Understanding the Evidence: Interpreting Genesis

1

REVISED

Understanding the Evidence: Interpreting Genesis

in Ancient Near Eastern Context
© 2016Richard E. Averbeck

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

It is one thing to affirm the truth, authority, and reliability (inerrancy) of the Bible in the early chapters of Genesis, which I do, but is quite another thing to understand how God himself intendsthat we read these first chapters of His Word.[1]Some would argue, for example,that Genesis 1 (meaning here Gen 1:1-2:3) clearly teaches that God created the whole universe in six literal days, one right after the other,followed by a seventh day of rest. After all, there is the evening and morning formula throughout the chapter, day by day, and the fourth commandment reinforces this when it bases the seventh day Sabbathon the creation week (Exod 20:11).

Others say this is an overly “literalistic” way for us to read the text – that is, it is a misreading that does not properly allow for the genre and intent of the text,the figurative use of language, or the ancient Near Eastern context of its writing. For example, the six/seven pattern is common literary pattern in biblical and ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature. Could it be that God intended from the beginning that the ancient Israelites read the 6/7 pattern in Genesis 1 as a literary motif well known to them, and that we need to take that into consideration when we read it today? This and many other features of the chapter may suggest that perhaps the account has been schematized. The story has been given this literary shape for the effective telling of it in ancient Israel. I will return to this particular point later in this paper.

The task of this essay is both to clearly set forth the main substance of theANE historical, archaeological,literary, and iconographic background that sets the context for these early chapters of the Bible,[2] and to consider how that evidence may actually inform our reading of these chapters. My colleague and friend, Lawson Younger, has written well on the question of comparative method for this conference, and we will have already had that discussion before coming to this one. Therefore, Iwill not try to review all thebasic methodological principles again here (e.g., both compare and contrast, the issue of propinquity, etc.). We will, of course, reflect on their application along the way in our review of some of the most important ANE comparative evidence for reading and interpreting Genesis 1-4 in context. As will be noted below at relevant places, methodological issues abound in the reading of these source materials themselves as well as in their application to the Bible.

It will help us gain clarity in the discussion if we to distinguish between background and foreground. Genesis 1, for example,is something like a masterpiece painted by a fine artist. Often there are elements of the painting that stand in the background, serving as a backdrop against which to view the main subject in the foreground. The painting is not “flat,” so to speak, but shows depth perception. It is a matter of focus, not that the backdrop is unimportant. The backdrop is essential to the picture because the foreground would lack context without it. The literary description of creation given in Genesis 1 has this quality. In general, the common cultural foundations of the ANE world provide backdrop. The purpose here in this paper is to focus our attention on the interpretive issues that arise from consideration of this ANE comparative background material, not deal with every issue that one could raise in the interpretation of these chapters. I will leave that in the capable hands of Jack Collins. 

Aside from the Hebrew OT itself, my own competence is in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic – three of the main extant cuneiform languages and literatures of the ANE. This is a substantial body of literature. In fact, it is probably fair to say that there is more extant textual material written in Akkadian than all the other languages of the ANE put together. It was the lingua franc of the ANE from about the beginning of the second down into the first millennium – perhaps a millennium and a half – and was responsible for the spread of the so-called “cuneiform culture” from Iran and Iraq in the east all the way around the fertile crescent into Egypt in the southwest. The late bronze age Amarna letters in Egypt and the discovery of Akkadian clay tablets and literature in Palestinian excavations dating to the bronze and iron ages testify to the reality of this fact even for the most immediate world of the ancient Israelites.[3]

Ancient Israel, of course, had its own cultural peculiarities. But even more importantly, the Bible is not just a human book. God himself is speaking here. This revelation of God applies to all people across all time, space, and culture, and the main issues all people of all time have faced are basically the same. It is important to remember, however, that God was intentionally revealing himself and his purposes into that same ANE world, at least in the first instance, through human authors who lived in that world. God took full account of this reality in the way he revealed himself in scripture. He spoke to them within their world context, but at the same time he also spoke against the context. He met the ancient Israelite readers where they were, but he also took them where they needed to go from there. This is how communication works – divine revelation too.

