I recently received feedback to my post on my crisis of faith from a good friend. This post wasn’t really about reading Genesis 1. But it did address that obliquely. My faith crisis was brought on by a realization that some of the evidence that I had received for young earth creationism as a child was bogus. My friend points out that he had nearly the opposite experience. He was taught as a child that “the creation story was not literal and had to be ‘interpreted.'” Later, he adopted belief in young earth creationism.
In this post, I’d like to focus on this very wide-spread notion among Christians of a more progressive or mainstream bent that reading Genesis 1 literally is not appropriate. Many of them would say that it has to be interpreted symbolically. Sometimes well-meaning believers attempt to make their faith look respectable. Thus, they try to make Genesis 1 square with modern evolutionary science. Even if they don’t take this approach, it is very common for Bible interpreters to reduce the entire text down to pure symbol. They completely abandon any shred of a literal, primary sense.
Reading Genesis 1 Literally, not Scientifically or Symbolically
I think that both of these approaches are a mistake. Personally, I have no problems at all with evolution. But you just can’t find anything evocative of modern scientific theory in the biblical text. (That goes for the pseudo-science of young earth creationism, too, however). But that doesn’t mean that reading Genesis 1 isn’t legitimate. So, in this post, I am going to argue that Genesis 1 is an inspired text with authentic, divine revelation. I am also going to argue that as such, it has a literal sense to which biblical interpreters have to give proper attention. They must do this before proceeding forward to any spiritual senses the text might have. In so doing, it will become evident that this literal sense has nothing to do with any of the distracting concerns of the evolution/intelligent design debate.
The Literal Sense
To begin with, we have to define what we really mean by “reading Genesis 1 literally.” Then we have to distinguish it from strictly literalistic interpretations of the Scriptures. Although they sound very similar, these are not the same thing. By “literal sense,” I am mostly referring to the “Author’s Intended Meaning.” I’ve already discussed this a bit elsewhere.
The truth is, even texts whose authors never intended for them to be read in a woodenly literal manner have a literal sense. Just consider this example from Song of Songs 2:
1I am a rose of Sharon,
a lily of the valleys.
2 As a lily among brambles,
so is my love among maidens.
3 As an apple tree among the trees of the wood,
so is my beloved among young men.
With great delight I sat in his shadow,
and his fruit was sweet to my taste
Now, obviously the author of these lines did not intend for us to actually believe that this is all about a botanical love affair between a rose and an apple tree! This text has a rather clear literal sense. Simply put, it is erotic poetry. It uses abundant metaphors to convey its celebration of romantic love. But those symbols convey the author’s intended meaning. Of course, both Jewish and Christian interpreters have reveled in deeper, spiritual interpretations hidden in these words. But those spiritual interpretations depend upon the literal, erotic sense.
How Should We Go about Reading Genesis 1?
Returning to reading Genesis 1, the first thing that we have to acknowledge is that the author’s intended meaning cannot possibly have anything to do with the modern scientific method. This is because he just wasn’t familiar with it. So, there can’t be any kind of evolutionary process described in symbolic terms there. On the other hand, the author isn’t using his own, particular scientific terminology in ancient Hebrew, either. (Baraminology is a particularly egregious attempt to say this sort of thing). No, whatever the author’s intended meaning is, it has nothing to do with science as we conceive of it today.
If the author of Genesis 1 is not intending to say something scientific, what is he trying to say? How would we ever determine that? How should we go about reading Genesis 1?
Clues from Enuma Elish
Our first clue is the fact that Genesis 1 evokes another creation story in unmistakable ways. This story is from ancient Babylon. It is known by its opening line, Enuma Elish, “When on High.”
