Genesis 1-3: Exalted Prose, Ancient ("Temple-Building") Cosmology, and Anti-Pagan Polemic

Some thoughts about Genesis 1-3 (stolen from one of my other posts):

With regard to Genesis as Anti-Pagan Polemic: Genesis 1 shows great familiarity with Ancient Near East culture and cosmologies, and, in fact, is an anti-pagan polemic that directly counters, repudiates, and discredits the pagan cosmologies of the time that ancient Israel was surrounded by. 

Polemic (type of argument in rhetoric) = "an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another."

Here are a few examples of the polemical nature of Genesis:

(1) In some Ancient Near East (ANE) cosmogonies, dragons (Heb. tnn) are rivals that the Canaanite gods have to fight against and conquer.  In Genesis 1:21, the "sea monsters" are just another form of aquatic life created by God.

(2) In ANE cosmogonies, the gods struggle to separate the upper waters from the lower waters.  In Genesis 1:6-10, God separates the waters by divine fiat and his spoken word alone.

(3) Similarly, throughout Genesis 1, creation is accomplished through the spoken word of God, and not through any magical utterance or incantations like we see in Egyptian creation accounts.

(4) One of the clearest evidences that Genesis 1 is an anti-pagan polemic is Day 4.  Genesis 1 has a chiastic ("mirror-image") literary structure that draws attention to Day 4 (as the central pivot point in the creation account).  It is also discussed in greater detail than the previous days.  Bible scholars think the most likely reason for its central, highlighted placement in the creation account is the central place of importance that the sun, moon, and stars occupied in pagan cosmologies.  In ANE cosmologies, the sun, moon, and stars are identified with important gods and goddesses.  But Genesis 1 hands the most colossal "dis" to the ANE pagan cosmologies and polytheistic religions of the time.  You see, not only does Genesis 1 present the sun, moon, and stars as created things instead of deities, but it "disses" them by not even dignifying them with a name (even though there are Hebrew words for the sun and moon).  In the ultimate, in-your-face slam to the most important, highly regarded parts of ANE pagan cosmology and religion, Genesis simply refers to the sun and moon as the nameless "greater" and "lesser" light.  

(5) Finally, in ANE cosmogonies, humanity is created as a total afterthought and the gods create humans so that the humans can do work and provide food and provisions for the gods.  In a complete repudiation of this idea, Genesis 1 shows that humans are not an after thought, but are the goal and pinnacle of creation, created in God's image, and instead of providing food for the "gods," the true God cares for and provides food and other provisions for humanity.  In fact, days 1-5 focus on God's creative work of organizing and ordering the cosmos to provide for the needs of his image-bearers (humans).  

*Anti-pagan polemics are a frequent theme throughout the Bible:

(1) Each of the Exodus plagues was an attack on different Egyptian gods, showing how powerless they are compared to the one true God and Lord (Yahweh) of Israel.

(2) There's Elijah's well-known mockery and challenge show-down to the priests of Baal, where God demonstrates his power over the pagan god Baal.

(3) It's *possible* (although not entirely certain) that the marching around the walls of Jericho might have been a mockery of a pagan ceremony that ended in enthronement of the moon god, but here instead of exaltation and lifting up ends with the falling-down of the "moon city" (Jericho's) walls.

(4) Many other examples....

***And then we have the ULTIMATE POLEMIC: THE CROSS. Jews demand a "sign" and the Greeks "wisdom" (and also power and beauty much like today's society).  But instead of a powerful god like Zeus or Atlas, or the beautiful Aphrodite, or the wisdom of Athena, the one true God confounds them all with "foolishness" that is wiser and more powerful than all the pagan gods combined: a "crucified God" exalted on an instrument of death, dishonor, and shame.  For the cross of Christ is "foolishness" to those who are perishing but the power of God for those who are being saved (1 Corinthians 1).

I think there is some value in considering how Biblical writing can be a polemic against prevailing heresies at the time of writing. But that possible shouldn't then empty the Biblical writings, especially the Creation account of Historical accuracy in terms of the events they describe.
I believe that Christ-followers, (Christians) should read and understand the Genesis creation account in the same way that Jesus read and understood it, as Historical Narrative, that describes real people, real events in real time. Any other understanding, reading or interpretation that is different to the way Jesus and the apostles read it is wrong. 
That's why I'm opposed to John Walton's reading of the Creation account. In saying the Creation account is not a scientific account, in a culture where Science is highly respected as the most reliable source of knowledge, seems to also suggest that the Creation account is not Historical Narrative, and instead is poetry or allegory. I strongly disagree.

• Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus read Genesis 1 as "historical narrative."  You taken liberties in an attempt to try to prove your point.  Jesus spoke of how God created everything and how God created humans "male and female."  I believe that too.  Historical narrative is a type of genre.  Jesus made no comments about the genre of Genesis 1.  Just because something contains facts--that's not what makes a text historical narrative.  Facts about the world can also appear in poetry as well as prose.

• Walton's irrelevant.  None of my links are Walton links.

• The facts are the facts.  Genesis 1 does not fit historical narrative (like Genesis 12 does), but nor does it fit poetry.  Genesis 1 contains BOTH prose and poetic elements.  That's simply a fact.  OT scholars refer to it as *elevated narrative/prose*---in fact, this is a consensus position--because that's the best description of Genesis 1, and this has been recognized for a long time.

• NO OT scholar I know of says Genesis 1 is allegory.  Nor do I.  Allegory and poetry are not the same thing.

• Poetry CAN contain historical facts.  Prose CAN contain non-historical and figurative elements.  So, it is a BIG mistake to equate poetry with fiction and prose with fact. 

• Maybe when others say Genesis is not a scientific account that's code for non-historical.  But that's not how I use it.  When I say it's not a scientific account I mean it's not a scientific account.  It can't be just like you noted: that would be anachronistic.

• Importantly, even if Genesis 1 is historical narrative, it's STILL NOT a scientific account.

* Genesis 1 has more in common with Ancient Near East cosmologies than anything else.  That is the closest corollary.  That is a simple fact.  

If we're going to be accurate, honest, and truthful, then we have to acknowledge that Genesis 1 combines BOTH narrative prose and poetry.  Hence: *elevated prose/narrative* is the most accurate way to describe the genre of Genesis.

Here's a blog I found (that I don't agree with everything said) but that does a pretty good job discussing this issue.

• First, the blogger looks at Genesis 1-2:3 as Hebrew Narrative 

• Then, the blogger looks at Genesis 1-2:3 as Hebrew Poiesis (Poetry)

The Genesis Creation Account combines elements of both poetry and prose.  I think you'll enjoy the blogs.  They're very informative.

Yes, the Genesis Creation Account combines elements of poetry (when Adam describes Eve when God presents her to him) and prose (the rest of the account).
Below is William Lane Craig's critique of Walton's take on the Creation Account. 

I like WLC, but unfortunately this is not one of his better moments.  He misunderstands Walton and shows a lack of knowledge and understanding about OT exegesis, which I suppose we could forgive him for since he's not a Bible scholar; except for the the fact that it spreads misinformation.  For example, the cosmos as "temple" is not some esoteric fringe idea that Walton came up with.  The connections between Genesis 1-3 and the temple/tabernacle are well-known and recognized by Bible scholars.  Unfortunately, WLC who is usually pretty good at doing his homework, shows he has not done so here and is out of his depth.  

As I've said, I don't agree with everything Walton says and think he presses his functional ontology too far.  However, he's not wrong when he says that in Bible times it was the ordering, and functional, organizing aspects of God's work in creation that was considered most important, and not the origin of matter and material, physical things themselves.  People of course believed God created everything (and Genesis teaches that) but that was a given that no one questioned (and more of a "duh, well of course God created everything").  We care more about material origins than they did and unfortunately we bring these misplaced expectations to Genesis 1. 

One of the clearest indications of this is that Genesis 1:2 clearly teaches that the earth and physical matter already existed before the first day of creation.  The six days of creation are mainly focused on bringing order to this formless, empty chaotic state of matter that already existed by organizing it and filling it with created things, and separating, and dividing and gathering, and very importantly....naming/calling which is very significant (God called it "day," "night," "sky," "sea,"..."Adam,"...."Abram" to "Abraham," Jacob to "Israel," etc., etc., etc.---naming was extremely important and significant).  

A lot of these elements are lost on us today, causing us to focus on the wrong things.

*As far as your assessment that the poetry is when Adam presents Eve and that everything else is prose, I'm afraid that's just simply not true.  It also shows me you haven't had a chance to read the two blog links I posted.  Please read when you have the opportunity.  They're very informative and I think you'll enjoy them. 