The ANE Evidence: A Brief Overview

It will not be possible in this paper to deal with every possible piece of ANE evidence that might bear on the reading of the early chapters of Genesis. The goal here is to present a comprehensive overview without trying to be exhaustive. Thus, the first and longest part of this paper will present a relatively thorough review of the main features of the discussion, cite and explain some of the most important supporting data, and unpack its primary implications for a well-informed reading of Genesis 1-4 in its ANE context. We will walk through Genesis 1 and 2, and from there into some important connections to Genesis 3 and 4. After this overview the last section of the paper return to the beginning with a more expanded discussion of creationex nihilo in terms of the larger theological discussion of the relationship between God and his creation.

Creation ex nihilo? Genesis 1:1-3

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (NIV)

There is a good deal of discussion over the first three verses of the Bible these days. Traditionally, v. 1 is taken to be an independent temporal sentence stating the original creation of the “formless and empty” universe of v. 2 at the beginning out of nothing, creation ex nihilo. Many have moved away from this interpretation, suggesting that v. 1 is indeed an independent temporal sentence, but it serves as a summary title announcing what is to follow in the chapter. The latter interpretation is accepted in the notes of first edition of the NIV Study Bible, for example. Both are given as legitimate options in the second edition, where the note includes this remark: “Although creation out of nothing is implicit in Gen 1, for more complete statements see Isa 45:7-18; Rom 11:36; Col 1:16-17.” One might add Heb 11:3. The translation itself remains the same in either case, but if v. 1 is treated as a title of the chapter it stands parallel to the other unit titles in Genesis – the “generations” (Hebrew tôledôt) formulas throughout the book (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; etc.). Such a formula could not work in Gen 1:1 because these generations formulas always link what is before to what follows, and there is nothing written before Gen 1:1.

Some other English versions read v. 1 as a temporal clause introducing a sentence that runs through v. 2. There are various forms of this but, for example, the NRSV reads, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” This rendering assumes that Gen 1:1 does not refer to creation ex nihilo. All of vv. 1-2 provides temporal and circumstantial background for the creative words of God that begin in v. 3, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ so there was light.” There are a total of nine of these “And God said . . .” units throughout the chapter. Issues of Hebrew grammar could also be raised here, but this is not the place to enter into that discussion.[4]

The ANE context enters the discussion at this point. One of the well-known features of creation stories in the ANE world is the fact that many of them begin with a deep, dark, watery abyss, much like what is described in v. 2. Perhaps the most well-known of these creation accounts is the Babylonian creation mythEnuma Elish, the oldest extant tablets of which date to the Middle Assyrian period (1300-1100 BC). It begins this way:

(1)When the heavens above did not exist,

And earth beneath had not come into being –

There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,

And demiurge Tiāmat, who gave birth to them all;

(5) They had mingled their waters together

Before meadow-land had coalesced and reed-bed was to be found –

When not one of the gods had been formed

Or had come into being, when no destinies had been decreed,

The gods were created within them: . . .[5]

Tiāmat is the goddess of the depths of the sea (cf. tĕhôm in Gen 1:2b, “and darkness was over the face of the deep”). She had serpentine characteristics. Apsû is the god of the underground waters. The name Enuma Elish comes from the first words of the composition, “When (the heavens) above.” The similarity to the beginning of Genesis 1 bĕrēšît “In the beginning” is obvious. Both compositions begin with a temporal clause, and at the beginning there was water – only water. The deep dark watery abyss is also one of the standard starting points for creation in the Egyptian world. For example, in one Coffin Text we read: “. . . on the day that Atum evolved – out of the Flood, out of the Waters, out of darkness, out of lostness.”[6]

While there are similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish, there are also differences. In Enuma Elish there follows a theogony (i.e., creation of the various other gods). Genesis 1 has no other gods at all. In fact, there appears to be certain amount of polemic against the common belief in multiple deities. Moreover, in Genesis 1 the creation of the cosmos follows immediately after the introduction of the deep dark watery abyss at the beginning of the account. The material creation of the cosmos in Enuma Elish comes much later in the composition, starting at the end of Tablet IV and ending with the creation of humanity in Tablet VI, each tablet consisting of about 150 lines of text. This is after a long account of disputes among the gods and the consummate and victorious battle of Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, against Tiamat, the serpentine mother of the gods.[7]