Now, before I proceed any further, I need to dispense with two widespread misconceptions about Enuma Elish. The first is the very popular idea among skeptics that Genesis 1 is simply a cheap “knock-off” of the Babylonian story. Ever since George Smith widely disseminated a version of Enuma Elish in the nineteenth century under the title Babylonian Genesis this idea has enjoyed popular appeal. But anyone who has carefully read both of the texts will tell you that the differences between them are far more striking than their similarities. No, the author of Genesis 1 is aware of Enuma Elish, and intentionally uses some of the vocabulary and even the cosmology of the text, but all with a mind to subvert its ideology. The result is a piece of literature that transcends its source material in breathtaking ways.
Dispelling Weird, Fundamentalist Ideas about Enuma Elish and Reading Genesis 1
Fundamentalists have also perpetuated some weird ideas about Enuma Elish. I don’t hear this as much as I used to, but some Bible teachers have said that the Babylonian author of Enuma Elish actually had been reading Genesis 1, or maybe was familiar with the traditions that lay behind Genesis 1. I think that it will become apparent why that cannot be the case as I proceed. But let me say here that it is extremely unlikely that anyone in Mesopotamia would want to bother with the religious traditions of the Hebrews.
First of all, there is a serious language divide. Although Hebrew and Akkadian are both Semitic languages, it’s not as though someone from Babylon could pick up a Hebrew text and read it without much difficulty. The differences are substantial. But apart from that, from the perspective of the empires of Assyria and Babylon, Israel was merely a backwater people who posed the annoying problem of occupying some of the most strategic territory in the Levant. There is simply no evidence that anyone from Mesopotamia exhibited any curiosity about the traditions of Israel until the Christian era. If they copied Genesis 1, this would be a remarkably singular incident in ancient history.
All of the evidence points to the influence going in the other direction. Enuma Elish was probably written long before Genesis 1. The author of Genesis 1 seems to have been well-acquainted with it.
Enuma Elish
Utter Chaos
Let me offer a brief summary of Enuma Elish. It begins with utter chaos. Nothing existed in the beginning, not even the gods. Somehow, from the midst of this nothingness the two primeval waters emerged. Abzu, the fresh waters, mingled his waters with Tiamat, the sea. Their union engendered the first gods. These gods had their own children, and so on. Eventually the cosmos was chock-full of rowdy, juvenile deities carrying on and having raucous parties.
The Demise of Abzu
Abzu got irate. He couldn’t get any sleep because his progeny were too noisy. So he and his vizier Mummu conspired to kill all of the gods. Tiamat tried to talk them out of it, but they were too committed to their plan.
Unfortunately for Abzu, one of the gods, named Ea, learned of his plot. He created a counter-plot. With his magic, he slew Abzu. Then he poured him into the well of the earth. He used Mummu as a cork to keep him imprisoned there.
Marduk
Tiamat grieved over Abzu, but soon settled into a new life. That was, until Marduk came along. Marduk, the grandson of Ea, was a precocious young god. Ea doted on him, and gifted him with his very own bag of winds. Marduk loved to take it to the beach and let the winds toss dirt into Tiamat’s waters and whip them into frothy whitecaps. Eventually, she too became irate, and decided to create an army to destroy the gods.
Tiamat Strikes Back
First, she married another monster like herself, a consort named Kingu. And then she proceeded to create one brood of warriors after another. There were scorpion-men and fish-headed men and bull-headed men and mushmahhu dragons. (With venom for blood! Shudder!).
The Beer Party Counsel of the Gods
Once again, Ea and the gods found out about Tiamat’s plan. But this time, they were genuinely scared. They convened a council. (The description sounds a lot more like a beer party, to be honest). And then they selected Marduk as their champion to march out against Tiamat. Marduk happily volunteered on the condition that the gods would bequeath upon him the power of divine fiat. They did so, and then he tried it out by speaking a star into existence, and then speaking it out of existence. Then he rode forth in his chariot to meet Tiamat.
The Battle Between Tiamat and Marduk
The battle was a bit anticlimactic, actually. With all of her monster-troop behind her, and with Kingu at her side, Tiamat swooped upon Marduk with her maw gaping wide. He released his winds into her jaws, and then, when they had blown her up like a balloon, he shot her with his arrows. Her army immediately surrendered. (He subsequently pressed them into his own service).
Marduk Creates the World
It is at this point that Enuma Elish begins to sound especially familiar to those of us who have read Genesis 1 carefully. Marduk, after slaying his ancestress, considered and decided to construct a cosmos from her corpse. He began by cutting her in half. The top half he took and made the waters that appear above the earth, the sky. The bottom half he poured into the basins of the earth, and they became the sea. And then he proceeded to mold the land that peeked above the waters into the great land masses.
When he had completed his work of creating the earth, he conceived another project. He imagined a life of luxury, with slaves to build things for him whenever he wanted, and to bring him good things to eat. The thing to do was to craft such slaves. And so he took Kingu, Tiamat’s consort, and slit his throat. As his black blood poured out of the gaping wound, he collected it into a bowl. Then, he shaped the blood into lumpy, black-headed people. And that, according to Enuma Elish, is the origin of human beings.
Marduk Enthroned
Enuma Elish concludes with a hymn. The black-head people built Bab-ilani, the “gate of the gods,” and began to worship the deities there. (You have heard of Bab-ilani. You call it “Babylon”). And then they chant the fifty names of Marduk in his temple. This is the real theme of Enuma Elish. It’s all about how Marduk emerged as the great god of Babylon.
Parallels and Differences Between Enuma Elish and Genesis 1
Parallels
There are a huge number of parallels between Enuma Elish and Genesis 1. Let’s list a few of them.
- Both stories begin with chaos, and conclude with an established order.
- “Tiamat” is from the same Semitic root as the Hebrew word for “deep,” tehom.
- A divine wind/spirit blows over the deep in both stories.
- Both creation stories feature dragons. (In Genesis, the “great sea monsters” of verse 21 are obviously related to Tiamat and her mushmahhu dragons).
- In both stories, the heavenly waters and seas are sundered from one another and placed in their respective domains in the cosmos.
- Like Marduk, God has the power of divine fiat.
- Both stories culminate in liturgy. (Enuma Elish ends with the hymn to Marduk. The creation story in Genesis concludes with the Sabbath.
Differences
The differences between these stories are immediately apparent, as well. By focusing on the differences between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, it begins to become evident what the author’s intended meaning was, and how we should go about reading Genesis 1.
The Minor Differences
- In Genesis, unlike Enuma Elish, the chaos is not primeval. “In the beginning God ….” And God doesn’t have any grandparents, either.
- The deep and the chaos do not pose any real threat to God. There is no combat. The sea monsters are created by God’s hand.
- The tehom has been “demythologized.” It is not a deity, but the primary building material for creation. When God divides the waters into sea and sky, it is not a violent act at all.
- This is somewhat controversial in Old Testament research right now, but I am convinced that the “divine wind” in Genesis 1:2 (Ruach Elohim) is already setting the stage for the fuller revelation of the Holy Spirit. In any case, it is not just a natural wind like the ones in Marduk’s bag. The God of Genesis 1 is not a storm god, but the transcendent and unique Creator God Who reveals Himself to Moses as Being.
- Marduk has the power of divine fiat, but he doesn’t actually use it to create a dang thing! In contrast, Genesis 1 proclaims that everything is created by the Word of the Lord.
The Major Differences
- Perhaps the biggest difference in the stories has to do with the creation of humankind. In Genesis, God creates us in His own image and likeness. In Enuma Elish, humans are made from monster blood. Moreover, God does not create humans to be his slaves, as Marduk does. Instead, we are made to be his vassal rulers over the earth.
- Enuma Elish depicts worship as slavery. The gods are hungry, and it is our duty to feed them. The gods are powerful and fickle, so we lavish praise on them to appease them and keep them happy with us. In contrast, Genesis 1 depicts worship as rest.
- The purpose of creation in Enuma Elish is a bit of a mystery. It feels a bit as though Marduk does it because he is looking for something to do. But in Genesis, God creates the world as a Temple in which humanity will worship Him. (More on this to come).
Reading Genesis 1 in Light of the Author’s Intended Meaning
So, why would the author intentionally echo so much of Enuma Elish if he ultimately rejects its world-view? I am convinced that the echoes are intentional. He knows that his audience knows the Babylonian account of creation. So he has chosen to subvert it in dramatic ways. His vocabulary and the sweep of the story have just enough in common with Enuma Elish to force us to come to grips with what is wrong with that story. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he has produced a counter-myth that infinitely transcends its “source material” and contradicts it at its most salient points.
I suppose that Genesis 1 was written by a priest exiled to Babylon. We know that Nebuchadnezzar pressed the elite members of Judaean society into his personal college of scribes. (The first chapter of Daniel preserves memories of this indoctrination process). So, this young priest had been forced to learn the very difficult language of Akkadian, probably by copying and re-copying Enuma Elish day in and day out. Eventually, he said, “Enough! This is a lie!” And then he wrote the most beautiful creation account ever composed in protest.
The Unique Revelation in the Literal Reading Genesis 1
Just consider the number of things that God revealed through this anonymous priest and his story of creation.
- Creation ex nihilo.
- God’s eternal existence.
- The very beginnings of Trinitarian theology: God creates everything by the power of His Word and the mysterious participation of the “Spirit of God” blowing over the primeval waters.
- The astonishing dignity of human beings created in God’s image and likeness.
- The goodness and purpose of material creation.
- The identification of worship with rest in and with God.
So, yes, Genesis ought to be interpreted literally. Its authentic message is unparalleled. But that message has nothing to do with science as we conduct it today, and very little to do with history. No, the literal sense of Genesis is a theological statement, and a supreme challenge to the pagan worldview of ancient Babylon … and the pagan worldview of the 21st century.
Just a minor comment, Matt.
«In Genesis, unlike Enuma Elish, the chaos is not primeval. “In the beginning God ….” And God doesn’t have any grandparents, either.» — But it would appear that chaos (that is, תֹּ֫הוּ וָבֹ֫הוּ) really were primeval. They were not part of the first creative act, but the first verse should be thought of as setting the background for the creation. “If rēʾs̆īt is the head of an unmarked, restrictive relative clause, then Gen. i 1 as a whole can serve only on grammatical function: it is a stage-setting prepositional phrase, providing a temporal frame of reference only for what follows” (Holmstedt, p. 66).
—-
Holmstedt, Robert. “The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis i 1.” Vetus Testamentum 59, 1 (2008): 56–67.
Thank you, Jason. I’ve heard this argument before, but haven’t thought about it for ages. I’ll have to go hunt down that article. (I think that I can access it through our library).
Basically, if I understand this correctly from the small excerpt here, this is supporting the old alternative translation that goes something like, “And the earth was formless and void at the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth.” Is that correct?
This may be a possibility, but I think that Rashi already anticipated this argument, and kind of set it aside in his commentary on Genesis 1:1.
Perhaps my choice of words was unfortunate. The primeval state of the earth certainly is chaotic. But God does not emerge from chaos as the Babylonian gods do. In Genesis, God is the ultimately primeval Being.
Matt this is some of your most important and greatest commentary.
My current students also appreciate the contrast of the author’s understanding standing of women. It is analogous to the contrast in worship.
Well, thank you, James! And you are absolutely correct about the status of women. Both man and woman are made in God’s image and likeness in Genesis. And then, in Genesis 2, the description of the creation of Eve evokes the language used to describe the construction of the Tabernacle. She is the pinnacle of creation. God’s work is not finished until he fashions her from Adam’s rib. And she is portrayed as Adam’s equal. The Hebrew phrase for “help-meet” is quite clear on this count.