Hebrew poetry is not a guessing game, but has unique elements---the quintessential being parallelism/parallel structure, of which there is a great diversity of forms.  In its simplest form, *parallelism* is *repetition*, and where there is parallelism/repetition, there is Hebrew poiesis (poetry).  For example, the repetitive use of:

• "And God said"

• "And it was so"

• "And God saw (it was good)"

• "And there was evening, and there was morning."

• "And God called"

• Etc., etc., etc.

*All these examples of repetitive/repeated statements are examples of parallelism---the hallmark, characteristic feature of Hebrew poetry

• And there's a lot more on top of this, including parallel literary structures that connect Day 1 & Day 4, Day 2 & Day 5, and Day 3 & Day 6

The literary crafting and organization is majestic and highly stylized--highlighting God's ordering of creation itself.

*Genesis 1 ALSO has important elements of Hebrew narrative.

***And it's not a case of narrative, then poetry, then narrative, as your comment suggests.  BOTH elements of poetry and prose are inseparably combined in Genesis 1.  It's majestic and beautiful.

*Read the two blogs when you get a chance, which explains more about this.  I think you'll enjoy it. 

I quickly scanned the links you provided. Not persuaded.
May I suggest you watch all of William Lane Craig's seminars responding to John Walton's views. I only posted the first lesson of several.
Yes, there is repetition in Genesis 1, but the poetry elements are limited to those verses I mentioned. Any good Bible translation will show you where the poetic sections are by the way the text is set out in lines (poetry) and not paragraphs (prose). 

• I'd already watched all of WLC's responses to Walton (prior to your post) and read additional transcripts.

• Btw, Walton's functional ontology is a separate issue unrelated to the genre of Genesis 1 (just fyi)

• There's too much inconsistency in Bible print, typesetting and formatting to rely on this.  Plus, it's just not definitive--typesetting is not what makes Hebrew poetry and prose what they are.

• Regardless, Bible typesetting is irrelevant to Genesis 1 because Genesis 1 is NOT a poem (nor is it strict prose), but is elevated narrative that combines elements of both.  So, there's no easy way to show this via typesetting and any strict formatting choice made by an editor (one way or the other) would be misleading by masking either the prosaic or poetic elements.

• I understand the reticence because of all the faulty genre-based arguments in circulation, so I will reiterate: genre, by itself, tells us nothing about whether the content is historical, non-historical, or a combination of both.  By itself, genre is not evidence of anything.

• Let me be more emphatic: Let's say for sake of argument that Genesis 1 IS a poem (with NO prose or narrative whatsoever).  That still would NOT make Genesis 1 non-historical.  And, like you, I would have strong words with anyone who tried to make such an argument. 

• Besides, we've already both acknowledged that Genesis 1 contains elements of prose and poetry (repetition/parallelism).  Thus, we've effectively already agreed (along w/scholarly consensus) that Genesis is elevated narrative.  I further agree that the fact that Genesis is elevated narrative can NOT be used to argue that Genesis 1 is non-historical.

• By way of example, the book of Job is poetry almost in its entirety, but I believe it's historical, and is about real historical people.  The entire Flood account employs the Hebrew poetic device of palistrophy (mirror-image chiastic structure).  This literary structure focuses the reader on the pivotal central event in the story: "God remembered Noah." 

The account employs imagery and figures of speech.  That said, I still believe Noah's flood was a real, historical event.  I also recognize that the account depicts a global flood. 

I’ve read an that one interpretation of Greg flood was that it was a local one. While I can’t find the article right now, it pointed out the word for “earth” can also be “land”.

“

“For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭7:17-20‬ 

Let’s see the same passage with “land” instead of “earth”. 
“For forty days the flood kept coming on the land, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the land. The waters rose and increased greatly on the land, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the land, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.”

While the part about “the entire heavens” may not make sense, the idea does seem to have merit. Are there any other parts in the flood account that I’m not aware of that show it was a global flood?

This article points to Bible passages that make clear Noah’s flood was global and that was God’s intention:

https://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html

@TerminatorC800,

That is a good idea and one of the more respected.  However, I do not think the text can ultimately sustain such a local flood reading.  For one, if we substitute 'land' for 'earth' throughout we run into passages where 'land' does not make sense.  Second, the account of Noah's flood actually goes beyond just a global flood and is more epic and cosmic in scale by depicting a return to the disordered state of Genesis 1:2, and subsequent re-creation.  From disorder to order back to disorder/chaos with the flood, and then back to order again.

I see two certain propositions here:

(1) Genesis absolutely depicts a catastrophe of worldwide, global proportions.

(2)  There is absolutely no geologic evidence for a global, worldwide flood at any time in earth's history. 

This, in turn, would seem to leave the following options:

A) Science is right and the Bible is wrong (the nonbeliever, skeptic's view)

B) The Bible is right and science is wrong (the view probably advocated by most in this forum); or 

C) They are both right (the view I advocate)

Can you elaborate why you think C is right if there is no geological evidence in your view?

Sure, I'll message you

Genesis doesn't simply present Noah's flood as a worldwide global catastrophe.  It goes far beyond that and presents Noah's flood in *cosmic* proportions as a reversal of God's creation.  A reversal of Day 3 when dry land appears and Day 2 when God separates the waters to establish order, God now returns order back to chaos.  But in addition Genesis does so using heavily figurative, poetic language that is hyperbolic and purposely exaggerates to communicate a theological truth/message.  That is, I believe the account of Noah's flood is based on a real, historical local or regional flood event that is presented in an obviously exaggerated, hyperbolic way that is not simply a global catastrophe but a catastrophe of cosmic proportions on a cosmic scale that undo God's work of creation--destroys creation and then re-creates it.  There are numerous indications of this.  Take, for instance, the exaggerated dimensions of Noah's ark.  No wooden boat in ancient OR modern history comes close.  For some reason, some modern readers of the Bible have difficulty recognizing clear hyperbole and symbolism when it's blatantly right in front of them.  The wooden boats in ancient times averaged about 10 feet in length.  Do people really think that an ancient reader of Genesis would have thought a 450 ft long wooden boat was meant to be taken literally?  Why then would we?  Take also the clear hyperbole in Genesis 6 that every inclination of man's heart was evil.  Well that obviously can't be true.  EVERY inclination of man couldn't be evil.  If that was true then how could the Bible then turn around and say Noah was a righteous man?  It's similar to other hyperbolic exaggerations like what we see in Genesis 41:57 when Joseph is in Egypt and there was a severe famine 'over ALL the earth'.  If we're going to insist the flood covered all the earth literally and that this is not hyperbole, then to be consistent we also have to insist that the famine in Joseph's day was literally 'severe over ALL the earth' too.

Or perhaps instead just like when someone says they're carrying something that weighs a ton, we know they don't actually mean a literal ton, why do we fail to see the similar hyperbolic language the flood is depicted in? 

For more information I recommend the book "The Lost World of the Flood" which explains this all in greater depth.

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Flood-Mythology-Theology/dp/083085200X 

See also my recent post here: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/how-much-is-too-much-evolution?page=16#comment-60760331

First rule of biblical hermeneutics is to interpret in the proper historical context. So what does that mean for interpreting Genesis 1? Well, more and more are recognizing the parallels of Genesis 1 to Egyptian creation stories. This is not a statement condoning Egyptian creation myths but just the opposite: Genesis 1 seems to be a rebuke and theological polemic that is *opposing* those pagan myths. I've posted on this before and some think I'm going against Genesis, when I'm actually not, and to help support that and put people's minds at ease here is a creationist article that is essentially saying the same thing I'm talking about:

https://newcreation.blog/noahs-flood-in-egyptian-hieroglyphs/

Yes, i do remember you writing about this sometime ago, something that never crossed my mind, nor something i've ever herd anyone else mention.

At the risk of coming across as being legalistic or missing the point completely,( neither the intent ) while Moses may have fine tuned a few things still believe it was inspired by the Lord especially when one considers the definitons of many of the words used.

Personally, i'm still hung up on Gen c 1 v 2 " rachaph," ( vibrate, shake, flutter ) and the distinctly different types of light mentioned ( 1 v 3.. "owr" 'light beyond earth's atmosphere,' arguably universal infltion ) and 'meorah' ( 14-16 ) 'luminous body.' But, those are for a different discussion somewhere else.

Appreciate your contributions, it' always a learning experience - for me anyway.