After defeating her, Marduk split her body in two and set up one half as the cover, heaven, and the other as earth below which, in turn, is over the Apsû, the underground source of waters. Heaven became the realm of Anu, the god of heaven, Ea was already the god of the Apsû, and Enlil became the chief deity over the world of air and land that stands between them. After the whole cosmos was properly created, arranged, and assigned to the appropriate deities, Marduk also determined to make humanity to relieve the work of the gods by feeding and otherwise caring for them. He employed Ea, the god of wisdom and crafts, to kill Qingu, Tiamat’s previous partner in crime, and used his blood and bones to create humanity.[8]In this account, it is difficult so see either any disregard for the material origins of the world or a separation between that material world and their gods. We will have to wait until later to pursue these issues further.

So, we have evidence from Mesopotamia to Egypt that a deep dark watery abyss was a most natural and understandable starting point for a creation story in the ancient Israelite world. Thus, in Genesis 1 we watch God paint his literary picture of creation and the cosmos step by step, and he paints it against the same standard backdrop as would be normal in the ANE. The actual picture itself is really quite different in many important respects. In the Bible, for example, there is no battle between the gods and, in fact, there are no other gods at all. Nevertheless, one of the ways in which the Bible and the ANE accounts are similar is that God speaks his first creative word in v. 3 into the deep dark watery abyss of v. 2.

As we follow this through the chapter, God progressively eliminates the conditions of v. 2. On day one he eliminates the total darkness. Each following day progressively eliminates some element(s) of the conditions in v. 2. If we take Gen 1:1 to be a title verse and initial temporal clause leading into v. 2 rather than original creation of matter ex nihilo, this should not surprise us for a creation story written in the ANE. They would not have expected a statement of creation ex nihilo. Perhaps that is why God did not bother including it in the account of creation as it is given in Genesis 1. It certainly would not have surprised the ancient Israelites, since they were ANE people. God met them where they were, but he also took them where they needed to go from there. It was essential that they understand that there is only one God, and no others. Other people believed in multiple gods and their close connection to the functions of the world around them. They must totally reject this common ANE worldview if they are going to worship and serve the one true God.

A Phenomenal World, Genesis 1:6-8

6And God said, “Let there be a vault (Hb. rāqîa῾) between the waters to separate water from water.” 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

8God called the vault “sky.”(Hb. šāmayim ‘heavens’) And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. (NIV)

On day two God separated between the waters above and below so that there was not just one big watery abyss as in v. 2. The whole question of what the rāqîa῾ is has been a subject of scholarly debate and variation in the translations. NASB, ESV, NET, and Tanakh render it “expanse” (= “space” in the NLT); the NIV has recently changed its translation from “expanse” to “vault” (= “dome” in the NRSV and “firmament” in the KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV). We shall not enter into all the details of this debate here.[9]

Another well-known ANE creation tradition comes into play here wherein creation does not begin with a deep dark watery abyss, but with the separation of heaven from earth to create a three level universe: heaven above, earth below, and the region in between where man does the work and the gods have their temples. Actually, this has some basis in the texts cited above. For example, in the Akkadian tradition ofEnuma Elish where the watery beginning leads immediately to a theogony, not a cosmogony, the battle against the evil serpentine sea monster, Tiamat, comes later in the composition. Her defeat leads to splitting her body in two so that one half was raised up to create the heavens above the earth, with the world of humanity and the temples of the gods in between. Sumerian texts, however, tend to begin immediately with the separation of heaven from earthand do not include a battle with the sea monster. Before dealing with this tradition in more detail, however, it is important to set aside what I and some other scholars believe is a common misunderstanding of how the Israelites and other ANE peoples saw their world.

A Common Misunderstanding

Scholars commonly represent the ANE and Israelite view of the cosmos with a picture in which there was a body of water above the stars held up by a dome (see NIV “vault” = Heb. rāqîa῾ mentioned above), the dome had sluices for the rain water to flow through, the sun, moon, and stars wereeither imbedded in that dome or suspended below it, and so on. Many artistic representations of this supposed ancient world view have been produced and affirmed by scholars.[10]Consider, for instance, the picture of the cosmos as it is presented by T. H. Gaster in his article on cosmogony in the first volume of the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: