Context and Contextualization of Ancient Israelite Creation Theology:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 in the Light of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths

Gordon H. Johnston, Associate Professor
Department of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society
15 November 2006 (Washington, D.C.)

PART ONE: PARALLELS BETWEEN GENESIS 1 AND

THE MAJOR ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CREATION MYTHS

Comparison of Genesis 1-2 to Ancient Egyptian Cosmogony

For more than a century now, biblical scholars have generally read the Hebrew creation account in Genesis
1 in the light of parallels from Mesopotamia (particularly, Enuma Elish),1 and more recently Ugaritic literature,2 both
describing divine conflict with the mythical waters of chaos. Despite its popularity, there are two fundamental
problems with suggesting Enuma Elish provides the conceptual background of the Genesis 1 creation account: (1)
Although Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 open with mention of the original primordial waters from which creation would
eventually emerge, the etymological connection between the name tiâmat, "Tiamat," and the Hebrew noun
téhôm, "watery deep," remains a matter of debate;3 and (2) more significantly, there is no hint of divine conflict
between God and the primordial waters in Genesis 1.4

Nearly a century ago, two biblical scholars—A.H. Sayce and A.S. Yahuda—drew attention to parallels
between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation myths, which they claimed were tighter than the putative Mesopotamian
parallels.5 However, their work fell on deaf ears largely because: (1) scholars fixated on the Mesopotamian
materials, which were more widely known and accessible; (2) critical assumptions that Gen 1 should be classified as
P, dated to the exilic or post-exilic period, and assigned to a Babylonian provenance; (3) failure to take seriously the
biblical tradition of Hebrew origins in the land of Egypt; and (4) general lack of familiarity with the Egyptian
language and literature dealing with creation.6 Nevertheless, a growing number of contemporary scholars have
recently begun to create a ground swell in support of an Egyptian background.7 Ironically, a significant number of

1
The classical study is Hermann Gunkel, "The Influence of Babylonian Mythology Upon the Biblical Creation Story," in Bernard Anderson,
ed., Creation in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 25-52.
2
Many studies note the similarities between Ugaritic myths and the Bible, e.g., L. Fisher, "Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament," VT
15 (1965) 313-24; R.J. Clifford, "Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible," Orientalia 53 (1984) 202-19; J.C.L. Gibson, "The Theology
of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle," Orientalia 53 (1984) 203-19; J.H. Groenbaek, "Baal's Battle with Yam: A Canaanite Creation Fight," JSOT 33 (1985)
27-44. While it is clear that some Ugaritic texts were cosmological in nature (they describe the operation/structure of the universe in
mythic manner), it is debatable if any were cosmogonic (explanations of the origin of the universe). See especially, B. Margalit, "The
Ugaritic Creation Myth: Fact or Fiction?" UF 13 (1981) 137-45; M.H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1955).
3
For example, Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology," Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974) 81-102.
4
Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 66, argues that when Genesis 1 opens,
the cosmic battle has already been won, or that God is simply presented as superior to Marduk in that he does not have to fight against
the waters which are impotent before him. However, this is special pleading and assumes the conclusion before arguing to the point.
5
A.H. (Archibald Henry), Sayce, "The Egyptian Background on Genesis 1," Studies Presented to F.Ll. Griffith (London: Egypt Exploration
Society, 1932) 419-23; idem, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Babylonians, The Hibbert
Lectures (London: Williams and Norgate, 1887) 267-70; Abraham Shalom Yahuda, The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian
(London: Oxford University Press, 1933) 101-294; idem, The Accuracy of the Bible (London: Heinemann, 1934). Yahuda was largely ignored
because he overstated his case for the Egyptian influence in the Pentateuch and tended toward pan-Egyptianization. Nevertheless, a
number of his suggestions have proven legitimate.
6
James K. Hoffmeier, "Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 in Light of Egyptian Cosmology," JANES 15 (1983) 39-40 [39-49].
7
R. Kilian, "Gen 1:2 und die Urgötter von Hermopolis," Vetus Testamentum 16 (1965) 420-38; W.H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der
Priesterschrift (Neukirchen 1967); Viktor Nötter, Biblischer Schöpfungsbericht und Ägyptische Schöpfungsmythen (Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1974); Cyrus H. Gordon, "Khnum and El," Scripta Hieroslymitana 28 (1982) 203-14; James K. Hoffmeier, "Some Thoughts on
Genesis 1 and 2 in Light of Egyptian Cosmology," JANES 15 (1983) 39-49; John D. Currid, "An Examination of the Egyptian Background of
the Genesis Cosmogony," Biblische Zeitschrift 35 (1991) 18-40; Donald B. Redford, "Four Great Origin Traditions," in Egypt, Canaan, and
Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992) 396-400 [395-429]; Richard J. Clifford, "Egyptian Creation

1
Egyptologists had been suggesting this very relationship for years,8 but their observations largely went unnoticed
by those who rarely venture into Egyptology or the influence of Egypt on ancient Israel. What follows will survey
the most important connections between Genesis 1 and Egyptian cosmogonies, both striking similarities and stark
differences. Before comparing the Hebrew and Egyptian creation accounts, we will overview the basic storyline.

Basic Features in Egyptian Creation Tradition

Egyptian religion featured four major versions of the same basic mythic cycle of creation, each represented
by rival sanctuaries: Heliopolis, Hermopolis, Memphis, and Thebes. Each version followed the basic storyline: (1)
the original undifferentiated monad evolved into Primeval Waters (Nun); (2) out of these Waters (Nun) emerged
Atum, the demiurge creator-god, who was generated/self-generated in the waters; (3) his generation in the waters
was manifested by a sudden appearance of supernatural light; (4) at the dawn of time, Atum the creator-god
appeared on the primordial hill when the waters receded; (5) Atum generated the Ennead, manifest in the creation
of the material world; (6) the apex of this theogony/cosmogony was the generation of Rê/Rê-Amun and
corresponding creation of the sun as his divine image, whose birth was represented by the first sunrise; (7) the daily
recurrence of the sunrise and sunset represents a continual process of a one-day creation mythology; (8) the
creation of humanity was an accidental event—humanity sprung out the ground from the weeping (alternately
tears of sorrow or joy) of the creator-god; (9) at the end of the one-day creative activity, the creator-god rested in
satisfaction—not weariness; and (10) the creation cycle is completed by the mythical physical birth of pharaoh as
the firstborn of Rê/Rê-Amun as the ruler of the terrestrial realm corresponding to the sun-god's role as ruler of the
celestial realm.

Thematic, Conceptual, Lexical and Structural Parallels

between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian Creation Traditions

The detailed studies noted above have identified three kinds of parallels: (1) lexical, (2) structural, and (3)
thematic/conceptual. In the next couple of pages, we will survey selected examples. The interested reader should
consult the aforementioned works for more detail and additional examples. I limit myself to a select few to simply
make the point that Genesis 1 exhibits striking parallels with Egyptian creation myths.

Lexical Parallels

Several biblical scholars who are trained Egyptologists suggest that there are several striking lexical parallels
between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation myths.9 One of the most dramatic is the appearance of the semantically
equivalent expression, "in the beginning."10 In both cases, the expression refers, not to the infinite indefinable time
of all pre-creation eternity past, but to the specific moment when the creativity activity of the cosmos formally
began. In the Egyptian material, this moment occurred when the Primordial Waters stirred up self-recognition
within Nun, which was followed almost immediately by the generation of Atum, the creator-god, in the form of a
sudden appearance of supranatural light. In Genesis 1, this starting-point in marked time occurred when the
eternally pre-existent transcendent God spoke supranatural light into existence, driving off darkness from over the
primordial waters.

Accounts," Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series (Washington DC:
The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1994) 101-07; James E. Atwell, "An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1," Journal of Theological Studies
51 (2000) 441-77; Hans-Peter Hasenfratz, "Patterns of Creation in Ancient Egypt," 174-78 in Henning Graf Reventhlow and Yair Hoffman,
eds., Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, JSOT Supplement Series 319 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); John Strange,
"Some Notes on Biblical and Egyptian Theology," in Gary N. Knoppers and Antoine Hirsch, eds., Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean
World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 345-58. Mention should also be noted of the brief reference to
possible Egyptian background to Genesis 1 in R.J. Williams, "Egypt and Israel," in J.R. Harris, ed., The Legacy of Egypt (Oxford, 1971) 288;
Robert Luyster, "Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament," Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93
(1982) 1-10; John H. Walton, "Cosmology," Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient
Near Eastern Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) 23-24, 32-34 [19-42].
8
For example, Vincent Arieh Tobin, "Myths," "Creation Myths," and "Mythological Texts," in Donald J. Redford, ed. et al., Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 2:459-69.
9
For example, see Hoffmeier, Currid, Atwell, Kilian, Sayce.
10
Hoffmeier, "Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2," 42: "In Genesis 1:1, the word bére<¡ªt is used to describe the 'beginning' of God's creative
activity. The root of the word is rø<¡, which literally means 'head.' The Egyptian expression used to refer to primeval time or the beginning
of the creation process is sp tpy, 'first occasion' or time of creation. The root of tpy comes from tp, which literally means 'head.' The
terminology, while not etymologically related, is related conceptually. In both traditions, creation marked the beginning of time." Yahuda
and Currid also make similar points.

2
 Structural Parallels

Although Genesis 1 shares with Enuma Elish several thematic/conceptual parallels, and perhaps a few lexical
parallels, it does not reflect structural parallels in terms of its overall storyline. On the other hand, Sayce observed
that the sequence of events described in Gen 1:1-13 essentially mirrors that of the tradition of Hermopolis, reflected
in the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts, dating from the Old Kingdom period but still current during the Middle and
New Kingdom periods.11 Hoffmeier agrees with Sayce's analysis.12

Hermopolis: Coffin Texts and Pyramid Texts Genesis 1:1-13

1. pre-creation condition: lifeless chaotic watery deep
2. breath/wind (Amun) moves upon the waters
3. creation of supranatural light (generation of Atum)
4. emergence of primordial hill "in midst of Nun"
5. procreation of sky (Shu) when Nun raised over earth13
6. formation of heavenly ocean (Nut) by separation
7. formation of dry ground (Geb) by separation
8. humanity accidentally created by tears of Atum
9. sun created to rule world as image of Rê
1. pre-creation condition: lifeless chaotic watery deep
2. breath/wind of Elohim moving on the waters
3. creation of supranatural light (creation by God)
4. creation of firmament "in midst of the waters"
5. creation of sky when waters raised above firmament
6. formation of heavenly ocean when waters separated
7. formation of dry ground when waters gathered
8. sun and moon created to rule day and night
9. creation of humans to rule the world as image of God

Schmidt, Strange, and Atwell also note parallels between the sequence of events narrated in Genesis 1:1-2:3
and those narrated in the Shabaka Stone,14 representing the "Memphite theology," published during the New
Kingdom period, but most likely going back to an original document from the Old Kingdom period. The new
additions/modifications to the traditional Egyptian myth are italicized below.

Memphis: Shabaka Stone Genesis 1:1-2:3

1. pre-creation condition: lifeless chaotic watery deep
2. breath/wind (Amun) moves upon the waters
3. thought and word of Ptah creates Atum (light)
4. emergence of primordial hill "in midst of Nun"
5. procreation of sky (Shu) when Nun raised over earth
6. formation of heavenly ocean (Nut) by separation
7. formation of dry ground (Geb) by separation
8. sun created to rule world as image of Rê
9. earth sprouts plants, fish, birds, reptiles, animals
10. creation of god's statues, cult sites, food offerings15
11 . Ptah completes activity and "rests" in satisfaction16
1. pre-creation condition: lifeless chaotic watery deep
2. breath/wind of Elohim moving on the waters
3. word of God creates light
4. creation of firmament "in midst of the waters"
5. creation of sky when waters raised above firmament
6. formation of heavenly ocean when waters separated
7. formation of dry ground when waters gathered
8. creation of plants … later fish, birds, reptiles, animals
9. sun and moon created to rule day and night
10. creation of man as divine image, food to eat, dominion
11. God completes activity and "rests" (in satisfaction)17

11
Sayce, "The Egyptian Background of Genesis 1," 421.
12
Hoffmeier, "Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2," 42.
13
Sayce, "The Egyptian Background of Genesis 1," 421, noted that the Pyramid Texts (§1778) indicate that the sky had emerged from Nun
and was raised over the earth. For a discussion of the parallel PT and CT passages, see Hoffmeier, in Sacred in the Vocabulary of Ancient
Egypt, 30-36, 65-70; cf. also Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 173-74.
14
Atwell, "An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1," 441-77; Strange, "Some Notes on Biblical and Egyptian Theology," 345-58.
15
Shabaka Stone, lines 58-61: "It has evolved that Ptah is called 'He who made totality and caused the gods to evolve,' since he is Ta-taten
(the physical earth), who gave birth to the gods, from whom everything has emerged—offerings and food, god's offerings, and every
good thing … So has Ptah come to rest after his making everything and every divine speech as well, having given birth to the gods, having
made their towns, having set the gods in their cult-places, having made sure their bread-offerings, having founded their statues, having
modeled their bodies, of every kind of wood, every kind of mineral, every kind of fruit, everything that grows all over him (as Ta-tenen, the
physical earth), in which they have evolved" (translation by J. Allen, 1997).
16
Shabaka Stone, line 59: "So Ptah rested after he had made all things and all the words of god" (Shabaka Stone, see W. Beyerlin, ed., Near
Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 5). The text is also translated in James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament (Princeton 1969), 5, column ii. The Egyptian verb h†p has a wide range of terms, including, "to be satisified," as well
as, "to rest" (Erman-Grapow Wörterbuch 3:188-89).
17
Atwell writes, "The final element in the basic material is the rest of God (Gen 2:2). This also finds a resonance in ancient Egypt. There it
is not release from toil from the gods brought about by the creation of human beings as it is in Mesopotamia. Rather it is satisfaction at
the conclusion of a job well done. It was said of Ptah of Memphis: "So Ptah rested after he had made all things and all the words of god."
The translation in ANET rendered "rest with an alternative translation, "was satisfied." The rest of God in the Egyptian context relates well
to the priestly insistence that the world in God's judgment was "good." That is, it was harmonious, ordered, complete, and satisfying. It
seems much more in sympathy with the priestly creation narrative as a whole to look to the Egyptian nuance for an understanding of the
divine rest, than to look to the Mesopotamian notion of the rest of the gods following the burdening of human beings with their work.
The rest is not so much relief from toil as satisfactory completion of the job."

3
As the careful reader will observe, there also occur a few subtle but significant differences in the order and framing
of several events in the Genesis 1 account in comparison to the Egyptian version, probably reflecting an ideological
redaction or theological polemic against the Egyptian prototype. In the light of the tight parallels, Strange
concludes, "The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental."18

Thematic/Conceptual Parallels

The Four Elements of the Pre-Creation Cosmos

The Hebrew depiction of the pre-creation state of the cosmos seems to echo the Egyptian idea of original
infinite nothingness, an undifferentiated Monad—the infinite, static, lifeless, dark primordial sea.19 The four cosmic
phenomena of Gen 1:2 may be polemically demythologized counterparts to the four members of the Ogdoad of
Hermopolis, the so-called "chaos gods." The Ogdoad represented the four primal elements of the pre-creation
condition, two primordial features (boundless indifferentiation, infinite obscurity) and two primordial entities
(primordial water, primal wind).20 Genesis 1:2 also depicts four primal elements, present at the beginning of
creation, two primordial features (empty formlessness, obscure darkness) and two primordial entities (watery
deep, divine wind=Spirit of God).21

(1) "empty formlessness" (tøhû wåvøhû) echoes Egyptian "boundless indifferentiation" (Hehu)
(2) "darkness" (˙ø¡ek) recalls Egyptian "infinite obscurity" (Keku)
(3) "watery deep," "primeval abyss" (téhôm) is reminiscent of "primordial water" (Nun)
(4) "Spirit/Wind of God" (rûá˙ <éløhªm) parallels "divine wind/soul" of the creator-god (Amun).22

Now, the world [hå<åreß = cosmos/monad?] was undifferentiated formlessness [tøhû wåvøhû = Hehu],
and darkness [˙ø¡ek = Keku] was over the surface of the primordial watery deep [téhôm = Nun];
but the divine wind [rûá˙ <éløhªm = Amun] was hovering over the primeval waters [hammåyim = Nun].

The Ogdoad (the Eight) consisted of four pairs of Egyptian gods: the four male primeval cosmic forces and their
four female consorts, each pair consisting of one negative (disorder) and one positive (order) force. According to
the Hermopolis tradition, the cause of creation originated in the Ogdoad, proclaimed as "the fathers and mothers"
of Nun and Atum, the creator-gods of Heliopolis. These four divine couples preexisted in the primordial water
before it became the god Nun. Tension between the four sets of males and females created energy that stirred up
the lifeless Water, transforming it into the living god Nun (CT Spells 75-80).23

Creation of Supernatural Light within/upon the Primordial

Cosmic Waters before the Creation of the Terrestrial Sun

According to the tradition of Hermopolis, the first creative act was the emergence of light from the primeval
gloom and darkness. After millions of years of the darkness of the primeval waters, the god Atum (later Rê-Atum)
evolved/emerged out of Nun. As the sun-god, his first act was to manifest himself as light—before he formally
created the sun.24 In the Pyramid Texts, we read that Rê was born in Nun prior to the existence of the sky and the
earth (PT §1040). In the Coffin Texts, the creation of Rê takes place in the midst of Ogdoad, that is, the four
elements of the precreation state of the cosmos: "in the darkness (kkw), the primeval sea (nw), the chaos (tnmw),
and the gloom (˙˙w)" (CT, II.4). As his first creative act in the dark primordial chaos, Rê states, "I lighten darkness"
(CT, II.5). In the Theban creation myths, the first creative act of the Ogdoad was the creation of light; the Eight

18
John Strange, "Some Notes on Biblical and Egyptian Theology," in Gary N. Knoppers and Antoine Hirsch, eds., Egypt, Israel, and the
Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 345.
19
For example, S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 173-74. A growing number of biblical scholars hold this view: A. H. Sayce, “The Egyptian
Background of Genesis I,” in Studies Presented to F. Ll. Griffith (London: 1932) 421; cf. idem, The Hibbert Lectures 1887 (London 1887) 267-
68. John Albert Wilson, "The Nature of the Universe," in Before Philosophy, edited by Henri Frankfort (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1946), 61; Hoffmeier, "Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2," 42-44.
20
Already in 1933, Sayce, 421, noted, "The Octead [sic] was composed of a formless deep, an illimitable chaos, darkness, and a breath; the
Hebrew cosmogony begins also with a formless (tøhû) deep, illimitable chaos (wå-bøhû), darkness, and breath."
21
For further discussion of the parallels between the four features in Genesis 1:2 and the Ogdoad of Hermopolis, see Appendix A.
22
Wilson, "Nature of the Universe," 61; Frankfort, Kingship of the Gods, 154-55; Hoffmeier, "Some Thoughts on Gen 1 & 2," 42.
23
For example, Kurt Sethe, Amun und die acht Urgötter von Hermopolis, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Academie der Wissenschafter (Berlin
1929); Henri Frankfort, The Kingship of the Gods (Chicago 1948) 154-55; R.O. Faulkner, "Some Notes on the God Shu," Jaarbericht ex Oriente
Lux 18 (1959) 267-68.
24
Sayce, “The Egyptian Background of Genesis I," 421. See also Hoffmeier, Currid, Atwell, cit. loc.

