS that I think Im just going to start deleting comments to that effect.” Censorship is the ultimate filter.
Edward T.,
“R. Christopher Heard, Why I Am Not a Creationist, Higgaion, November 18, 2005,”
Very interesting reading at first glance. I’ll have to bookmark this to read more carefully when I get a chance.
I believe we are to walk away from this analysis with awe at how different the Hebrew myths are from their neighbors, but, when you compare this trash with science, you are struck more profoundly with the difference. Myths attribute everything to a manlike deity who speaks, then retires. Science posits natural, observable forces.
Myths are fun, of course, but hardly relevant to an accurate cosmology.
Consider, for example, the role of stars in the Hebrew cosmogony… they show up day four as recessed lighting in a solid sky one tower-height above the dry land, plucked out of the pre-existent bottomless sea…. ?
Dump it.
Yeah, lets’ deal with REAL SCIENCE, you know, where NOTHING CREATED EVERYTHING !!