4
were "the fathers and mothers who created light,"25 and "the men and women who created light." However, it was
not until after that event that the gods "gave birth to the sun-god," that is, the sun was created after the original
supernatural light. The Egyptians believed that the primordial gods created supernatural light to dispel the primeval
darkness as the first act of creation when they stood for the first time on the primordial hillock. This is also reflected
in the name given to the primordial hill of Hermopolis: "Isle of Flames."

This mythic background may explain an otherwise seeming anomaly in Genesis 1. On Day 1, God is depicted
breaking into the darkness and formlessness of creation by calling forth a supernatural light (<ôr) that dispelled the
darkness of the primordial gloom and chaos (1:3). Since the sun was not created until Day 4 (1:16), the light created
on Day 1 was not meant to be considered the light from the sun, but light from deity (1:3). But whereas the divine
light as the first act in Egypt was the manifestation of the self-generation of the creator god from the darkness of
the primeval waters, the appearance of supernatural light in 1:3 does not represent divine self-generation, but the
result of divine command. While the Egyptian creator god Rê/Rê-Atum came into existence at this point, the God
of Israel is pre-existent and the supernatural light is not a manifestation of his self-creation, but of the power of his
command, "Let there be light!" The appearance of this motif in Genesis, far from suggesting that it marks the
moment of the self-generation of God, is a case of the Hebrew author indulging in a bit of one-upmanship. Yahweh
is superior to Rê/Rê-Atum, the god of light.

The Means of Creation: Spoken Word/Divine Fiat

Creation by divine word in Genesis 1 is often thought to find analogy in Mesopotamian cosmogony.26
Babylonian Enuma Elish opens by describing the precreation state as a time when things had not yet been "named."
Marduk later displays his power in what is more a stunt than an act of creation when he proves his word can "wreck
or create" by making images appear and disappear on command (Tablet IV, lines 25-26). Nevertheless, Marduk
does not actually create the cosmos by utterance, but by gruesomely splitting Tiamat. Marduk does call objects
into existence, however, by naming them. Genesis 1 does indeed reflect this ubiquitous motif of creation by naming
an object. However, God is pictured as creating first by issuing a divine fiat, but then only after it has come into
existence does he name it. It is in ancient Egypt alone that creation by divine word was official dogma. Jim
Hoffmeier, a leading evangelical Egyptologist, observes, "While the doctrine of creation in response to divine
command is widespread in Egyptian literature, it is not to be found in Babylonian cosmologies."27 Likewise, the
Egyptian scholar Donald Redford notes, “Genesis 1:-2:4 and 2:4-24 have long been claimed to display clear
dependence on Mesopotamian creation stories. However, with the divine fiat, ‘God said, Let there be …,’ reminds
us not of Mesopotamian myth, but of Egyptian.”28

Creation by divine word/fiat appears in rudimentary form in the Coffin Texts, dating to the Old Kingdom (ca.
2686-2188 BC). Nun, personification of the Primeval Waters, brings the first life into existence by speaking in the
midst of the four elements of the Ogdoad (cf. Gen 1:2-3): life is created "according to the word of Nun in Nu, in
Hehu, in tnmw in Keku" (CT II, 23). Shortly thereafter, the command of Atum brings about the creation of
vegetation and animal life (CT II, 42-43).

Creation by divine fiat appears in pristine form in the so-called "Memphite theology" of the Shabaka Stone
from the New Kingdom (ca. 1740-1100 BC). Ptah, the creator god, brings about creation by combination of
conception in his heart (=thought) and command of his tongue (=speech). This concept of the logos creation is also
seen in Hymn to Ptah, dating to the late 18th or early 19th dynasty (ca. 15th century BC): "The One says in his heart,
'Look, may they come into being!'"29 Many Egyptologists see in the Memphite cosmogony of Ptah's creation by the
combination of thought and word the root of the later Greek notions of nous ("mind") and logos ("word") that
would eventually develop into the so-called logos doctrine of creation in Alexandria, the center of Jewish Hellenistic
logos speculation of creation.30

25
Theban Temple Texts, 95c; see Sethe, APAW 4 (1929).
26
For example, E.A. Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (Garden City: Doubleday 1956) 8ff; W.G. Lambert, JTS 16 (1965) 287-300.
27
Hoffmeier, "Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2," 45.
28
Redford, ibid.
29
M. Mogenson, "A Stele of the XVIIIth or XIXth Dynasty, With a Hymn to Ptah and Sekhmet," Proceedings of the Society for Biblical
Archaeology 35 (1913) Plate II.
30
Breasted (1901) 54; Eric Iverson, Egyptian and Hieractic Doctrine (1984). Cf. Hasenfratz, Strange, Atwell, loc. cit.

5
 The concept of creation by divine fiat so predominates Gen 1:1-2:3 that it provides its framework of the six
days. Divine fiat is expressed by the series of jussives (vv. 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14-15, 20, 24) and set of imperatives addressed
to sentient beings (vv. 22, 28). The climactic 1cpl cohortative, "Let us make (na>á∞ê) man …" (v. 26), so often the
center of Trinitarian discussion, might express the motif of thought (resolution) in the heart, followed by command
of the tongue. The 1cpl cohortative also connotes divine thought (resolution) in the heart in Gen 11:6-7, where God
first considers what to do and then acts.

Emergence of Primordial Hillock from Receding Waters

To visualize the beginning of creation, the Egyptians used the mythical image of a Primordial Mound
emerging from the Primeval Waters.31 This image was familiar to them from the annual recession of the waters of
the Nile at the end of the inundation season.32 According to Egypt, Atum was floating in the midst of the infinite
waters in an inchoate state as the seed of potential life (as "he who is in his egg"). At the dawn of creation, the
waters receded and the primordial hillock emerged upon which Atum, as the first living being, came into existence
(PT §§587, 1652).33 The beginning of creation of the material world was the sudden appearance of a primordial
hillock rising from the watery void.34

The Primordial Mound was both the place where Atum began to "create/develop" himself (∆pr.ds.f) and a
manifestation of Atum—the Mound is actually called Atum. In one version, the Waters gave birth to the Mound as
the manifestation of Atum. When the Waters receded at the beginning of time, upon the dry ground sat Atum the
creator god, represented in reptilian, insect, or avian form, or as Rê-Atum the creator sun-god rising upon the hill
as the sun rose on the eastern horizon. Taking his stand on the mound, Atum performed the creative acts that
brought the created world into being. As the original locus of creation, the primordial hill was sacred space.35 In the
Heliopolitan version of the creation myth, identified as the site of the sacred precinct of the temple of Heliopolis.36
In the Hermopolitan version, it was identified as the site of the temple of Hermopolis, as in the version of Thebes,
which identified the first hill with its temple.

Numerous studies note the dramatic parallel between the emergence of the Primordial Hillock from the
Waters—a theme common to all major Egyptian creation myths—and the appearance of the dry ground from the
waters in Gen 1:9-13.37 Whereas the Waters are deified in Egypt, receding of their own volition and giving birth to
the Mound, via manifestation of the creator Atum,38 the Genesis waters are inanimate, and recede at the command
of God, exposing the dry ground, an created object as well. While highlighting the distinct monotheistic emphasis
of Genesis 1, Atwell says of the motif of the mythical Primordial Hillock: "The picture is in complete accord with
Egyptian concepts where the emergence of the first piece of dry land as the waters recede is a universal feature
which has been absorbed into all cosmologies."39 While the original location of the primordial hill was limited to the
individual rival cultic centers of Heliopolis, Hermopolis, or Thebes, Genesis 1 presents the original primordial dry
ground as the whole earth. The sacred precinct of the Creator was not limited to a small hillock marked by a single
cultic shrine; rather the whole earth was the sacred precinct of the God of Israel. The primordial hillock was
worldwide.

31
A.-A. Saleh, "The 'Primeval Hill' and Other Related Elevations in Ancient Egyptian Mythology," MDAIK = Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts 25 (1969) 110-20.
32
Jacobus van Dijk, "Myth and Mythmaking in Ancient Egypt," in Donald R. Redford, ed. et al., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995) 3:1699-1701 [1697-1709].
33
The earliest extant witness to the motif of creation through the emergence of the Primordial Hillock appears already in the Pyramid
Texts which were inscribed for the reigns of Unis (Dynasty 5), Teti, Pepi I, Merenre, Pepi II (Dynasty 6), and Ibi (Dynasty 7). Each inscription
was discovered on a tomb monument at Saqqara. A convenient translation appears in R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts
(Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1969). See R. Antihes, "Remarks on the Pyramid Texts and Early Egyptian Dogma," JAOS 74 (1954) 35-39.
Out of 759 utterances, 13 refer directly to an act of creation: §§ 222, 301, 484, 486, 506, 527, 558, 571, 587, 600, 609, 660, and 684.
34
H. Kees, "Die Feuerinsel in den Sargtexten und im Totenbuch," ZÄS 78 (1942) 41; A.A. Salehn, "The 'Primaeval Hill' and Other Elevations
in Ancient Egyptian Mythology," Mitteilugen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, KAIRO 25 (1969) 110-20.
35
Urk. IV 364; 882.10-11. For a discussion of these texts and others like it, see J.K. Hoffmeier, "Sacred," in The Vocabulary of Ancient Egypt,
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (1985) 171-77.
36
W. Barta, "Untersuchungen zum Götterkreis der Neunheit," MÄS 28 (1973) 82.
37
For example, see Sayce, Kilian, Schmidt, Nötter, Horrmeier, Atwell, Hasenfratz, Currid, loc. cit.
38
In ancient Egypt, too, the earth had a power of its own; it could "sprout forth." The earth god Geb was often painted green to signify
this. Osiris, too, represented the fertility of the good earth as could Ptah.
39
Atwell, ibid.

6
Generation of Dry Air & Humidity, Subsequent
Separation of Dry Ground and Heavenly Ocean

In Egyptian cosmic geography, the three elements—earth, air, sky—are alive. The sky is the goddess Nut,
the ground is her husband Geb, the dry air between is Shu. Originally, Geb (ground) and Nut (sky) were enjoying an
eternal embrace as husband and wife. However, creation of the material world began when Shu (dry air) separated
the two lovers to create inhabitable space for Atum to reside. Egyptian iconography shows Shu standing with feet
planted on Geb below and arms outstretched lifting Nut above. However, the two lovers continually struggle
against Shu; they want to resume their embrace. Therefore, Shu must continually hold back the heavenly ocean
(sky). In one version, Shu is assisted by helpers.

Genesis 1 clearly rejects the Egyptian polytheistic deification of the sky, ground, and air. It does not, however,
dramatically distance itself from Egyptian cosmic geography. According to 1:6-7, the sky separates the waters below
it and above it. The waters below were confined to one place and called "seas" (1:10). On the other hand, the
"waters above" are depicted as a heavenly ocean located above the sky and therefore above the sun, moon, and
stars, which are placed in the sky and therefore below the heavenly ocean (1:14-19). Day 2 pictures God constructing
a cosmic water dam (råqªá>), which he places in the middle of the primordial ocean (1:6). Longman and Ryken note,
"Firmamentum is the Latin translation for Hebrew råqªá>, a pounded brass dome over the earth, 'hard as a molten
mirror' (Job 37:18), which separates the waters from above from the waters below and keeps them from flooding
the world (Gen 1:7)."40 God constructed this cosmic dam to separate the primordial sea into two bodies: (1) the
waters above the råqªá> (aka heavenly ocean), and (2) the waters below the råqªá> (1:6-8). God placed this cosmic
dam in the sky to hold up the heavenly ocean and keep back its waters from inundating the world below (cf. 7:11;
8:1). Just as Shu's strength was required to hold up Nut (sky), the råqªá> testifies to Yahweh's strength in the sky
(Ps 150:1). Perhaps reminiscent of the outstretched arms and hands of Shu holding up Nut (sky), the psalmist says
the råqªá> exhibits "the work of His hands" ma>á∞ê yådåyw (Ps 19:1[2]).41

Striking Similarities and Dramatic Differences

The number of parallels and degree of correspondence between Genesis 1 and major Egyptian creation
myths is remarkable.42 It is difficult to dismiss these as mere coincidence.43 In his cautious discussion of proper
method of comparative method, Ringgren notes that tight literary and ideological parallels between neighboring
Semitic cultures often reflects some kind of "real historical connection."44 What kind of "real historical connection"
is reasonable to posit? Redford suggests, "It may in fact prove to be a simple case of linear borrowing, albeit
accompanied by a purposeful intent to 'demythologize,' or it may turn out to be a mere sideshow in a far more
widespread and complex pattern of cultural exchange."45 Atwell remarks, "The conclusion is stark and compelling:
ancient Egypt provided the foundation tradition which was shaped and handed on by successive priestly [sic]
generations."46 Two evangelical Egyptologists (Hoffmeier, Currid) also suggest that these Egyptian creation myths
influenced the way the Israelite author thought and talked about creation; however, they suggest he recast this
inherited tradition to make it acceptable within orthodox Yahwism.47 The stark differences in Genesis that seem
intentionally polemical were ideologically driven and reflect a Yahwistic reworking of the Egyptian prototype.

As impressive as are the thematic continuities, the ideological discontinuities are more important: (1) the
Hebrew cosmogony rejects all notion of theogony; (2) the Israelite cosmology, albeit slightly mythic and wholly
prescientific, rejects any hint of pantheism; (3) the Yahwistic version of creation is clearly monotheistic; (4) the apex

40
s.v., "Cosmology," in Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1998) 170.
41
For example, see Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans.
Timothy J. Hallett (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 15-60.
42
Atwell observes, "When the template of ancient Egyptian creation traditions is held up against the Genesis 1 creation account there is a
quite remarkable correspondence."
43
Currid, 39, writes, "There exists such a magnitude of parallels that it could not be by mere chance. Dare we say that it was a freak of
antiquity? I think not. " Likewise, Strange says, "The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental."
44
"It is obvious that certain mythical elements can be present in various mythologies without the myths themselves being identical … In
the case of the ancient Near East it is difficult to avoid the assumption that there is also some real historical connection when one element
occurs in two or more places." Helmer Ringgren, "Remarks on the Method of Comparative Mythology," in Hans Goedicke, ed., Near Eastern
Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971) 411 [407-11].
45
Redford, ibid.
46
Atwell, ibid.
47
Hoffmeier, ibid.; Currid, ibid.

7
of creation in the Hebrew version is not the generation of the sun as the image/manifestation of the sun-god, but
the fashioning of humanity as image of Yahweh; and (5) the distinctive seven-day framework of Genesis 1 is an
ideologically-loaded paradigm shift away from the one-day pattern of recurrent creation brought about each
morning with the sunrise symbolizing the daily rebirth of Rê-Amun the sun-god creator as embodiment of Atum the
primordial demiurge creator. Time and space allows us to only develop the single most important difference.

Nature of the Creator and His Creative Activity

Self-Generated Atum vs. Self-Existent Yahweh

The Egyptians conceived of the various elements of the material world as the embodiment, physical
manifestation or terrestrial incarnation of the individual gods. The sun was the terrestrial manifestation of the sun-
god Rê (later Rê-Amun). The sky was the incarnation of Nut, the ground the embodiment of Geb, the dry air
between was the male deity Shu and moist humidity was the goddess Tefnut. The primordial sea was Nun, the
original womb of Atum, the original creator-god. Atum was called the All or One because all that he created
(immaterial gods and material world) was simply an extension of himself. Egyptian theology was therefore an early
form of pantheism and modalism. The Egyptian creator was absolutely immanent in his creation. Creation in
Egyptian cosmogony was not ex nihilo, but transformation of the immaterial deity into his material manifestation.
The procreation of the gods was the means of the creation of the material world, e.g., the birth of Shu is the creation
of the sky (dry air), the birth Geb is the creation of the ground. Even Atum himself was procreated; the Primeval
Waters (Nun) were his father and mother (although some versions depict Atum generating himself in the womb of
the Primeval Water). Likewise, the Primeval Waters, once the lifeless infinite Monad, transformed itself in the
Waters of life from which all living beings and things in the cosmos would ultimately spring. Egyptian cosmogony
was, in effect, theogony.48 Coffin Text 714,49 for example, Nun describes his own creation of himself:

I am Nun, the one with equal.

I came into being there [i.e., primordial hill]
I came into being on the Great Occasion of the inundation.
I am he who flew, who became Dbnn who is in his egg.
I am he who began there in Nun.
See, the chaos-god came forth from me.
See, I am prosperous.
I created my body in my glory;
I am he who made himself;
I formed myself according to my will and according to my heart.

Nun then became father/mother of Atum; however, Atum is said to have generated himself (one version explains
that Atum was one with Nun). This initial moment of the creator god's self-generation was said to have occurred,
"in the beginning" (lit. "at the head" of time). Through process of self-impregnation, Atum's mouth functioned as
maternal womb of his paternal seed, which he spat out and sneezed out giving birth to his son Shu (dry air) and his
daughter Tefnut (moist humidity), respectively. As first divine husband and wife, Shu and Tefnut begat the male
Geb (dry ground) and female Nut (sky=heavenly ocean). They, in turn, generated two sets of sons and daughters:
Isis and Osiris, Seth and Nephthys. Thus, the Heliopolitan cosmogony is the story of the theogony of the nine primal
gods, the generation of the Ennead. This family genealogy was completed by its tenth descendant, with the birth
of the sun-god Rê (later Rê-Amun at Thebes), represented by the first sunrise as the apex of creation. The later
developments of Hermopolis, Memphis, and Thebes all reprise this common theogony, but attempt to give better

48
For example, in the Sun-Hymn of Haremhab it is said of the creator-god, "You are a divine youth, the heir of eternity, who begot yourself
and bore yourself" (J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt III [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906] 9). In the Leiden Papyrus, the
creator Amun generated himself: "joining his seed with his body, to create his egg within his secret self" (A. Gardiner, "Hymns to Amon
from a Leiden Papyrus," ZÄS 42 [1905] 25). The creator-god Amun was he "who came into being by himself" (E. Chassinat, La temple
d'Edfou II [Paris: Memoires de la Mission archeologique française au Caire, 1892] 37). Atum the creator said, "I came into being of myself
in the midst of the primeval waters in this my name of Khopri" (BK 85). Likewise, "I am Re-Atum who himself molded [lit. khnumed]
himself" (CF Spell 601).
49
The hieroglyphic originals of the Coffin Texts are available in A. de Buck, The Egyptian Coffin Texts I-VII (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1935-1961). A fine translation and commentary was done by R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts I-III (Warminster: Aris
and Phillips, 1973-78). For a specific work on Coffin Text 714, see K. Sethe, Amun und die Acht Urgötter von Hermopolis (Berlin: APAW, 1929)
29; and Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt, 74.

8
account of the generation of Nun the primordial waters and Atum the demiurge creator.50 Egyptian cosmogony
was thoroughly devoted to theogony—birth of the gods as they took their forms in the creation of nature.

The biblical author rejects theogony.51 The God of Israel created the cosmos, but gave birth to no other gods,
nor did he generate himself. Whereas Atum generated himself "in the beginning," the Hebrew asserts that what
God created "in the beginning" was heaven and earth—not himself. Unlike the Egyptian creation myths, the biblical
author never attempts to explain from whence God came. In striking contrast to both Nun and Atum, the God of
Israel—the true Creator—is the uncaused, not self-caused, eternally self-existent First Cause. This theological
assertion that we take so much for granted was a radical paradigm break for ancient Israel from her surrounding
culture. For all the thematic, linguistic, conceptual and structural similarities between Genesis 1 and Egyptian
creation myths, this one dramatic difference alone is the raison d'être for the Hebrew account of creation.

PART TWO: BEYOND "PARALLELOMANIA"

TOWARD A HOLISTIC COMPARATIVE METHOD
Parallels Viewed Holistically within the Comparative Method:
Socio-Ideological Function of Egyptian and Israelite Cosmognies

Hallo complains that popular level comparison of the Hebrew Scriptures to ancient Near Eastern literature
is often little more than "parallelomania." It often never moves beyond observation of the parallels to consider
larger socio-ideological questions that determine whether or not the parallels are rhetorically meaningful or simply
conventional.52 Ringgren lobbies for a holistic approach to comparative studies that accounts for the underlying
ideology of both religions:

Comparative study of Old Testament ideas and Near Eastern mythology is often made on the basis of occasional
similarities in certain details without asking what place these details occupy in the total structure of each religion
… [This] does not take into account the whole complexity of the problem. For a complete analysis both the
details and the way they are combined into a pattern are essential.53

The process of forming a holistic approach to account for the parallels (both similarities and differences) between
the Hebrew and Egyptian cosmogonies, may be assisted by first accounting for the parallels (both similarities and
differences) between the different versions of the major Egyptian cosmogonies themselves. As noted above,
Egyptian religion featured four major versions of the same basic mythic cycle of creation, each represented by rival
sanctuaries at Heliopolis, Hermopolis, Memphis, and Thebes. While each version followed the basic storyline, each
rival sanctuary reshaped the common tradition in such a way that created striking parallels (both similarities and
differences).54 Historical and literary evidence allows us to identify two ideological functions of creation myths
within the social structure of the Two Lands: (1) religious function: the different versions represent competition
between rival sanctuaries, each of which attempted to exalt its patron deity into the supreme role of the true
creator through theological polemic; and (2) philosophical function: historically sensitive comparison of the
different versions reveals progressive sophistication in the means of creation employed, as well as philosophical
speculation in a rationally coherent explanation of the First Cause of the created material world. I would like to
propose that the relationship between the Hebrew and Egyptian cosmogonies reflects a similar twofold pattern of
ideological function: (1) religious function as theological polemic promoting by the Yahwistic cult/sanctuary,
exalting the God of Israel as the true Creator; and (2) philosophical function: the Hebrew author trumped the best

50
In the Shabaka Stone, expressing the so-called "Memphite Theology," the Memphite priests assert that is Ptah-Nun who gives birth to
Atum the Creator God (1.50a). In the Pyramid Texts, we read that Re was born in Nun prior to the existence of sky, earth, and the conflict
of Horus and Seth (PT §1040).
51
Horrmeier, ibid., Currid, ibid.
52
William W. Hallo, "Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Their Relevance for Biblical Exegesis," in William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.,
eds., The Context of Scripture, Volume 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2003), xxiii—xxviii.
53
Helmer Ringgren, Remarks on the Method of Comparative Mythology," in Hans Goedicke, ed., Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
Foxwell Albright (Baltimore: The Johns Hopins Press, 1971) 497 [407-11].
54
Jacobus van Dijk, "Myth and Mythmaking in Ancient Egypt," in Donald R. Redford, ed. et al., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995) 3:1699 [1697-1709]; Erik Iversen, "The Cosmogony of the Shabaka Text," in Saraha Israelit-Groll, ed.,
Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichteim, Volume 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press/Hebrew University, 1990) 489-90 [485-93].

9
intellectual cosmogonic speculation that ancient Egypt had to offer, by positing a more rationally satisfying
explanation of the First Cause.55

Socio-Ideological Function of Competing Egyptian Cosmogonies:

Religious-Theological Polemics between Rival Sanctuaries/Creator-Gods

Conservatives typically view Genesis 1 as a polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation myths,56 in this
case the Egyptian variety.57 But what was the nature of the polemic? It is helpful to understand that a polemical
relationship existed between the different Egyptian versions. Four rival sanctuaries promoted the worship of
different pretenders to the title of true creator: Heliopolis, Hermopolis, Memphis, and Thebes. Each cult center
shared a common creation myth, but redacted the tradition to exalt its patron.58 The rival sanctuaries argued
among themselves like this from the Old Kingdom period forward (ca. 2686-2181 BC).

When the capital changed from time to time in history, one sanctuary could be exalted over its rivals. This
was the case with Memphis and Thebes during the early and later eras of the New Kingdom (ca. 1540-1100 BC).
When this happened, the sanctuary's cosmogony became the official dogma. When Memphis became capital, the
pharaoh dusted off an old copy of the Shabaka Stone, had it recopied and declared it the official dogma. Thus, Ptah,
the patron god of Memphis, rose to official status as the creator-god, trumping Atum of Hermopolis and Rê of
Heliopolis. Later when the capital shifted to Thebes, Amun, the patron god of the Theban temple, was officially
declared creator god. Over the centuries, the national creation myth developed in the form of different versions in
order: (1) Heliopolis, (2) Hermopolis, (3) Memphis, and (4) Thebes. The developing national myth looked like this:
(1) Heliopolis: Nun the primordial waters generated Atum the god of light, who in turn begat the Great Ennead,
manifested in the creation of the material world; (2) Hermopolis: Before all this even began, the Ogdoad stirred up
Nun from lifeless undifferentiated water to the primordial waters with the potential of life, enabling Nun to
generate Atum; (3) Memphis: Ptah was Nun who created Atum, as well as the thought (conception) in the heart
and word (resolve) in the mouth of Atum, enabling him to create the Ennead; and (4) Thebes: Amun the hidden
god, present as the invisible wind, was behind it all. This full-fledged official version of the national myth was in
place early in the New Kingdom (ca. 1540-1100 BC). This paper suggests the biblical author simply extended the
creation tradition one more step to create the normative cosmogony of national Israel: (5) the God of Israel
trumped all the Egyptian gods, who were all demythologized in his account, since He was the only true Creator
behind it all. This was polemic at its best!

Common Devices for Creating Polemic

In some cases, this exaltation of one's god was affected by substituting his name with his predecessor. While
Heliopolis claimed Nun created Atum, Thebes claimed Amun created Atum. In other cases, we find an amalgamation
of names. The Heliopolitan sun-god Rê became Rê-Amun in the Theban version. Priests could insert gods into the
tradition, making them progenitor of the creator of the previous tradition. At Hermopolis, the Ogdoad was inserted,
as progenitors of Atum, making the gods of Hermopolis the "fathers and mothers" of Atum, the god of Heliopolis.
Memphite priests trumped both Heliopolis and Hermopolis, claiming Ptah was Nun; the father and mother of Atum;
and creator of the Ennead whom Heliopolis called was created by Atum.59 The Theban priests claimed Amun was
creator of Ptah, who was creator of the Ogdoad, which was creator of Atum. Think of this as a kind of ancient
Egyptian "trash-talking" and "in-your-face" one-up-manship theological polemic! In the light of this kind of
documentable theological polemic within Egyptian cosmogony itself, it is only natural to posit that the Genesis
cosmogony is engaging in the same kind of polemical rhetoric: "Our God is better than all your gods put together!"

55
I would like to acknowledge my thanks to James K. Hoffmeier, professor of Egyptology and Biblical Studies, Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, for his valuable personal interaction in helping me frame and articulate my thoughts.
56
For example, Gerhard Hasel, "The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Creation Account," Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974) 81-102.
57
Hoffmeier, ibid., Currid, ibid.
58
The four major versions of the same traditional myth can be traced in antiquity back to the Old Kingdom (ca. 2686-2181 BC).
59
"The gods were created from Ptah. // Ptah is upon the great divine throne … who gave birth to the gods. // Ptah is the primeval waters
(Nnw), the father of Atum … who gave birth to the gods. // Ptah is the lower heaven (Nnt), the mother who gave birth to Atum. // Ptah is
great, the heart and tongue of the Ennead."

10
Polemical Contrast of Means of Creation of Rival Gods
From Crude Auto-Eroticism to Dignified Logos Doctrine

In Egyptian literature, no method of creation was universally adopted. The creator (Atum, Ptah, or Amun)
was pictured forming the universe in a variety of ways.60 After his act of self-generation, the creator brought into
existence the other lesser gods of the cosmos.61 That theogony was portrayed in different ways in the Pyramid
Texts, the Coffin Texts, the Book of the Dead, and broader Egyptian literature.62 While all Egyptologists recognize
this, only recently has it been recognized that some of the differences may best be accounted for as polemical
devices.63 One tradition boasts that its god used a superior method of creation than the creator of the earlier
antecedent tradition, whose god looked primitive by comparison.64

Heliopolitan Tradition: Atum's Crude Method of Procreation. The Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts of the
Old Kingdom both picture Atum creating Shu (dry air) and Tefnut (humidity), by spitting and sneezing (PT §600; CF
Spell 76.3-4).65 They also depict Atum fathering Shu and Tefnut through masturbation. In his loneliness on the
primeval hill, with no consort to share in procreation, he used the only physical means at his disposal (PT §527).
Another passage brings both methods of creation together, explaining that after Atum ejaculated male seed, he
used his mouth as a kind of female womb for the gestation of the divine embryo, Shu and Tefnut. When the time
came to give birth, he spit and vomited them out of his mouth like a mother in childbirth. Call me old-fashioned, but
there is something about Atum is more than a little gross. No wonder some of the ancient Egyptians were so eager
to look for an alternate creator-god!

Memphite Tradition: Ptah's Intellectual Method of Creation. The priests of Memphis not only depict Ptah as
both the mother and father of Atum and creator of the Ennead, but also claim that Ptah's method of creation was
superior to Atum's crude method: "Whereas the gods of Atum were created from his semen and from his fingers,
the gods (of Ptah) are the teeth and lips from his mouth, who proclaimed the name of everything. Thus, Shu and
Tefenet came forth." This was clearly a polemic against Atum.66 In fact, the text concludes with an explicit
polemical exaltation of Ptah over Atum and other Egyptian gods: "Thus it was discovered and understood that his
(Ptah's) strength is greater than (the other) gods." While Atum was criticized for resorting to such a gross act, Ptah
was acclaimed a more powerful creator because he formed the gods and material world by the words of his
mouth—divine fiat. This should not, however, be understood as absolute omnipotence because Ptah's word was
put into effect through the agency of other gods. Amun is said to be the hands and body of Ptah, and the Ennead
his teeth and lips.

Hebrew Tradition: God's Superior Method of Creation. Genesis 1 presents Yahweh creating in much the same
manner as Ptah, namely, through thought and word.67 However, Genesis 1 completely strips out the
anthropomorphic imagery of creation by thought "in the heart" and word "on the tongue." Furthermore, it trumps
the Ptah creation tradition. While Ptah created through the thought in his heart and word on his tongue, he
executed the creative act through the agency of Atum and the Ogdoad. This was expressed in two ways: (1) the
Ogdoad was pictured as the "lips and teeth" of Ptah, as he spoke his word; and (2) Atum was pictured as the "body"
and "hands" which Ptah used to fashion the cosmos. On the other hand, the God of Israel also created by means
of his thought and word, but without the agency of other these gods. Moreover, Genesis frames the creative word

60
For an excellent survey of many Egyptian creation myths, see S. Sauneron and J. Yoyotte, La naissance du monde (Paris: Sources
Orientales 1, 1959); B. Menu, "Les Recites de creation en Egypte ancienne," Foi Vie 85 (1986) 65-77; J.P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The
Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988). One account that we will spend little time on
was the teaching of the Book of the Dead, Plate VII: "Ra it is the creator of the names of his limbs, have come into existence these in the
form of the gods who are in the train of Ra." That translation was by E.A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani (London:
British Museum, 1895). The passage seems to mean that Ra identified various part of his body as gods sprung forth from those parts.
61
Re was portrayed in one text saying, "Only after I came into being did all that was created come into being." See G. Roeder, Urkunden
zur Religion des alten Ägypten (Jena: E. Diedrichs, 1915) 108.
62
For an excellent discussion of theogony in ancient Egypt, see Erik Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1982) 148ff.
63
James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts, Yale Egytological Studies 2 (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1988).
64
I am indebted to a recent conversation with Dr. James K. Hoffmeier (Ph.D., Archaeology and Egyptology, University of Toronto;
Professor of Old Testament and Egyptology, TEDS) for his confirmation of my understanding about this point.
65
The hieroglyphic text appears in K. Sethe, Die altägyptischen Pyramidtexte II, 372-75. For an easily accessible translation, see John A.
Wilson, "The Creation by Atum," ANET 3.
66
Currid, 38.
67
See similar remarks in Hoffmeier, Currid, Atwell, Hasenfratz, loc. cit.

11
of God as superior to the creative word of Ptah. In Egyptian mythology, the efficacy of Ptah's creative word is
explained based on "magic." In Genesis, the efficacy of God's creative word is presented as divine fiat—power of
his command. Ptah's words in themselves were not efficacious; he had to rely on the instrumentality of an outside
force, magic.

Socio-Ideological Function of Competing Egyptian Cosmogonies:

Philosophical Speculations Seeking an Adequate First Cause of Material World

James Allen and Jacobus van Dijk, leading Egyptologists, explain that Egyptian creation myths were not
merely religious texts, but also philosophical speculations on cosmogony. Each of the four major cult centers was
attempting to posit an adequate First Cause for the creation of the immaterial and material elements of the cosmos.
Van Dijk writes,

From the earliest times, the Egyptians speculated about the origin of the universe and the world in which they lived.
Their cosmogony belongs as much to the domain of mythology as to theology or even metaphysical philosophy.
Speculation on this subject mainly originated in the great religious centers of Heliopolis, Hermopolis, Memphis, and
Thebes … Each school of thought further elaborated the train of speculation of the other, adding its own insights to
a developing cosmogony rather than replacing it.68

Ancient Egyptian Speculative Philosophy of Origins: Historical Development

In his philosophically oriented analysis of Egyptian cosmogony/theogony, James Allen explains that each of
the four major versions of creation represents a development in Egyptian epistemological reasoning about the
necessary means of creation and necessary nature of the ultimate First Cause of creation.69 The earliest preserved
cosmogony, the Heliopolitan tradition, had already inherited a traditional explanation of the first event in the
creation of the material world: the emergence of the Primordial Hill from the receding Primeval Waters (more about
this below). The burden of the Heliopolitan philosophers was to explain the origin of the Primeval Waters, the
mother of all creation. This it did with the figure of Nun, the embodiment of the eternally pre-existent Waters of
the pre-creation state. According to Heliopolis, from all eternity the Waters were infinite, lifeless, and
undifferentiated. However, at the beginning of created time, Nun awoke from his lifeless "sleep" to self-awareness.
Nun gave birth to Atum, creator-god, who was generated/self-generated on the Primordial Hill when the Primeval
Waters receded.

But how did Nun awake to life? What caused the primeval waters to generate Atum? The
cosmognic/theogonic philosophers of Hermopolis posited a prior cause. Eternally present with the Primeval Waters
was the Ogdoad, four sets of male and female deities, manifest in the four primeval elements of the pre-creation
state: (1) formlessness, (2) darkness, (3) infinite remoteness, and (4) hiddenness. The tension between the male
and female pairs created disturbance in the erstwhile motionless and undifferentiated Primeval Waters. This
stirring up of the Waters generated enough energy in the infinite mass to create the first spark of life: the awakening
of Nun, the Primeval Waters. The stirring up of the Waters created a metaphorical "dialogue" with Atum, who had
been floating all this time as a lifeless bit of matter on the surface of the Waters. When Atum and Nun "spoke" to
one another, this marked the birth of Atum, who was self-generated when he sprang to self-consciousness. So Nun
created Atum through "dialogue," and Atum generated himself as well when he "spoke" to Nun in response. Then
Atum began the rest of the creative process and the creation myth resumed its traditional course.

But for the eternally lifeless Primeval Waters and the material Monad eternally floating on the Waters to
awake to self-consciousness through metaphorical "dialogue" with one another and then will to generate the rest
of created order, presupposed primal intellectual (thought) and expressive (word) elements. From whence did this
come? This was the burden of the Memphite speculative philosophers. They posited the existence of another
eternally pre-exist deity, Ptah, manifested in thought and word. Ptah was the thought and word present in both
Nun and Atum as their transformation from lifelessness to life. Since intellect and word were also necessary for
Atum's procreation of the created order, Atum created by means of thought in the heart and word on the mouth
of Ptah. Hence the original primitive form of the Egyptian logos doctrine.

68
Jacobus van Dijk, "Myth and Mythmaking in Ancient Egypt," in Donald R. Redford, ed. et al., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995) 3:1699 [1697-1709].
69
Allen, Genesis in Egypt.

12
 But from whence did Ptah originate? From whence did the Ogdoad, who stirred up the Waters at the
beginning to start its "dialogue" with Atum, originate? The priestly speculative philosophers of Thebes had the
insight to realize that the search for an adequate First Cause was starting to become endless. However, they were
not insightful enough to posit an Uncaused, not Self-Caused, eternally Self-Existent First Cause (the solution of
theistic speculative philosophers), the Theban theogonists simply punted. They fashioned a First Cause for whom
no explanation could be given, nor questions tolerated. Amun, worshipped as ancient god of the invisible wind
from the Old Kingdom, became the Hidden One. Amun and his consort Amaunet were introduced into the Great
Ogdoad (the fathers and mothers of Nun and Atum), replacing one of the less important pairs. As divine Wind,
Amun was credited with the act of brooding over the Waters to stir up Nun to life. Although Amun acted in the
internal cosmos, he resided in the unknown external cosmos. Thus he was the Hidden One who could not be
known. The Hidden One was the First Cause of all things, and all philosophical speculation must stop with him. On
the one hand, this was a shrewd end-run around the crisis of Egyptian cosmogonic/theogonic speculation. On the
other hand, it spelled the doom to all further enquiry and philosophical productivity. Egyptian philosophical
cosmogony would develop no further in terms of productive thinking, for all further speculation was thwarted.
Indeed, all future religious development in ancient Egypt would eventually steer another direction altogether away
from the four major creation myths.

Ancient Israelite Response to the Philosophical Impasse

Into this philosophical impasse stepped the Hebrew author of Genesis 1. Just as Egypt had exercised a
dominant influence on ancient Israelite culture and political ideology, it made a significant contribution to the
ancient Israelite wisdom tradition and, most likely, the development of her speculative philosophy about origins.
Just as classical philosophy, particularly Aristotle, exercised profound influence on the philosophical thought of
Augustine and other classical theologians, we may consider whether ancient Egyptian speculative philosophy of
the New Kingdom contributed foundational categories in the thought of our Hebrew author- philosopher. By
analogy, who can doubt that the modern cosmogonic speculative philosophical concept of the so-called "Big Bang"
exercises a profound impact even on Christian philosophers who speculate about the means God used to create
the universe? At the very least, it frames some of the questions we ask.

Viewed against its historical philosophical background, Genesis 1 jump-starts a stalled discussion. Our
Hebrew author posits the philosophically satisfying and rationally coherent First Cause that Egyptian philosophy
sought, but could not achieve due to its flawed foundation of immanent pantheism. As evidence that our Hebrew
philosopher is entering into dialogue with the culturally dominant cosmogony of his day, we may note that from
the Egyptian traditions he adopts: (1) the same categories of the basic material elements of the cosmos: earth, sky,
dry air, sea; (2) the Memphite means of creation by thought and word; (3) the Heliopolitan concept of primeval
waters out of which the material cosmos emerged; (4) the Hermapolitian concept of four primal elements: wind,
darkness, watery deep, chaos; (5) the Heliopolitan imagery of the primordial hillock emerging from the primordial
waters; (6) the Heliopolitan notion of the creation of the originally undifferentiated sky and ground by the
mechanism of differentiation/separation by the agency of the intervening atmosphere/void that holds up the sky.

Our Hebrew speculative philosopher, however, is not conceding ground to the pagan Egyptian mythology
since he introduces a radical paradigm shift: (1) he refuses to identify the fundamental principle that the primeval
waters are a creative deity (Nun); (2) he rejects the idea that the creator god (Atum) was generated by these waters
or was self-generated in the waters; (3) he rejects the notion that the four primal elements—chaos, wind, darkness,
abyss—were primal deities of the Ogdoad; and (4) he rejects the notion that the primal elements—earth, sky, dry
air—are manifestations of the divine Ennead. Our Hebrew author introduces a paradigm shift by rejecting the
fundamental notion of Heliopolis that the creator god Atum was absolutely immanent in the totality of the created
material world, which was simply the physical manifestation of his immaterial metaphysical body. In Genesis 1, the
Creator is transcendent in his ontological relationship to the created material world. Unlike Atum, he was not
originally one with the undifferentiated and unformed chaos of the primordial waters; nor did his being spring from
the primordial waters. He was not generated by the waters nor was he self-generated in the waters.

To summarize, the burden of Genesis 1 is twofold: (1) polemical rejection of Egyptian polytheism by its
substitution of Yahwistic monotheism; and (2) rationally satisfying philosophical speculation of the origin of the
created material cosmos from an adequate first cause (who), an adequate means of creation (how), and adequate
distinction between the created material world from the uncreated immaterial Creator (what). While the former is
implicit by its canonical context, the latter may reflect the actual rhetorical strategy of the Hebrew author of this

13
composition. If its main purpose was religious-theological, designed to assert the superiority of Yahweh the God
of Israel, it is remarkable that the divine name Yahweh is nowhere to be found in this account. The use of <éløhªm,
the universal term for God, not the personal name Yahweh the covenantal lord of Israel, fits a philosophical
discourse on cosmogonic speculation. Once our philosopher has won his philosophical argument that his concept
of a monotheistic First Cause offers the most rational philosophical cosmogonic system, the following account in
Gen 2:4-7 identifies this <éløhªm as Yahweh.

The Hebrew author functions as a master speculative philosopher, operating within the prescientific
worldview of his day, and adopting the categories with which to think about the process of creation and the nature
of its Creator which were in play within his intellectual milieu. While he introduced a radical paradigm shift by
introducing a cosmogony that was compatible with Yahwistic monotheism, his represents an orthodox system in
an historically contextualized dialogue with the philosophical categories of ancient Egyptian cosmogony. Genesis
1, however, does not represent an absolute break from the categories of ancient Egyptian cosmogony. Rather it
adopts the basic elements of Egyptian cosmogony and articulates a coherent and consistent monotheistic version
of ancient creation speculation at its best in its day.70

Genesis 1 Was In Dialogue With Egyptian Speculative Philosophy

As in Egyptian cosmogonic speculation, the Hebrew author makes no attempt to explain the origin of the
watery abyss (1:2). For the sake of his argument, he simply assumes the existence of the primal sea as his point of
departure. This feature alone is dramatic evidence of the degree to which the biblical material was fully
contextualized in its ancient setting. Our author was in dialogue with Egyptian cosmogonic speculative thought on
origin; he adopted the traditional Egyptian starting-point as his own point of departure. This was an acceptable
point of departure for ancient philosophical speculation, but it hardly satisfies a modern mind. While Gen 1 was
originally designed to take the next step in ancient philosophical speculation beyond the Egyptian cosmogonies, it
was not designed to answer modern philosophical speculation. While masterfully contextualized for its own
ancient philosophical context, we err if we assume that it is designed to end all questions in modern philosophical
speculation that has advanced light years, so to speak, beyond the questions raised by the Egyptian cosmogonic
systems. The ancient writer did not design Gen 1 to provide an absolute, independent philosophical system of
origins that would directly and adequately address all philosophical questions raised in any generation. His was a
contextualized response to the philosophical context in which he found himself—the world of Egyptian
cosmogonic speculation.

PART THREE:
GENESIS 1 IN LIGHT OF CONTEMPORARY LINGUISTIC THEORY
Genesis 1 in the Light of Linguistic Theory
Dealing with Socio-Cultural Contextualization

Contemporary Linguistic Theory of Contextualization

The concept of contextualization was first used by linguists involved in the translation of the Bible in a
relevant manner in various cultural settings. In the 1970s, it was adopted by the Theological Education Fund (TEF)
in its mandate to communicate the Gospel and Christian teachings in cultures which had not previously received
them. Prior to this, many cross-cultural linguists, cultural anthropologists and missionaries had been often
attempted to accommodate the biblical message in pioneer cultural settings. More recently, discussions of
contextualization have come into hermeneutics. Interpreters ask about contextualization to better understand the
original meaning and significance of the biblical message, as well as how that message can be made understandable
in respondent cultures that differ from the biblical world.

70
If we naively assume, however, that Genesis 1 is an independent philosophical system that does not represent a dialogue with Egyptian
cosmogony, we would be forced to accept the ancient Egyptian idea that in the precreation period, the entire cosmos was encompassed
within primordial waters (albeit demythologized and impersonal) and that God really did create a heavenly ocean, which is still above the
sky, being held back from inundating the earth by a cosmic dam.

14
 Eugene Nida presents a "three-culture" model of linguistic contextualization based on the linguistic model
of source (encoder), message (code), and receptor (decoder).71 The biblical message was originally contextualized
in terms and concepts that were meaningful to both the sources (prophets, apostles, biblical writers) and original
receptors (hearers and readers) in the Hebrew and Graeco-Roman cultures of Bible times. Whether consciously or
unconsciously, the biblical message has been contextualized to be meaningful to people in others cultures in which
the Gospel spread. The task of the church in each of these cultures is to interpret (decontextualize) the biblical
message, by identifying the degree to which the biblical message was originally contextualized by the ancient
author to his original audience, and by limiting the intrusion of foreign concepts into the interpretation from the
interpreter's own culture. The church must then recontextualize the message to communicate it effectively to
respondents in their target culture.

David Hesselgrave, who addresses linguistic contextualization from a missiological perspective, calls
attention to principles that are clearly relevant for hermeneutics.72 Hesselgrave identifies a seven dimension grid
(paradigm) through which the biblical message was originally contextualized and through which it must be
recontextualized for a new target culture/audience:

1. worldview: ways of viewing the world and reality

2. cognitive processes: ways of thinking
3. linguistic forms: ways of expressing ideas
4. behavioral patterns: ways of acting
5. communication media: ways of channeling the message
6. social structures: ways of interacting
7. motivational sources: ways of deciding/responding

Proper biblical interpretation (decontextualization) and communication (recontextualization) cannot bypass or

escape this multi-dimensional grid. Furthermore, as the "funnels" between the encoder source and the respondent
decoder show, the greater the differences between the source's culture and the respondent's culture the greater
the impact of the dimensions on proper interpretation/communication of the message, and the more critical the
hermeneutical task. Let's briefly consider the impact of a couple of these grids in terms of our understanding of
the original meaning of Genesis 1 and its contemporary significance.

Worldview: Ways of Viewing Reality. The idea of worldview is foundational to cultural anthropology,
missiology, and hermeneutics. Worldview is the way one sees the world in relation to himself and himself in relation
to the world. Worldview involves a person's understanding of nature, supernature, humanity, and even time. This
is relevant to our investigation at hand. Comparative studies show that ancient Israelite view of the cosmological
structure of the world was strikingly similar to its ancient Near Eastern culture, but radically different than our own.
Comparison of Genesis 1 with the Egyptian texts also suggests it was quite similar to that of Egypt, e.g., both shared
the phenomenological concept of the sky as a cosmic dam holding up a heavenly ocean and the concept of a pre-
creation cosmic primordial sea from which the created cosmos emerged. However, Genesis 1 radically challenges
a different aspect of ancient Egyptian worldview, namely, the physical elements of the created world are not
incarnations of various Egyptian gods, but mere inanimate objects created by the one true transcendent God. If
we fail to appreciate how radically different the worldview of Genesis 1 is from both our own and the Egyptian
worldview, we miss the point of the text.

Cognitive Processes: Ways of Thinking. The cultural anthropologist Franz Boas (1938)73 and the philosopher
F.S.C. Northrop (1953)74 first called attention to the stark contrast between "modern" and "primitive," as well as
"Eastern" and "Western" ways of thinking, respectively. While all cultures have their logic, the logic of various
cultures are not always the same. Different cultures have different ways in which people "think" and "know," and
even evaluate truth. E.H. Smith distinguishes three different approaches to the cognitive process within various
cultures: (1) conceptual: postulation, (2) psychical: intuition, and (3) concrete relational: pictorial emotive—Boas's
"primitive" thinking.75 Smith dispelled the naïve idea that there is only one "proper" way of thinking. Smith also

71
Eugene A. Nida, Message and Mission: The Community of Christian Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
72
David J. Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to Missionary Communication (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1978); "Contextualization that is Authentic Relevant," International Journal of Frontier Missions 12:3 (1995) 115-19.
73
Franz Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man (New York: Macmillan, 1938).
74
F.S.C. Northrup, The Meeting of East and West (New York: Macmillan, 1953).
75
Cf. Edmund Perry, The Gospel in Dispute (New York: Doubleday, 1958) 99-106.

15
says that people of all cultures think in each of these three ways. Differences among cultures are due to the priority
given to one or another type of thought. Since we all think in these three ways, we must not recoil from non-
western, prescientific ways of thinking in some of the conceptions of ancient Israel. As missionaries must show
respect to non-western thought processes of their mission field for cross-cultural understanding to occur, modern
scientifically oriented interpreters must give Genesis 1 its due, not accuse it of scientific or historical errors as judged
from our way of thinking.

Communication Media: Ways of Channeling a Message. McLuhan challenged the idea that a message can be
"put into" any medium and "come out" intact, untainted or untouched. Not only do media affect the message,
they may constitute the message: "The medium is the message."76 Hesselgrave notes that certain genres that
communicate clearly in one culture do not "make sense" in another culture.77 This is particular relevant to the
matter at hand. Media that adequately convey spiritual or metaphysical truth in one culture may be understood as
unhistorical or unscientific and so judged to be untrue in another culture. In terms of written literature, this gets at
the complex question of genre of Genesis 1.

Context and Contextualization:

Hebrew Traditions of Creation

As the opening chapter in the biblical canon, Genesis 1 enjoys a privileged position as the best-known
creation account in Scripture. Due to its privileged position, most Christians (and non-Christians) view it is the
normative account, as if it presents the biblical view of creation. Many then assume it reveals precisely (literally)
how God actually created the world. Many modern readers living in the scientific age, also assume that if Genesis 1
is true, it reveals the actual scientific means by which God actually created the cosmos and that it therefore must
be scientifically accurate. When confronted with evidence that it is not scientifically accurate, many modern
Christians fear that the biblical account of creation is untrue and many modern non-Christians reject it for this very
reason. This modernist approach fails to adequately consider how the pre-scientific ancient Near Eastern worldview
of the biblical author affected the way he thought about creation and how he wrote Genesis 1. The modernist
approach assumes that if Genesis 1 is true, it must conform to standards of modern science. It also assumes that
the only legitimate way to describe creation is as scientific cosmogony. This amounts to Western modernist
arrogance. It fails to realize that as an ancient text, Genesis 1 played a vital role in the life of ancient Israel as a
religious cosmogony expressing spiritual truth (Yahweh is the Creator) in a pre-scientific context.

Genesis 1 is not, of course, the only passage presenting a Yahwistic cosmogony. The Hebrew Scriptures
describe God's creative activity more than a dozen times. While all these passages unite in proclaiming who created
the universe, they all surprisingly differ in picturing how he did it. All the passages assume a pre-scientific ancient
Near Eastern conception of the world; none reveal transcendent scientific data that would only later be discovered
in the Age of the Enlightenment. God met the ancients where they were in their pre-scientific worldview,
accommodating himself to their conceptions of cosmology. He was not at all concerned about explaining to
modern scientists how and when he made the heavens, but in proclaiming to the ancients who made them and why.
Perhaps no other topic in the Hebrew Scriptures is so consistently and repeatedly contextualized as the various
creation accounts. The fact that no two creation accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures—and there are many of
them—agree on the details (e.g., order of the creative events, means of creation, length of creative activity),
suggests that we are not encountering actual ontological descriptions, but more likely highly contextualized
presentations relevant to each generation and particular cultural context at hand.

Contextualization is vividly illustrated in Psalm 74:12-17, where Asaph proclaims that his God created heaven
and earth when he shattered the many-headed Leviathan, the great Sea monster! What's more, He provided food
for the people living on the seashore from this feat when the fragments of Leviathan's dead corpse washed up on
shore and were devoured by those who found them. When did God do all this? When he put the sun and moon in
their place, and broke open the subterranean waters to fructify the earth on the day he created the cosmos (vv. 15-
17). According to Asaph, God was able to create heaven and earth because he first overcame his great cosmic
enemy, Leviathan (vv. 13-14).

76
Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media (New York: McGraw Hill, 1964).
77
Hesselgrave, "Contextualization," 118.

16
 God has been my king from ancient times,
performing acts of deliverance on the earth.
You destroyed the sea by your strength;
you shattered the heads of the sea monster (tnyn) in the water.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan (lwytn);
you fed him to the people who live along the coast.
You broke open the spring and the stream;
you dried up perpetually flowing rivers.
You established the cycle of day and night;
you put the moon and sun in place.
You set up all the boundaries of the earth;
you created the cycle of summer and winter. (Psalm 74:12-17)

Our contemporary culture surely would tune us out once-and-for-all if we tried to force vv. 13-14 into the science
classroom as a viable model of origins. However, this text would have struck accord with Asaph's ancient audience.
They were undoubtedly familiar with the well-known Canaanite myths of Baal crushing the seven-headed Leviathan,
the cosmic serpent who resided in the Primeval Waters of the pre-creation Abyss.78 In Canaanite mythology,
Leviathan (aka Lôtan) is a sea monster that symbolizes the destructive water of the sea and thus the evil forces of
chaos that threatened the established order of the created world (CTA 3 iii.36-39; CTA 5 i.1-5; i.28-32).79 For example:

When you smite Lôtan (lwtn),80 the crooked serpent,

when you destroy the writhing dragon (tnn),
the close-coiled one of seven heads,
The heavens will wither and go slack
like the folds of your tunic. (CTA 5 i.1-5 // i.28-32; see COS 1:265)

No other topic in Scripture seems so consistently contextualized as God's creative acts. Against an Egyptian
background of Israel's early days, we find echoes of Egyptian creation traditions. During the days of the united
monarchy and early divided kingdom period, we find reminiscent of Canaanite traditions. When Assyria and
Babylonia loomed large, Mesopotamian themes appear. This was contextualization at its best!

For all our energy invested in defending Genesis 1 against modern science, why do we not feel compelled to
defend as good science the claim of Psalm 74 that Yahweh created heaven and earth by crushing the seven heads
of Leviathan? Is it perhaps that we implicitly recognize Psalm 74 is so thoroughly contextualized against ancient
Canaanite worship of Baal? If we are not fearful of making a concession to liberalism or abandoning a "literal"
interpretation of the creation account of Psalm 74, should fear that we are conceding to liberals or abandoning the
faith if we use the same hermeneutic of Psalm 74 on Genesis 1? I think not. Rather than abandoning inerrancy, we
are actually better able to defend it.

Contemporary Contextualization Requires

Decontextualization & Recontextualization

When contemporary readers encounter Genesis 1, we must recognize that our "horizon" is radically different
from the "horizon" of the biblical author and his audience. Genesis 1 was set in an ancient Near Eastern culture,
framed within an ancient pre-scientific worldview of the cosmological structure of creation, and strategically
engaging a mythical approach to discussing origins. Our natural tendency is to naively engage the text from our
post-Enlightenment, rationalistic, modernist, Western, scientific perspective. God contextualized his transcendent
transcultural truths of his position as Creator and his creative acts within the framework and conceptual world of

78
For the correspondence of Lôtan in Ugaritic literature with Leviathan in the Hebrew Scriptures (Ps 74:14; Isa 27:1; Job 3:8; 41:1 [MT 40:25]),
see A. Caquot, "Le Léviathan de Job 40,25—41,26," Revue Biblique 99 (1992) 40-69. Also E. Ullendorff, “Job 3:8,” Vetus Testamentum 11
(1961): 350–51. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Canaanite myth of Baal's battle with Leviathan the seven-headed dragon and with Yamm the
personification of the primeval waters of chaos is applied to Yahweh’s victories over his cosmic enemies: (1) at creation (Ps 89:9-10; Job
26:13), (2) in history (Pss 74:13-14; 77:16-20; Isa 51:9-10; Job 7:12; 9:13), (3) throughout time (Pss 29:3, 10; 93:3–4), and (4) in the eschatological
future (Isa 27:1; cf. Dan 7; Rev 13).
79
For these Ugaritic texts and accompanying translations, see J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978)
50, 68. For a more recent translation, see COS 1:252, 265.
80
The Ugaritic term lwtn "Lôtan" is linguistically related to Hebrew lwytn "Leviathan." The only phonological difference is the presence
of the matres lectionis long vowel marker hireq-yodh in the Hebrew term.

17
ancient Israel in dialogue with ancient Egyptian notions of creation. In order to extrapolate the transcendent
transcultural truths, we must recognize the degree to which Genesis 1 was originally contextualized, then
decontextualize this linguistic code into a form that makes sense at an operational level. But to be relevant to our
own contemporary culture, we must recast (recontextualize) this in a way that communicates to our post-
Enlightenment, rationalistic, modernist, Western, scientific crowd.

Hebrew exegetes and biblical theologians stress the importance of recognizing the degree to which much
of God's revelation to ancient Israel was contextualized. Walter Kaiser, for instance, uses the so-called "ladder of
abstraction" to get at the command, "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (1 Thess 5:25).81 Following the threefold
process modeled by Hesselgrave, we can think in terms of (1) contextualization: exegetical step, "what it meant"
to the original source who encoded it to his original target; (2) decontextualization: biblical theological step,
uncovers the transcendent message behind the "code"; (3) recontextualization: expositional step, "what it means,"
recasting the message in a way that our target audience gets the same message as the original audience. For
example:

Decontextualization:
Canonical Community
Trans/Cross-Cultural
Biblical Theology Step

Express Christian love

when greeting one another in
a culturally appropriate manner
(cross-cultural principle)

Contextualization: Recontextualization
Original Audience Contemporary Audience
Historical/Cultural Contemporary/Cultural
Exegetical Step Homiletical Step

"Greet one another Greet one another with

with a holy kiss" a hearty handshake/hug
(conventionally relevant custom (coventionally relevant custom
in expressive Eastern culture) in reserved Western culture)

Imagine, however, the discomfort we would create if we bypass the middle steps of decontextualization and
recontextualization with a modern, western audience. For example:

Contextualization: Failure to Recontextualize:

Original Audience Contemporary Audience
Historical/Cultural Contemporary/Cultural
Exegetical Step Homiletical Step

"Greet one another Greet one another

with a holy kiss" with a holy kiss (?!?)
conventionally accepted custom in conventionally questionable action in
expressive Middle Eastern culture reserved sexualized Western culture

Consider how Genesis 1 would have been received by its original audience which was clued into the cultural
code of its ancient cosmological worldview and mythic way of thinking about origins. What might its transcendent
message as well as its recontextualized message be to our scientific modern audience?

81
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

18
 Decontextualization:
Canonical Community
Trans/Cross-Cultural
Biblical Theology Step

Any speculative philosophical explanation of creation that fails to include

God—the uncaused, not self-caused, eternally self-existent First Cause—as
the transcendent almighty supraintelligent Creator is wrong and rejected.82

Contextualization: Recontextualization
Original Audience Contemporary Audience
Historical/Cultural Contemporary/Cultural
Exegetical Step Homiletical Step

The ancient Egyptian speculative philosophical
cosmogonies were inadequate proposals of the First
Cause of creation; the creator-gods of Egypt are
unworthy of worship; the God of Israel is the one true
Creator and thus, worthy of worship.83
Any modern scientific speculative philosophical
cosmogony that leaves out the God of the Bible is an
inadequate explanation of the First Cause of
creation; naturalistic explanations of origins are
rejected—God is worthy of worship.84

By comparison, failure to run Genesis 1 through Kaiser's "ladder of abstraction" would "fossilize" the ancient
message in its originally culturally relevant but now culturally irrelevant form. What made perfect sense to its
ancient pre-scientific mythically oriented audience often makes little sense readers in the scientific age:

Contextualization: Recontextualization
Original Audience Contemporary Audience
Historical/Cultural Contemporary/Cultural
Exegetical Step Homiletical Step

God created heaven and earth in seven days A narrow hermeneutic that fails to take
God created "light" several days before the sun contextualization seriously often leads to scientific
God created cosmic dam to hold cosmic ocean and philosophical ridicule of Genesis 1, and
The precreation cosmos was composed of Water fosters Science versus Bible mentality

When contemporary readers encounter Genesis 1, we must recognize that our "horizon" is radically different
from the "horizon" of the biblical author and his audience. Genesis 1 was set in an ancient Near Eastern culture,
framed within an ancient pre-scientific worldview of the cosmological structure of creation, and strategically
engaging a mythical approach to discussing origins. Our natural tendency is to engage the text from our post-
Enlightenment, rationalistic, modernist, Western, scientific perspective. However, God contextualized his
transcendent transcultural truths of his position as Creator and his creative acts within the framework and
conceptual world of ancient Israel in dialogue with ancient Egyptian notions of creation. In order to extrapolate
the transcendent transcultural truths, we must recognize the degree to which Genesis 1 was originally
contextualized, then decontextualize this linguistic code into a form that makes sense at an operational level. But
to be relevant to our own contemporary culture, we must recast (recontextualize) this in a way that communicates
to our post-Enlightenment, rationalistic, modernist, Western, scientific crowd.

If we fail to engage in this process, and present Genesis 1 without making people aware of its ancient
trappings, we risk "fossilizing" the text. Ironically, the often well-intentioned but profoundly naïve desire to defend
a "literal" interpretation of Genesis 1, unwittingly undercuts God's commitment to contextualize his revelation of
himself as the Creator to people in a way that makes sense to them in their own contexts. By "freezing" this
historically contextualized imagery—that communicated clearly to ancient Israel—into the form of a monolithic
immutable dogma, we risk misinterpreting its transcendent truths and, perhaps more tragically, hold Genesis 1 up

82
An alternate proposition: the God of the Scriptures, the one true transcendent and eternally self-existent First Cause, created everything in
the cosmos by his omni-intellectual and omni-volition
83
Or, the God of Israel—not an Egyptian god—is the one true Creator; He was not generated from the Primeval Waters; the Ogdoad and
Ennead are not His creators nor children; He trumps Atum, Ptah and Amun as a superior First Cause of all creation.
84
Or, just as ancient Egyptian cosmogonies were inadequate accounts of creation, so too any contemporary scientific cosmogony that
does not include the God of the Bible as the Creator is an inadequate philosophical explanation of the First Cause.

19
to unnecessarily public disrepute in our scientifically oriented culture. In our sincere zeal to defend the truth of
Genesis 1, are we unintentionally shredding its credibility in our modern culture by not properly acknowledging the
degree to which this text was originally contextualized?

The hermeneutical process of decontextualization and recontextualization should not be perceived as some
kind of concession to liberalism, rejection of biblical inerrancy or abandonment of a "literal" interpretation of
Genesis 1. Rather, it celebrates the "literal" interpretation of Genesis 1, but recognizes that this is grounded in what
the text meant to ancient Israel. As far as I can tell, the conscious intent of Moses was not to construct a scientific
treatise of creationism to answer the questions of modern scientists. It was to present a bold polemic that the God
of Israel, not the gods of Egypt, was the true Creator. As the transcendent Creator, he was the sufficient First Cause
that the Egyptian speculative cosmogonies failed to apprehend. Recast in our context, the transcendent message
of Genesis 1 affirms that there is a Creator and that he alone is an adequate First Cause of the cosmos. In the wake
of contemporary philosophical cosmogonic speculation from naturalistic science, this is the kind of transcendent
claim that Genesis 1 makes: only Christian theism can posit an adequate First Cause. This not only allows us to
engage our culture, but to muster a hearing since naturalism cannot account for an adequate First Cause and must
always start with the ontological equivalence of a Second Cause. However, if we fail to appreciate what Genesis 1
was originally designed to convey, and focus only on the surface illocutionary form, our scientific creationistic
apologetic from Genesis 1 will win no more of hearing than if someone was trying to claim today that the
Hermapolitan Ogdoad should be taken as a serious scientific explanation of the origin of the cosmos. The priests of
Heliopolis were committed to their mythical tradition of a literal one-day creationism climaxing with Rê's birth in
the first sunrise. It would shock a Christian if a scientist today took the Heliopolitan one-day creationist tradition as
a serious scientific model. If this paper is correct—that the seven-day creation tradition in Genesis 1 is primarily
polemical against the one-day creation tradition of Rê the sun-god—then we are asking Genesis 1 to compete in a
cosmogonic arena in which it was not designed to win if we naively pit it against modern scientific cosmogonies
rather than ancient mythical cosmogonies.

Egyptian cosmogonic speculative philosophy struggled to explain from whence the material stuff of the
cosmos came. It could not conceive of creation ex nihilo because then it would have to explain from whence its
creator, who was totally immanent in material creation, came. The Egyptians simply were not prepared to
adequately explain the First Cause, so they simply punted to the second cause. Genesis 1 represents a radical and
genuine advance over the contemporary Egyptian models of creation because it posits the existence of an eternally
pre-existent and transcendent Creator as the Uncaused, not Self-Caused, eternally Self-Existent First Cause.

Genesis 1 in the Light of Speech-Act Theory:

Illocutionary Form versus Locutionary Function

Several contemporary evangelical scholars have successfully integrated "speech act theory" into their
hermeneutical toolbox.85 It is possible that this approach can assist us with Genesis 1. My thoughts here are
admittedly at a formative stage since I myself am still trying to fully understand this linguistic philosophy of
language.86 Let me briefly map out what speech act theory is about and how it might apply. There are several
versions of speech act theory, but I will follow the basic outlines of John Austin87 and John Searle.88

Propositional and Constative versus Performative Speech

For much of the history of linguistics and the philosophy of language, language was viewed primarily as a
way of making factual assertions; other functions of speech tended to be ignored. Austin's work, How To Do Things
with Words, helped philosophers appreciate the non-declarative uses of language.89 Cottrell well summarizes the
essence of Austin's theory:

85
For example, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, "The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture's Diverse Literary Forms," in D.A. Carson and
John D. Woodbridge, eds., Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 53-104; D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares and
Pruning Hooks (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002).
86
I am indebted to several of my colleagues at Dallas Seminary for suggesting that some complex issues of contextualization may be
grasped in the light of speech act theory; however, I have no confidence that any would embrace what I here suggest.
87
John L. Austin, How To Do Things With Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. J.O. Urmson (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1962).
88
John R. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
89
Austin was not the first to deal with what we now call "speech acts" in a wider sense. Earlier treatments appear in the works of some
church fathers, scholastic philosophers, and in the context of sacramental theology (e.g., "This is My body"). For example, Thomas Reid,

20
 Traditionally, we conceive of language as propositional: it is used to send and receive information. We also typically
view a statement as constative, that is, it expresses a statement that can be evaluated either as true or false. However,
Austin noted that while an utterance might be propositional or constative, it might also be performative. For example,
when ministers say, "I pronounce you husband and wife," they do more than "pronounce." A new dimension of a
relationship is formalized by the utterance. The uttering of the words is clearly an act, and the act is termed a locution.
But the uttering of the particular words has consequences. It is an act performed by the speaker in virtue of the
locution, and this speech-act is termed an illocution. Illocutionary acts include promising, a judge sentencing a criminal,
a jury announcing its verdict, and apologizing. Austin proposed a third category of utterances, perlocutionary
utterances, which produce an existential response such as anger or repentance in the auditor … The identification of
illocutionary utterances is by no means easy, and the classification of such utterances is still more difficult because
such utterances do not necessary include a performative verb [explicitly indicating what the intended
performance/response is].90

For example, when my wife tells me, "I have had a hard day," she is not communicating information (!) but
expressing her need for encouragement and perhaps soliciting help around the house or a break from the kids. For
a speech act to be properly understood, the audience must understand the conventional effect(s)
entailed/purposed by the illocution.91 Speakers normally assume their audience shares a common cultural linguistic
code. This is why foreigners are often mystified by most conventionalized native speech acts, and why many
husbands just do not seem to get it. (The best marriage counselors give a popular level crash course on speech act
theory to husbands, whether or not they call it that!)

Three Aspects of A Speech Act: Locution, Illocution, Perlocution

Austin distinguishes locution, illocution, and perlocution.92 Locution refers to the simple act of saying
something. Illocution refers to the use of a locution with a certain force. It emphasizes the performative function
of a speech act and depicts what words "do." By illocutionary act, Austin means that in saying something, we do
something. When a pastor says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife," he is doing something: formally
conferring marital bonds on them.93 The illocutionary act refers to the performative function of language.94 The
speech act performs a function. In saying, "Watch out, the path is slippery," Peter performs the speech act of
warning Mary to be careful.95 Perlocution refers to the intentional function of a speech act. It is speech that
attempts to move someone to respond in someway; it attempts to persuade, convince, inform, enlighten, or inspire
someone. The locution is the surface content, the illocution refers to the performative function of the locution, and
the perlocution is the effect of the locutionary act.

Indirect Speech Acts and the Challenge of Interpretation

In the course of the performance of speech acts, we often employ direct speech acts to communicate with
each other. In such case, the content of the communication may be identical, or almost identical, with the content
intended to be communicated, e.g., when I ask my son to pick up his toys by saying, "Grey, please pick up your
toys." However, in indirect speech acts the linguistic means used (including non-verbal communication) may be
different from the content intended to be conveyed.96 In certain circumstances, I may request Grey to pick up his

C.S. Peirce, and Adolf Reinach. See Karl Schuhmann and Barry Smith, "Elements of Speech Act Theory in the Work of Thomas Reid," History
of Philosophy Quarterly 7 (1990) 47-66; Jarrett Brock, "An Introduction to Peirce's Theory of Speech Acts," Transactions of the Charles S.
Peirce Society 17 (1981) 319-26. The expression, "Speech Act," was already used by Karl Bühler, "Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften,"
Kant-Studien 38 (1933) 43, in discussing a Theorie der Sprechhandlungen, and in his book, Sprachtheorie (Jena: Fischer, 1934), where he
discusses Sprechhandlung and Theorie der Sprechakte.
90
Peter Cottrell, “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics and Discourse Analysis,” in Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).
91
Austin, "Other Minds," in J.L. Austin, ed. et al., Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946; reprint, 1961).
92
Austin, "Three Ways of Spilling Ink," The Philosophical Review 74 (1966) 427-40.
93
A particular type of illocutionary speech act is a performative (utterance that performs something). The utterance, "I nominate John X
to be President," and "I sentence you to ten years imprisonment," are explicit cases of performative speech; the action that the utterance
describes (nominating, sentencing) is performed by the utterance of the sentence itself. Normally, the performative function of an
utterance is more implicit or indirect.
94
Austin, "Performative-Constative," in John Searle, ed., The Philosophy of Language (Oxford University Press, 1971) 13-22.
95
Typical examples of "speech acts" (illocutionary acts) are: greeting ("Hi, Bob!"), apologizing ("Sorry for that!"), describing something
("It is snowing"), asking a question ("Is it snowing?"), making a request ("Please pass the salt"), giving an order ("Drop your weapon!"),
or making a promise ("I promise to give it back").
96
See William P. Alston, Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000).

21
toys by simply saying, "Grey …!" A common way of performing a speech act is to intend a specific speech act effect,
which is actually different than, or sometimes goes beyond, what is actually expressed in the utterance. My wife
expresses her wish that I open the window by asking, "Can you reach the window?" Hers is not an enquiry for
information, but request for action. Since the request is expressed indirectly (by directly asking a question) it is an
example of indirect speech act.97

Indirect speech acts are commonly used to make requests or to reject proposals. If John asks, "Would you
be able to meet me for coffee?" and Jane replies, "I have class," she is using indirect speech to reject his advance.
John was also using indirect speech—to find out whether or not Jane is interested in him. (Sorry, John.). Indirect
speech can pose a linguistic challenge; it may be confusing to determine the speaker's real purpose. For example,
John may focus entirely on the direct illocutionary form of Jane's reply, taking the surface meaning of her words
very literally, and ask her out for coffee after her class is over. When she replies, "I have to go to work," we hope
John begins to get the message. However, our poor sap went to Bible College where he learned literal
interpretation! So, he asks for a date next week. When in exasperation, she replies, "I have to go to a funeral," he
finally begins to appreciate contextual interpretation! If only John had read up on sociolinguistics which studies
the social dimensions of speech acts and focuses on the social context in which speech events occur.

Consider this seemingly simple exchange. Pat asks Tom, "Would you mind turning down the volume on your
radio?" Tom answers, "Sure," then lowers the volume. Both Pat and Tom spoke and acted in a way that we would
expect. Pat performed a perlocutionary act of getting Tom to turn down the volume. This is a speech act scenario,
however, that was potentially fraught with misunderstanding. The literal meaning of the question Pat asked
solicited nothing more than a simple answer of "yes" or "no." However, Pat intended Tom to understand the
question (request for information) as a request to turn down the volume (volitional), and Tom understood it as Pat
intended it. This exchange illustrates how it is possible for a speaker to say something and mean something
different from the surface structure of the utterance.

In most cases, a speaker's intention and the surface meaning of her utterance are identical; however, in
certain cases, a speaker's intention (perlocution) may be quite different from the literal meaning of her speech
(locution).98 For example, if Sue says to Bill, "I will return your book next week," Sue's intention and literal meaning
may be the same: a simple promise to return a book within seven days. If Ann (a third-party outside) happens to
overhear this portion of the conversation and has no previous knowledge of this particular situation or even their
relationship, she would likely be able to understand the correct meaning of this exchange. There are some
situations, however, in which Sue's intention may be different from the literal meaning of her speech. Perhaps Sue
has been repeatedly delinquent in returning Bill's book despite his desperate attempts to get it back in time to write
his term paper that is due tomorrow, not next week! In this case, Sue is once again putting Bill off. Without Ann's
insider knowledge of the previous relationship between Sue and Bill over the book, she would misinterpret the
illocutionary function of Sue's speech act.

John Searle and the Interpretation of Indirect Speech Acts

John Searle offers a set of structural rules that describe the general steps that occur during indirect speech
acts, and a set of interpretive guidelines that can help us properly interpret indirect speech acts.99 According to
Searle, in indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by relying on
their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and non-linguistic, together with general powers of
rationality and inference on the part of the hearer. To correctly interpret an indirect speech act involves analysis of
mutually shared background information about indirect speech in a conversation that can be pieced together with
a theory of speech acts and linguistic convention.

Searle distinguishes between primary and secondary illocutionary acts. A primary illocutionary act is not the
literal meaning, but what a speaker intends to convey. The secondary illocutionary is the literal (surface) meaning
of the utterance.100 Indirect speech acts may have a secondary illocution whose meaning may be taken literally, but
do not correspond to the intended primarily illocutionary meaning. Searle suggests an analytical process can be

97
John L. Austin, "How to Talk: Some Simply Ways," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 53 (1953) 227-46.
98
See K. Mulligan, "Promisings and Other Social Acts—Their Constituents and Structure," in K. Mulligan, ed., Speech Act and Sachverhalt:
Reinach and the Foundations of Realist Phenomenology (Boston/Lancaster, 1987).
99
John Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
100
Searle, Speech Acts, 178.

22
applied to any indirect speech act to discover the primary illocutionary act. He offers the following steps for
discovering the primary illocutionary meaning.101

1. Understand the facts of the conversation.

2. Assume cooperation and relevance on behalf of the participants in the conversation.
3. Establish factual background information pertinent to the conversation.
4. Make assumptions about the conversation based on steps 1-3.
5. If steps 1-4 do not yield a consequential meaning, infer there are two illocutionary forces at work.
6. Assume the hearer has the ability to perform the act the speaker suggests and that the act that the speaker asks
to be performed102 must be something that would make sense for one to ask.103
7. Make inferences from steps 1-6 regarding possible primary illocutions.
8. Use background information to establish the primary illocution.

Several steps deal directly with our proposal on the historically intended meaning (performative primary illocution)
of Genesis 1 in the light of ancient Egyptian creation myths. Step 2 notes that the proposed illocutionary meaning
must be relevant to the original author and audience. Steps 3 and 8 emphasize the role of background
information—the essence of the thesis advocated here. Step 6 says the audience must have the ability to respond
to the message conveyed and the response would make sense to them.

Speech Act Theory and Interpretation of Genesis 1

Speech act theory may help us better understand the illocutionary force of the locutionary form of the
creation account. Interpreters have fixated on the literal surface meaning (locutionary form) and assumed that this
is identical to its intended purpose (illocutionary function). Following the traditional philosophical assumption that
dominated the history of interpretation of all forms of literature for centuries, biblical interpreters assumed that
the primary purpose of the language of Genesis 1 was informative, that is, to tell us exactly "how" and exactly
"when" (=how long) God created. Speech act theory, however, alerts us to the importance of the sociolinguistic
matrix in which Genesis 1 originally resided as the ancient Israelite response to an ongoing dialogue in the ancient
Near East (in particularly in response to Egyptian culture) on philosophical speculation dealing with the most
rationally coherent and religiously orthodox conception of cosmogony. As for its illocutionary force, Genesis 1 was
not designed to inform ancient Israel about the scientific means God used or actual length of time it took to effect
a completed creation. Its illocutionary force was intended to exalt the God of ancient Israel above all other rival
creator-gods celebrated in the dominant creation myths of their day. Its function was persuasive (polemic against
the gods of Egypt) and inspirational (elicitation of worship of Yahweh). As modern readers, we often naively
blunder into the middle of biblical conversations as naïve eavesdroppers, and assume that we understand the
dialogue. In fact, all that we often hear is the locution (literal surface meaning) of the speech act, not remotely
aware that the actual illocution (performative function) of the indirect speech—which we misinterpret as direct
speech—actually conveyed a different intent and was designed to produce a different perlocution (response of the
original audience) than we assume. Since we often fail to consider the original social context of the biblical speech
act, we unconsciously import our own social context into the conversation. Since our social conversation in the
modern age about Genesis 1 has revolved around its compatibility with modern science, we habitually fail to allow
the text to speak for itself out of its own social setting.

Conclusion

I hope that this paper has opened up some new topics of conversation about the original background and rhetorical
strategy of Genesis 1. This passage plays such a pivotal role in the identity of the Christian community that it is
imperative for us to accurately hear its ancient message and correctly understand its contemporary significance.

101
Searle, Speech Acts, 184.
102
Searle's mention of a hearer "performing an act" that a speaker "suggests/asks" to be performed refers to the performative function
of a speech act and the intended result (perlocution) that the speaker hopes will occur within the hearer. For the sake of convenience,
Searle often illustrates his theory through the locutional vehicle of imperative/command and question, both of which often convey distinct
primary and secondary illocutionary meanings, one indirect and the other direct, respectively.
103
For example, the hearer might have the ability to pass the salt when asked to do so by a speaker who is at the same table, but not have
the ability to pass the salt to a speaker with whom he is talking during a telephone conversation.

23
 Appendix A:
Six//Seven Day Structure of Genesis 1:1-2:3 as Polemic
against One-Day Structure of Egyptian Creation Mythology

Genesis 1:1-2:3 exhibits a clear framework of the pattern of a six//seven day structure. Levenson notes, "The
formal feature that most strikingly sets Genesis 1:1-2:3 off from its Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Israelite
antecendents and parallels is its heptadic structure. In none of the other literature [of the ancient Near East] do
we find anything reminiscent of the scheme of seven days of creation that dominates the overture of the Bible."104
In the light of this, scientific creationists often point to this unique feature in the ancient Near Eastern world as
evidence to suggest that this is an historically precise ontological window into the actual time frame in which God
worked to create the universe. Of course, this is the most critiqued and widely challenged claim that Christians
make about the Bible by many of our non-Christian friends.

However, while it is clear that Genesis 1 presents God's creative activity elapsing over a period of six or seven
literal twenty-four hour days, question arises whether this is a literary or theological presentation rather than an
historical or scientific presentation. Three factors raise the possibility that it is the former, not the latter. First,
modern science roundly questions the notion of the origin of the universe in such a fantastically short time. This
puts young earth advocates in the uncomfortable position of pitting special revelation (Scripture) against natural
revelation (science). This is a battle that Christians wrongly fought a few centuries ago against Galileo and
Capernicus. One wonders whether we might be repeating history.

Second, in Egyptian mythology, creation of the physical world was conceived in terms of a literal one-day
activity. The theogonic creation of the gods was thought of as beginning when Atum, the god of light, generated
himself in the midst of a sudden display of supranatural light. This light was not natural terrestrial light since the
sun was not created until a later point. Similarly, the cosmogonic creation of the material world was conceived as
concluding with the first sunrise, representing when Atum gave birth to Rê (later Rê-Amun) the sun-god. In
Egyptian cosmogonic thinking, the creation of the material world occurred during the evening, and concluded with
the first sunrise. To borrow a biblical expression literally, "There was evening and there was morning, the first day."
Although the Hebrew creation account echoes many features of Egyptian creation myths, it absolutely rejects
theogony and polytheism. There is but one true God and He is eternally pre-existent. God's creation of the sun on
the fourth day. Furthermore, in Egypt, the creation of the sun as the image of Rê was the apex of creation. Just as
Rê ruled the celestial world of the gods, so the sun as his divine image ruled the terrestial world. In the daily rising
of the sun, the ancient Egyptian believed that he was experiencing anew the original creation. Viewed against this
background, it is easy to see how the Hebrew presentation of a literal seven-day creationism would break the
paradigm of the literal one-day creationism of Egypt. In the thinking of the Two Lands, there was no such thing as
the second, third, or fourth day, etc. All was eternal recurrent sameness and the repetition of the first day all over
with each rising of the sun. The six//seven day structure of creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 may therefore function as a
not so subtle polemical refutation of the Egyptian way of conceiving of creation, to say nothing of overturning their
entire worldview. While time was conceived as cyclical in ancient Egypt—each day nothing but a repetition of the
original first day—time was conceived as linear in ancient Israel—the six days of God's creativity activity, with the
creation of man (not the sun on the fourth day!) on the sixth day as the apex of his work, moved forward to the
climactic seventh day of rest and worship of God. Rather than a static cyclical approach, it was linear and moving
forward to a telos.

One may ask, therefore, why such an arbirtrary time-frame as a six//seven day presentation of the length of
God's creation. Would not a four or five day creation account have refuted Egyptian one-day creationism just as
well? For one, the seven-day week had been well established in the lands of the Fertile Crescent by the time our
Hebrew polemicist wrote. It was a natural time period to depict a linear approach to time and a period of
completion. Second, the six//seven day time frame was a commonly used literary convention in Semitic literature.105
The following excerpts document this point.

104
Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988) 66.
105
Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “The Seven Day Unit in Ugaritic Epic Literature,” Israel Exploration Journal 15 (1965) 121-44.

24
1. Stereotypical formula of "six//seven day" cycles: typically features three sets of two days each of repeated
activity, following by the climactic seventh day that concludes the cycle with a dramatic action.

Behold, one day and a second day,

Oblation to the gods gives Daniel,
Oblation to the gods to eat,
Oblation to the gods to drink to the holy ones.
A third and a fourth day,
Oblation to the gods gives Daniel,
Oblation to the gods to eat,
Oblation to the gods to drink to the holy ones.
A fifth and a sixth day,
Oblation to the gods gives Daniel,
Oblation to the gods to eat,
Oblation to the gods to drink to the holy ones.
But behold, on the seventh day,
Baal approaches with his plea!
(“Tale of Aqhat,” AQHT, A, i, lines 5-18)

Daniel prepares an ox for the skillful ones,

gives food to the skillful ones and gives drink
to the daughters of joyful noise, the swallows.
Behold, one day and a second,
he gives food to the skillful ones and drink,
to the daughters of joyful noise, the swallows.
A third and a fourth day,
he gives food to the skillful ones and drink,
to the daughters of joyful noise, the swallows.
A fifth, a sixth day,
he gives food to the skillful ones and drink,
to the daughters of joyful noise, the swallows.
Behold, on the seventh day,
away from his house go the skillful ones,
the daughters of joyful noise, the swallows!
(“Tale of Aqhat,” AQHT, A, ii, lines 33-44)

March one day, and a second day,

a third day, and a forth day,
a fifth day, and a sixth day --
Behold! At the sunset of the seventh day
you will arrive at Udum the Great,
at Udum the Grand!”
(“Legend of King Keret,” KRT, A, iii, lines 104-109)

He marched one day, and a second day,

at the sunset of the third day
he came to the shrine of Asherah of Tyre …
He marched a fourth day, and a fifth day,
a sixth day, and a seventh day.
Behold! At the sunset of the seventh day
he arrived at Udum the Great,
at Udum the Grand!
(“Legend of King Keret,” KRT, A, iv, 194-196, 207-211)

Tarry one day, and a second day,

a third day, and a forth day,
a fifth day, and a sixth day.
Do not shoot arrows into the city,
do not fling your hand-stones headlong.
25
Behold! At the sunset of the seventh day
King Pabel will sleep!”
(“Legend of King Keret,” KRT, A, iii, lines 113-119)

He tarried one day, and a second day,

a third day, and a forth day,
a fifth day, and a sixth day.
Behold! At the sunset of the seventh day
King Pabel slept!
(“Legend of King Keret,” KRT, A, v, lines 218-222)

Fire is set to the house, flame to the palace.

Behold, one day and a second,
Fire feeds on the house, flame upon the palace;
A third and a fourth day,
Fire feeds on the house, flame upon the palace;
A fifth and a sixth day,
Fire feeds on the house, flame upon the palace.
Then on the seventh day,
The fire dies down in the house, the flame in the palace.
(“Baal and Anath,” II AB, ii, lines 22-30)

I looked around for coast lines in the expanse of the sea;

A region-mountain emerged in each of fourteen regions.
On Mount Nisir the ship came to a halt,
Mount Nisir held the ship fast, allowing no motion.
One day, a second day, Mount Nisir held the ship fast,
allowing no motion.
A third day, a fourth day, Mount Nisir held the ship fast,
allowing no motion.
A fifth (day), a sixth (day), Mount Nisir held the ship fast,
allowing no motion.
When the seventh day arrived,
I sent forth and set free a dove.
(“Gilgamesh Epic,” Tablet XI, lines 128-139)

Utnaphistim said to her, to his spouse:

“Since to deceive is human,
He will seek to deceive you (asserting he had not slept).
“Get up, bake for him wafers, put them at his head,
And on the wall mark the days he sleeps.”
She baked for him wafers, put them at his head,
And marked on the wall the days he slept.
The first wafer is dried out, the second is gone bad,
The third is soggy, the fourth -- its crust turned white;
The fifth has a moldly cast, the sixth is fresh-colored;
The seventh -- just as he touched him the man awoke!
(“Gilgamesh Epic,” Tablet XI, lines 209-218)

Utnaphistim said to him, to Gilgamesh:

“Go, Gilgamesh, count your wafers,
That the days you slept may become known to you.
The first wafer is dried out, the second is gone bad,
The third is soggy, the fourth -- its crust turned white;
The fifth has a moldly cast, the sixth is fresh-colored;
The seventh -- at this instant you awoke!”
(“Gilgamesh Epic,” Tablet XI, lines 219-228)

26
2. In a similar fashion, repeated events are typically recounted in three sets of two repeated actions, while the
seventh similar event is the final concluding action.

They drank once, they drank twice,

They drank three times, they drank four times,
They drank five times, they drank six times,
They drank seven times.
Then Kumarbis began to speak to his vizier Mukisanus …
(“Song of Ullikummis,” Hittite Poetic Epic)

3. Semitic poetry had a predilection to units of "seven," whether to describe seven sets of repeated action or
seven sets of a particular object. It was the stereotypical number of choice in poetry.

If Mati’el, son of Attarsamak, king of Arpad, is unfaithful to

Bar-Ga’yah, king of KTK, or if the seed of Mati’el is unfaithful
to the seed to Bar-Ga’yah:
[ next two lines too damaged to read ]
Even if seven rams should cover a ewe,
may she not conceive;
Even if seven nurses should nurse a baby boy,
may he not have his fill;
Even if seven mares should suck a colt,
may it not be satisfied;
Even if seven cows should give suck to a calf,
may it not have its fill;
Even if seven ewes should suckle a lamb,
may it not be satisfied
Even if seven hens go looking for food,
may they not kill anything.
(“Sefire Treaty: Stela 1,” lines 21-24a)

Enkidu ate the food until he was satisfied,

Of strong drink he drank seven goblets.
(“Gilgamesh Epic,” Tablet II, iii, lines 11-12)

“You loved a lion, perfect in strength;

Seven pits and seven you dug for him.
Then you loved a stallion, famed in battle;
The whip, the spur, and the lash you ordained for him.
You decreed for him to gallop seven leagues,
You decreed for him muddied water to drink.”
(“Gilgamesh Epic,” Tablet VI, i, lines 51-56)

On your account shall your wife be forsaken,

Even though she is a mother of seven.
(“Gilgamesh Epic,” Tablet VII, iv, lines 9-11)

The doorkeeper has opened the seven doors,

He has unlocked the seven bolts.
(“The Telepinus Myth,” Hittite Epic)

Upon their crossing the seventh mountain,

… he did not wander about.
(“Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living,” lines 61-62)

27
 After he himself had finished off for him the seventh,
he approached his chamber.
(“Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living,” 140-143)
She arrayed herself in the seven ordinances,
she gathered the ordinances and placed them in her hand …
(“Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld,” lines 14-21)

Of the seven gates of the netherworld,

open their locks …
Of the seven gates of the netherworld,
he opened their locks …
(“Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld,” lines 116, 122)

4. Frequently, the number "seven" appeared in poetic texts in parallelism with another number expressing
synonymity or progression. In many cases, its use in poetic parallelism indicates that it was often a literary
trope, a typical convention, rather than a precise number.

He replies in the seven chambers,

Inside the eight enclosures.
(“Baal and Anath,” V AB, E, lines 18-19)

El replies in the seven chambers,

Inside the eight enclosures.
(“Baal and Anath,” V AB, E, lines 35-36)

Take your cloud, your wind,

Your [ … ], your rains;
With your seven lads,
Your eight boars.
(“Baal and Anath,” I, AB, v, lines 6-11)

The household of the king was destroyed,

Who had seven brothers,
Eight mother’s sons.
(“Legend of King Keret,” KRT, A, i, lines 1-4)

He had flesh of kinship:

One-third died in health;
One-fourth (died) of sickness,
One-fifth pestilence gathered to itself;
One-sixth calamity,
One-seventh of them fell by the sword.
(“Legend of King Keret,” KRT, A, i, lines 15-20)

She shall bear seven sons to you,

Yea, eight she will produce for you.
(“Legend of King Keret,” KRT, B, ii, lines 21-25)

Baal shall fail seven years,

the Rider of the Clouds eight (years).
(“Tale of Aqhat,” AQHT, C, I, lines 43-44)

Gilgamesh and Enkidu were each laden with ten talents,

In the gate of Uruk, whose bolts are seven.
(“Gilgamesh Epic,” Tablet II, iv, lines 36-37)

28
 He is wont to cloak himself with seven cloaks;
One he has donned, six are still off [ … ].”
(“Gilgamesh Epic,” Tablet IV, v, lines 42-47)

5. In epic poetic literature, the narrative framework is often constructed around sets of "seven." The overall
macro-structure of Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld and its internal micro-structure provides a classic case-
study of this literary convention

External Macro-Structure of Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld

o Inanna abandons seven cities to begin her journey of descending to the netherworld (lines 7-13)
o Inanna robes herself with seven ordinances to aid her journey to the netherworld (lines 14-21)
o Inanna passes through seven gates of the netherworld, and loses her seven articles (lines 126ff)
o Inanna is judged by the Anunnaki, the seven judges of the netherworld (lines 163ff)
o Inanna is dead for three days and three nights (line 169), on the fourth day Ninshubur petitions Enlil and
Nanna (170-205)
o Enki to intervenes and revives her (206-271), she escapes the netherworld on the seventh day (271-328)

Internal Micro-Structure of Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld

Upon her entering the first gate,

the shugurra, the crown of her head was removed …
Upon her entering the second gate,
the measuring rod and lapis lazuli was removed …
Upon her entering the third gate,
the small lapis lazuli stones of her neck were removed …
Upon her entering the fourth gate,
the sparkling [ … ] stones of her breast were removed …
Upon her entering the fifth gate,
the gold ring of her hand was removed …
Upon her entering the sixth gate,
the breastplate which [ … ] of her breast was removed …
Upon her entering the seventh gate,
the garment of the ladyship of her body, was removed …
(“Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld,” lines … )

When the first gate he had made her enter,

He stripped and took away the great crown on her head …
When the second gate he made her enter,
He stripped and took away the pendants on her ears …
When the third gate he made her enter,
He stripped and took away the chains around her neck …
When the fourth gate he made her enter,
He stripped and took away the ornaments on her breast …
When the fifth gate he made her enter,
He stripped and took away the girdle of birthstones on her hips …
When the sixth gate he made her enter,
He stripped and took away the clasps around her hands and feet …
When the seventh gate he had made her enter,
He stripped and took away the breechcloth around her body …
(“Descent of Ishtar to the Netherworld,” lines ???)

When through the first gate he had made her go out,

He returned to her the breechcloth for her body.
When the second gate he made her go out,
He returned to her the clasps around her hands and feet.
When the third gate he made her go out,

29
 He returned to her the birthstone girdle for her hips.
When the fourth gate he made her go out,
He returned to her the ornaments for her breasts.
When the fifth gate he made her go out,
He returned to her the chains for her neck.
When the sixth gate he made her go out,
He returned to her the pendants for her ears.
When the seventh gate he had made her go out,
He returned to her the great crown for her head.
(“Descent of Ishtar to the Netherworld,” lines ???)

A second time, a third time the Kindly One, El Benign, spoke:

“Who among the gods can remove illness … ?”
But none of the gods answered him.
A fourth time El spoke:
“Who among the gods can remove illness … ?”
But none of the gods answered him.
A fifth time he spoke:
“Who among the gods can remove illness … ?”
But none of the gods answered him.
A sixth time, a seventh time he spoke:
“Who among the gods can remove illness … ?”
But none of the gods answered him.
Then spoke the Kindly One, El Benign:
“O my sons, sit up on your seats …
I will magically create a female who removes illness …!”
(“Legend of King Keret,” KRT, C, v, lines 8-22)

6. Contrary to Levenson's claim, the ancient Near East did, in fact, have mythological traditions in which a god
fashioned his/her creation over a period of six//seven days.

Of the seven and seven mother-wombs,

Seven brought forth males,
Seven brought forth females.
The Mother-Womb, the creatress of destiny,
In pairs she completed them,
In pairs she completed them before her.
The forms of the people Mami formed.
In the house of the bearing woman in travail,
Seven days shall the (birthing) brick lie.
[ … ] from the house of Mah, the wise Mami.
The vexed shall rejoice in the house of the one in travail.
As the Bearing One gives birth,
May the mother of children bring forth by herself.
(“Creation of Man by Mother Goddess,” lines 21-33)

As he spoke the wings of the south wind was broken.

For seven days the south wind blew not upon the land
Anu called to Ilabrat, his vizier:
“Why has the south wind not blown on the land seven days?”
(“Adapa: Akkadian Creation Myth,” lines 1-8)

30
 Appendix B:
Coming to Terms with the Genre of Ancient Egyptian and Israelite Cosmogony

The similarities of Genesis 1 with ancient Egyptian cosmogonies—and more general similarities with other
ancient Near Eastern texts such as Enuma Elish—raise the question of literary genre and historicity. Here are the
typical charges that critical scholars challenge evangelicals to answer: "How can we claim that Genesis 1 is historical
but the Egyptian myths are false when they look so much alike?" "How can we reasonably deny that it is just as
fanciful and unhistorical as the Egyptian creation myths?" This objection to an evangelical view of Scripture assumes
the genre of ancient Near Eastern creation myth means the story is untrue fiction. Few historians or social
anthropologists would accept such a rigid characterization.

Nature of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths

In a series of masterful essays, Vincent Arieh Tobin, a leading Egyptologist, shows that the modern
dichotomy between myth and truth—too often exclusively defined in scientific and historical terms—is a naïve
misunderstanding of this genre:

Creation myths in any culture are not intended as scientific explications of the way in which the universe came into
being; they are symbolic articulations of the meaning and significance of the realm of created being. Such myths are
to an extent explanatory, but their "explanations" lie in the realm of metaphysics rather than in the realm of science
or history.106

Tobin emphases that Egyptian myths not be viewed as contrary to history. In some cases, Egyptian myths are simply
symbolic transformations of documentable historical events, so presented to memorialize the event and elevate it
to the status of the divine. Creation myth is symbolic philosophical speculation of divine acts beyond human ken,
historical experience, empirical observation, rational explanation or scientific enquiry:

Any definition of Egyptian mythological texts requires an understanding of the nature of myth. One might define
myth as traditional narratives about the gods, the past, and the supernatural domain that lies beyond the scope of the
normal human senses and intellect. However, the process of mythologization frequently encompasses what the
modern mind would consider historical reality. Historical events and individuals were often mythologized by the
Egyptians to underscore the fact that they had significance beyond the process of history, which placed them within
the realm of the heroic, supernatural, or superhuman. Often there is no clear distinction between myth and history.
It is sometimes a matter of interpretation whether a specific text should be classified as mythological or historical. In
general, Egyptian mythological texts articulate the incomprehensible and the marvelous, while attempting to express
such phenomena in a rational manner. Certain historical texts reveal a mythological element, making it clear that for
the Egyptians there was no sharp distinction between the worlds of myth and of reality. Figures such as Thutmose III,
Akhenaton, and Rameses II were historical, but the accounts of their deeds have to an extent transformed them into
figures of myth.107

Technically defined, myth does not denote fiction, but spiritual reality that cannot be adequately conveyed in
genres that are more traditional. It is, in fact, a vehicle of divine revelation of supernatural mysteries that cannot be
discovered through empirical observation or rational deduction:

Although the term "myth" is often used to signify any type of traditional story or legend, for scholars it is highly
specific: a myth is a spoken word, statement, or narrative that is used, frequently within a cultic setting, to articulate
realities that cannot be defined in a totally rational manner. Myth is a means of sacred revelation, a method of
communication that functions through symbolic expression and has its own inner logic—a logic belonging to the
realm of the mystical and metaphysical rather than to that of reason and rationality. Although this definition implies
that myth has a spiritual purpose, it can encompass a wide variety of topics. There are myths of creation, myths of
the gods, historical or semi-historical myths, heroic myths, political myths, myths of national identity, and
psychological myths, among others … The term "myth" is thus an appropriate one for denoting the statements that

106
Vincent Arieh Tobin, "Creation Myths," in Donald J. Redford, ed. et al., Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001) 2:464 [464-72].
107
Tobin, "Mythological Texts," in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 2:459 [459-64].

31
 the Egyptians made concerning their gods and their environment, since it reflects their consciousness of the reality
and the mystery of the divine.108

Tobin complains that Westerners often think of myth only in terms of the Graeco-Roman tradition of Homer and
Classical Greek rationalism. Graeco-Roman myths fabricated a universal history of their culture in the form of
elaborate fictional narratives, but did little to reveal the unseen mysteries of life or spiritual realities behind the
visible world. Tobin stresses that ancient Egyptian mythology—especially its cosmogonies—were less concerned
about extended narration, and focused almost exclusively on revealing the truth of reality.

In this light, Tobin offers this hermeneutical guideline. The event depicted should not be subjected to
scientific enquiry or historical investigation, but theological interpretation: "As with all myth, the importance of
such symbols lay not in their details but in their significance."109 As a case in point, he notes that primary significance
of the Re myth is expressed by his representation as the scarab beetle (∆pr) from which is derived his title Khepri:
"the One Who Becomes" (∆prw). The myth exploited the etymological wordplay and saw in the development
phases of the lifespan of this beetle an apt representation of the ever developing course of the daily cycle of the
sun across the sky: in the morning at the time of his birth, the sun was Khepri, the one who comes into being; at
noon, he was Re, the developed one; in the evening, as he descended on the western horizon, he was Atum, the
completed one.

In an equally masterful essay on ancient Egyptian myths, van Dijk says, "We take a pragmatic view and,
disregarding its narrative aspect, define myth as a statement that seeks to explain social reality and human
existence in symbolic terms by referring to a world outside the human world and to events that happen in a time
outside human time but that makes the present situation meaningful and acceptable and provides a perspective
on the future."110

Literary Genre of Genesis 1

Is Genesis 1 an example of "myth"? In his helpful essay on the literary genre of Genesis 1, Waltke answered,
"yes and no."111 In his recent book, Enns is drawn toward the label of "myth," but laments that this term is too
loaded that it probably hurts more than it helps. While he petitions the academy to create a better term, he
nevertheless adopts this term with an important caveat and carefully worded definition:

But one might ask why is it that God can't use the category we call "myth" to speak to ancient Israelites. We seem to
think of myth as something ancient people thought up because they didn't want to listen to what God said, and so at
the outset of the discussion the Bible is already set in full contrast to the ancient Near Eastern literature. I don't think
this is the case. If some consensus could be reached for an alternative terms, it would seem profitable to abandon
the word myth altogether, since the term has such a long history of meanings attached to it, which prejudices the
discussion from the outset. There is no consensus for another word, so … allow me to repeat how I use the word
myth in the discussion below: Myth is an ancient, premodern, pre-scientific way of addressing questions of ultimate
origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?112

C.S. Lewis recognized that biblical creation accounts shared a genre with ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies, but
also realized that the term "myth" is an often misunderstood and frequently emotionally charged term. In an effort
to distinguish biblical creation stories from the popular level misconception of myth as fiction, Lewis coined the
expression "true myth" for the biblical stories.113 I like this, but unfortunately, it sounds like an oxymoron,
equivalent to "true fiction," which is not what Lewis meant to convey.

Perhaps a better tactic is to adopt a more technical subcategory of definition, such as "cosmogony." Ryken
and Longman offer a helpful definition and description of ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew creation stories
(cosmogony) and pre-scientific worldview (cosmology):

108
Tobin, "Myths," in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 2:464-65 [464-69].
109
Tobin, "Myths," in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 2:468 [464-69].
110
Jacobus van Dijk, "Myth and Mythmaking in Ancient Egypt," in Jack M. Sasson, ed. et al., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Volume III
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995) 1699 [1697-1709].
111
112
Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker 2005), 50.
113
I am indebted to my colleague, Dr. Hall W. Harris III, professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, for his kind
service in calling this passage in C.S. Lewis to my attention.

32
 The common theme and goal of creation narratives and cosmological speculation in any era, ancient or modern, is a
coherent articulation of the forces (divine or natural) that will account for the observable universe. In any culture this
usually entails a positing of the unseen (forces or personified forces usually understood as deities) acting upon the
seen (natural world) and an elaboration of the role they play from the beginning of time until the end. The goal of any
creation story is to explain the events by which the gods (or God, in the case of the Hebrews) brought order out of
chaos and to elaborate the ongoing struggle against the forces of chaos and evil that continually attempt to subvert
and uncreate the universe.114

Genesis 1 is Not Scientific Treatise but Ancient Israelite

Yahwistic Cosmogony Reflecting Prescientic Cosmology

Many Christians argue that Genesis 1 is a literal account of how God actually created the universe. Therefore,
the argument goes, it must be scientifically accurate. And, if it is not scientifically accurate, it cannot be true. But
since it is God's word, it must be true and so scientifically accurate. Ironically, many non-Christians view Genesis 1
in similar way: If Genesis is God's word, it must be true and thus scientifically accurate. However, since Genesis 1 is
so obviously not scientifically accurate, it must not be true and cannot really be the word of God. Both approaches
are naïve. They assume the only legitimate way to talk about origin is by using scientific method. However, it is
inconceivable to think that thousands of years ago God would have written about creation in scientific terms in a
way that ancient Israel would not have been able to understand and that would have been meaningful only to
Westerners several thousand years later in the 20th and 21st centuries. That is a form of modernist arrogance.
Instead, Genesis 1 talks about creation in a way that would have been meaningful to ancient Near Eastern people.
It uses pre-scientific imagery that they would have understood and that they themselves had even used in their
own creation myths. This is a case of contextualization—God meeting ancient people where they were at in their
pre-scientific worldview, and accommodating—dare we say—their mythical way of speaking about origin.115

To take this approach does not give ground to liberalism or loose hold of biblical inerrancy. Rather, it
recognizes Genesis 1 was originally written in an ancient context within which it was first understood. That ancient
context was not the modern scientific world but the ancient Near East where people thought about creation in pre-
scientific terms and talked about it using mythological symbolism. To be sure, mythological symbolism is not
scientific, but that does not mean it is untrue.

114
s.v., "Cosmology," in Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1998) 1769.
115
This point is also made by Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker
2005) 49-55.

33
 Appendix C:
Ancient Egyptian and Israelite Cosmology as
Phenomenological Imagery and Cosmic Geography

Ancient Near Eastern and Israelite Conception

of the Cosmological Structure of the World

The world looked much different to ancient Near East man than it does to modern Westerners. Both look at
the same phenomena of nature, but interpret these elements through radically different worldviews. It is one thing
to describe what ancient Israel's conception of the world looked like. It is another matter to engage the
hermeneutical implications of ancient Israelite conceptions of the world.

Primordial Waters/Cosmic Deep (Gen 1:2)

In Egyptian cosmology, mythological primeval waters originally encompassed what would become the
known universe. This primeval sea was pre-existent, eternal, uncreated. We are not told from whence this cosmic
sea came—it was simply there from eternity. It is the personification of the primeval god Nun and the source from
which the creator Atum sprang. When Atum awoke to self-consciousness, he created a dry void in the primordial
waters, creating the sphere of the created world.116 Thus, all of creation ultimately came out of the primordial
waters, occasionally referred to as the "father" or "mother" of creation.

According to Gen 1:2, the pre-creation cosmos also consisted of a primordial watery deep shrouded in
darkness. Advocates of scientific creationism typically misread v. 2, equating these cosmic waters with a terrestrial
ocean that encompassed the globe during the Precambrian period. However, the primordial waters of the cosmic
"deep" (téhôm) of the pre-creation universe are distinct from the terrestrial waters (oceans), which were not
formed until Day 2 (1:6-8).117 In any case, the Genesis cosmogony begins by describing these primordial waters (1:2).
We are not told from whence they came—they are simply there. When creation begins, everything ultimately takes
its origin from the waters. While they sound like the ancient Egyptian concept of the mythical primordial waters
that encompassed the entire cosmos prior to creation, and after creation resides above the sky (heavenly ocean)
and below the earth (waters of the netherworld). Unless we are prepared to suggest that the universe was actually
filled with an infinite ocean of H20 prior to God's fashioning of the earth and planets, we probably have no other
choice than to say that the cosmic "deep" (téhôm) and the "waters" (måyim) of v. 2 reflect the ancient pre-scientific
conception of the cosmos. In other words, the primordial waters of v. 2 did not correspond to the actual scientific
make-up of the universe before creation, but did correspond to ancient pre-scientific conceptions of the
precreation cosmos. In scientific terms, nothing actually existed prior to God's creation of the universe. In ancient
Near Eastern mythological terms, nothing actually existed prior to God's creation—nothing, that is, except for the
nothingness of the primordial waters, nothing but a lifeless, formless Monad of emptiness.

116
At some point in the remote future, according to one version of Egyptian eschatology, these primordial waters wlll once again
overwhelm the created world. The universe will sink back into its original state of chaos, nothingness and infinite sea.
117
To be sure, the term måyim ("waters") is used of both the cosmic deep (1:2) and the terrestrial ocean (1:6-7, 9-10, 20-22). However, it is
overly simplistic to simply equate the two. The term måyim also is used here of the heavenly ocean (1:6-7) and also elsewhere of the waters
of the netherworld (2 Sam 22:16; Pss 18:15; Isa 42:10; Amos 9:3; Jonah 2:6-7; cf. Deut 30:13). The term måyim in Gen 1 is used of the primordial
waters, the terrestrial ocean and the heaven ocean because the terrestrial ocean and the heavenly ocean were both created on Day 2 (Gen
1:6-8) out of the pre-existent primordial waters (1:2). This is why other passages depict God holding back the heavenly ocean (Ps 93:4) or
battling against the primordial sea in the form of the terrestrial ocean (Job 7:12; 26:12; 38:8; Pss 89:9[10]; Prov 8:29; Jer 5:22). Both were
created out of the primordial chaos waters, so continually threaten to engulf the created world. Once in the past, God unleashed these
waters to overwhelm the created world (Gen 6:17). In the biblical version of eschatology, however, God will vanquish the primordial
waters of chaos once-and-for all (Rev 21:1; cf. Isa 27:1; Dan 7:2-3).

34
The Heavenly Ocean and the Cosmic Dam
The Waters Above the Firmament (1:6-8)

In Egyptian cosmic geography, the three elements—earth, air, sky—are alive. The sky is the goddess Nut,
the ground is her husband Geb, the dry air between is Shu. Originally, Geb (ground) and Nut (sky) were enjoying an
eternal embrace as husband and wife. However, creation of the material world began when Shu (dry air) separated
the two lovers to create inhabitable space for Atum to reside. Egyptian iconography shows Shu standing with feet
planted on Geb below and arms outstretched lifting Nut above. But the two lovers struggle against Shu; they want
to resume their embrace. Shu must continually hold back the heavenly ocean (sky). In one version, Shu is assisted
in this task by eight helpers (see Appendix).

Genesis 1 clearly rejects the Egyptian polytheistic deification of the sky, ground, and air. It does not, however,
dramatically distance itself from Egyptian cosmic geography. Day 2 pictures God constructing a cosmic water dam
(råqªá>), which he places in the middle of the primordial ocean (1:6). The term råqªá> … Longman and Ryken note,
"Firmamentum is the Latin translation for Hebrew råqªá>, a pounded brass dome over the earth, 'hard as a molten
mirror' (Job 37:18), which separates the waters from above from the waters below and keeps them from flooding
the world (Gen 1:7)."118 God constructed this cosmic dam to separate the primordial sea into two bodies: (1) the
waters above the råqªá> (aka the heavenly ocean), and (2) the waters below the råqªá> (1:6-8). God placed this
cosmic dam in the sky to hold up heavenly ocean and keep back its waters from inundating the world below. Once
in the past, however, God opened the sluice gates of this cosmic dam, inundating the world below (Gen 7:11; cf. 8:1).
Just as Shu's strength was required to hold up Nut (sky), the psalmist proclaims that the råqªá testifies to Yahweh's
strength in the sky (Ps 150:1). Perhaps reminiscent of the image of the outstretched arms and strong hands of Shu
holding up Nut (sky), the psalmist muses that the råqªá> exhibits "the work of His hands" ma>á∞ê yådåyw (Ps 19:1[2]).
In Genesis 1:6-7, the sky separates the waters below it and above it. The waters below are confined to one place
and called "seas" (1:10), allowing the dry land to appear. A heavenly ocean is located above the sky and thus above
the sun, moon, and stars, which are placed in the sky below the heavenly ocean (1:14-19).

Numerous recent studies help us better understand the pre-scientific conception of the world Israel shared
with her ancient Near Eastern neighbors.119 The concept of the heavenly ocean and cosmic dam is mentioned in
numerous ancient Near Eastern texts and even pictured in pieces of ancient Near Eastern art and iconography. For
example, in a piece of Mesopotamian art dating to the 9th century BC, we find a scene depicting the sun god
Shamash sitting enthroned above the heavenly ocean, under which appears the soon, moon, and stars (see figure
below). Mettinger writes:

The solar deity Shamash is sitting on his throne, which is placed on a stylized cosmic mountain. Beneath the canopy
we see the symbols of the three celestial deities—Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar. Under the throne are a number of wavy
lines, at the bottom of which we see a base. Clearly the waves lines represent the celestial ocean. Indeed, an
inscription above the canopy states explicitly that Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar are situated "above the ocean." Beneath
the heavenly ocean is a slab which, like the biblical "firmament," divides the waters above from those beneath (1:7).
Four stars have been placed upon this "firmament" (cf. 1:14-19).120

118
s.v., "Cosmology," in Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1998) 170.
119
For example, Nicholas J. Tromp, The Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, Biblica et Orientalia 21
(Rome: Pontificium Biblica Press, 1969); Louis I.J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, Analecta Biblica 39 (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Press, 1970); R.J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972);
Othmar Keel, "Conceptions of the Cosmos," 15-60 in The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of
Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997); Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1998).
120
T.N.D. Mettinger, "YHWH SABAOTH—the Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne," in T. Ishida, ed., Studies in the Period of David and
Solomon, 119 (drawing on p. 120). I am indebted to my colleague, Dr. Robert B. Chisholm, for drawing my attention to this text in his
unpublished 2004 paper, "The Structure of the World According to Genesis," 2 and n. 4. Chisholm also calls attention to L.W. King,
Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum, 121; Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 172-74. For
other studies of the heavenly ocean in the Old Testament, Chisholm notes Klaus Seybold, Introducing the Psalms, 182-83; Luis Stadelmann,
The Hebrew Conception of the World, 46-48.

35
 While the heavenly ocean and cosmic dam of Gen 1 share much in common with the Mesopotamian version
noted by Mettinger, it is more closely related to the Egyptian version. In the Mesopotamian version, the sun and
stars reside above the heavenly ocean and cosmic dam; from earth below their light can only be seen shining
through windows in the heavenly palace. Genesis 1 reflects the Egyptian version since the sun, moon and stars
were placed upon the råqªá> and so below the heavenly ocean (1:14-19). Other passages in the Old Testament reflect
the Mesopotamian version: "The LORD sits enthroned above the engulfing waters (lammabbûl), the LORD sits
enthroned as the eternal king" (Ps 29:10, NET). Ezekiel pictures the råqªá> as a glistening domelike celestial ceiling
under which the stars reside and above which God sits on his heavenly throne (Ezek 1:22-26; 10:1). Daniel also
associates the shining stars with the brightness of the råqªá> (Dan 12:3). Psalm 19:4-6 pictures the sun traveling
across the sky each day, perhaps reflecting the Egyptian concept of the sun's daily voyage across the sky (heavenly
ocean) in a heavenly boat. The elasticity of biblical descriptions of the heavenly ocean and cosmic dam, as well as
their relationship to the sun and stars, graphically testifies to the extent of the contextualization of biblical
cosmology. The rich diversity of the biblical cosmologies mirrors the Egyptian, Syro-Phoenician, and Mesopotamian
varieties. The refusal of Scripture to commit itself to a single, normative depiction of the cosmological structure of
the world suggests that God was not as concerned about revealing the actual scientific ontological structure of the
cosmos to the ancient world, as much as contextualizing his self-revelation as the Creator in a manner that ancient
Near Eastern people could understand.

36
 Heavenly Ocean: Extravagant Figurative Imagery or
Ancient Pre-scientific Concept of Cosmic Geography?

The ancient Israelite and Near Eastern writers described their visible world with phenomenological language
of appearance.121 The sun rises and sets,122 the earth is a flat disk surrounded by oceans at its four corners, remote
mountains hold up the celestial dome of the sky, the sky is pitched like a tent stretching from one end of the earth
to the other, a cosmic dam holds back the heavenly ocean above. They also conceived of the unseen world (external
universe outside the experience of humans living within the internal universe) in terms of cosmic geography.123 God
and the spirit beings reside above the world in heaven, the primeval enemies of chaos lurk in the regions below in
hell/Sheol. Occasionally the visual representation of the visible world merges with the conceptions of the cosmic
geography of the unseen world. The rain that falls down from the sky above pours through the sluice gates of the
heavenly ocean or comes through the lattice windows of the heavenly palace. The roaring waves crashing against
the seashore surge up from the primeval waters of the netherworld threatening to reclaim the dry ground and
return the cosmos to chaos.

This imagery clearly pictures the physical world in terms of a pre-scientific view of the structure of the
cosmos. Such statements are not to be taken as literal descriptions of the actual ontological structure of the
universe, but represent God's contextualized revelation to an ancient, pre-scientific audience to whom a modern,
scientifically informed description of the universe surely would have been bewildering. Such phenomenological
language is no greater obstacle to hermeneutics nor challenge to inerrancy than other biblical imagery picturing (1)
the sun rising and setting,124 (2) the sun and stars not appearing during a storm,125 (3) the sun twice standing still in
the middle of the sky,126 (4) the sun being darkened and the moon not giving its light whenever God judges the
nations or whenever an individual human dies,127 and (5) the sun scorching people living on earth with its flames.128

Scripture contains conceptions of the cosmic geography of heaven and hell, which lay beyond the scope of
human observation. Biblical descriptions of these unknown regions are not phenomenological but speculative
extensions of what can be observed: the sky above and the ground below. Isaiah pictures God enthroned above a
domed arch (˙ûg ¡åmayim lit. "vault of heaven") stretched over the sky like a tent stretching across the horizon,
separating the world below from the dwelling of God above (Isa 40:22).129 Job pictures the sky as a domed arch
(˙ûg ¡åmayim lit. "vault of heaven") upon which God strolls on his path (Job 22:14).130 The sage refers to the "dome"
(˙ûg) that dams up the heavenly ocean, preventing it from flooding the earth below (Prov 8:27; cf. Gen 1:7; 7:11).131

121
For example, see James K. Hoffmeier, s.v., "Cosmogony," in George Arthur Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) 1:702-703; L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 37-60; Othmar Keel, The Symbolism
of the Biblical World, 172-74; Izak Cornelius, "The Visual Representation of the World in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible," Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages 20 (1994) 193-218; Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998);
Alan P. Dickin, On a Faraway Day … A New View of Genesis in Ancient Mesopotamia (Columbus, GA: Brentwood Christian Press, 2002) 122;
Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker 2005) 54.
122
Gen 15:12, 17; 19:23; 28:11; 32:31; Exod 17:12; 22:3, 26; Lev 22:7; Deut 4:41; 11:30; 16:6; 23:11; 24:13, 15; Josh 1:4; 8:29; 10:27; Jdgs 5:31; 9:33;
14:18; 19:14; 2 Sam 2:24; 3:35; Pss 50:1; 104:19, 22; 113:3; Eccl 1:5; Isa 41:25; 45:6; 59:19; Dan 6:14; Jon 4:8; Mic 3:6; Nah 3:17; Mal 1:11; Matt 5:45;
13:6; Mark 4:6; 16:2; Luke 4:40; Jas 1:11; Rev 7:2.
123
For example, see James K. Hoffmeier, s.v., "Cosmogony," in George Arthur Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) 1:702-703; L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 37-60; Othmar Keel, The Symbolism
of the Biblical World, 172-74; Izak Cornelius, "The Visual Representation of the World in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible," Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages 20 (1994) 193-218; Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998);
Alan P. Dickin, On a Faraway Day … A New View of Genesis in Ancient Mesopotamia (Columbus, GA: Brentwood Christian Press, 2002) 122ff.
124
Gen 15:12, 17; 19:23; 28:11; 32:31; Exod 17:12; 22:3, 26; Lev 22:7; Deut 11:30; 16:6; 23:11; 24:13, 15; Josh 1:4; 8:29; 10:27; Jdgs 5:31; 9:33; 14:18;
19:14; 2 Sam 2:24; 3:35; Pss 50:1; 104:19, 22; 113:3; Eccl 1:5; Isa 41:25; 45:6; 59:19; Dan 6:14; Jon 4:8; Mic 3:6; Nah 3:17; Mal 1:11; Matt 5:45; 13:6;
Mark 4:6; 16:2; Luke 4:40; Jas 1:11; Rev 7:2.
125
Acts 27:20.
126
Josh 10:12, 13; Hab 3:11.
127
Eccl 12:2; Isa 13:10; 24:23; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Mark 24:29; Mark 13:24; Acts 2:20; Rev 6:12; 9:2.
128
Rev 16:8.
129
See K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 1:83.
130
See especially, J.E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1988) 329-30.
131
The noun ˙ûg "circle, vault" (only Job 22:14; Prov 8:27; Isa 40:22) and the related verb ˙ûg "to draw a circle" (only Job 26:10) are only used
with reference to creation. In each case, it refers to the circular boundary of the sky and its distant horizon that marks the dividing line
between the world inhabited by humans below and the dwelling place of God above (TDOT 4:244-47; NIDOTTE §2553). Job 26:10 and Prov
8:27 describe God drawing a circle upon the distant horizon of the surface of the waters as the boundary between light and darkness at
the ends of the earth (cf. Gen 1:6-8).

37
Amos pictures the universe as a divine palace founded on the earth and extending into the heavens: "He builds the
upper rooms of his palace in heaven, and sets its foundation supports on the earth" (Amos 9:6).132

The Bible also contains ancient pre-scientific conceptions of hell as located below the earth,133 Sheol located
in the waters of the netherworld, and heaven as located above the earth just beyond the sky.134 Sheol is
alternatively pictured as a monster whose gaping mouth consume its victims, as an eternal prison whose barred
gates close forever behind its prisoners, and as a cosmic underground cistern grave whose inhabitants are
awakened from their eternal sleep whenever the newly deceased descend into its pit.

In the modern scientific world, we regularly use phenomenological language to describe the world as it
appears. We know the earth rotates on its axis every day and travels around the sky once a year. Yet we conspire
to talk about the sunrise and sunset—to describe a beautiful earth rotation seems odd, albeit more scientifically
accurate but less poetic. When we find biblical statements of the sun rising and setting, we call this
phenomenological language of appearance. Do we simply bypass the hermeneutical issue when we find these kinds
of things in Scripture and label them as "phenomenological"? Surely, when we say such things it is
phenomenological from our modern viewpoint since we know better. But was all this "phenomenological" from
the pre-scientific worldview of ancient Israelite and Near Eastern writers? Did they also know better, but simply
speak in the metaphors of language of appearance? Or did they really believe the sun rose and set, the earth was
flat, heaven was up and Sheol was down, rain pours down from the heavenly ocean, and a cosmic dam (råqªá>) held
back the waters above from inundating the dry ground below? Did they have a heliocentric view of the cosmos and
a geocentric cosmology? Did God reveal the actual scientific structure of the universe to the biblical authors, but
they spoke in the conventional metaphorical terms of their culture, although they themselves really knew better,
just as we modern Westerners do today? Did they know better than they wrote, or did they write what they
believed? Ryken and Longman aptly pose this question in a brief essay on biblical cosmology:

The common theme and goal of creation narratives and cosmological speculation in any era, ancient or
modern, is a coherent articulation of the forces (divine or natural) that will account for the observable universe. In
any culture this usually entails a positing of the unseen (forces or personified forces usually understood as deities)
acting upon the seen (natural world) and an elaboration of the role they play from the beginning of time until the end.
The goal of any creation story is to explain the events by which the gods (or God, in the case of the Hebrews) brought
order out of chaos and to elaborate the ongoing struggle against the forces of chaos and evil that continually attempt
to subvert order and uncreate the universe.
The task of identifying and communicating the attributes and roles of such forces taxes the human vocabulary
to the limit and invokes the fullest use of the imagination through appeals to symbols, metaphors and analogies based
inevitably on experience of the observable world. In assessing older cosmologies the inescapable conundrum of
metaphor resurfaces. Did the ancients intend their metaphors as analogies, or did they really believe them? (Modern
cosmologies usually make clear that their analogies are not to be taken literally, but are merely concessions to the
uninitiated and ignorant lay person.) The simplicity, beauty and supreme literary art of the descriptions (usually
couched in poetry) of the ancient authors suggest a consummate skill in the manipulation of verbal images on a par
with any modern author or composition.
This mastery urges us to view these authors as peers, which they are; but in so doing we risk assuming that
their view of the cosmos is, like ours, informed by empirical and quantifiable study. It is not. (A twentieth-century
cosmology violates the innocence of the ancient text.) Subsequent interpreters of the ancient texts understood the
metaphors in an extremely literal way, suggesting that the authors themselves may also have conceived of their
images in a very concrete way. If this is so, then the images of ancient poetry, including those preserved in the OT,
reflect an actual view of the cosmos—a view so different from our own that to understand it we must set aside our
own assumptions about the universe.135

It is inconceivable that ancient Israelite authors described the world as flat and the sun rising and setting, knowing
that it really was round and rotated around the sun, then managed to conceal these scientific facts from their
contemporaries. Perhaps most evangelicals would be willing to say this was the case when Jesus spoke about the
sun rising and setting. On the other hand, perhaps this was a startling aspect of his kenosis and self-limitation of his
omniscience in the incarnation. It is a bit unsettling to think that we might have a more scientifically accurate

132
For discussion, see B. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Amos, 845-46; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 389.
133
Matt 5:29, 30; 10:28; 11:23; Mark 9:43, 45; Luke 12:5; 16:23; Phil 2:10; 2 Pet 2:4.
134
Matt 11:23; 14:19; Mark 16:19; Luke 2:15; 3:22; John 1:51; 3:13, 31; 6:33, 38, 50, 51, 58; Acts 1:10, 11; 3:21; 7:49, 55; 11:9; Rom 10:6; 1 Cor 8:5;
15:47; 2 Cor 12:2; Phil 2:10; 1 Thess 4:16; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 19:11, 14; 20:1; 21:2, 10.
135
s.v., "Cosmology," in Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1998) 169.

38
understanding of the world than its incarnate Creator! But if Luke could unashamedly report that Jesus "grew in
wisdom and knowledge, in favor with God and men" (Luke 2:44), was this perhaps a startling feature of his
willingness to fully contextualize himself with humanity?136 Even if this was not the case with Jesus, surely the
ancient Israelite authors believed the world was much they way they described it. At least, later interpreters
understood the ancient Israelite cosmology to correspond to reality. Second Temple period non-canonical Jewish
literature depicts floodgates of the heavenly ocean opening at the time of the Flood.137 According to Jubilees 5, the
Lord opened "the seven floodgates of heaven" (v. 24) which "sent down water" for forty days and nights (v. 25).
Eventually, "the floodgates of heaven were held shut" (v. 29) and the excess water drained into "the mouths of the
deeps of the earth" (vv. 29-30). According to 1 Enoch 89, there was "a lofty ceiling with seven cascading streams
upon it; and those cascading streams flowed with much water into one enclosed area" (vv. 2-3). After the
Floodwaters killed all life on earth, "the cascading streams were dissipated from that high ceiling," and the excess
water drained into pits in the ground (vv. 7-8).

Josephus said that on Day 2 God created a "celestial ocean" that is still held in place by the firmament.138
Evidently, Calvin also took these statements at face value: he even appealed to the "heavenly ocean" in Genesis 1
as apologetic evidence that Scripture was scientifically accurate—at least scientifically accurate as defined by the
standards of his day.139 We are all too well aware of how vociferously the Catholic Church resisted the scientific
evidence presented by Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1633) for their heretical views that the earth revolved
around the sun, when Scripture not only says that the sun rises and sets (Gen 15:17), but also journeys from one
horizon to the other during the day (Ps 19), then hastens through the regions of the underworld during the night
to rise again the next day (Eccl 1).

If we have learned anything since the Age of the Enlightenment, it is that the pre-scientific worldview of the
biblical authors affected how they thought and what they wrote; their cosmological views must be taken into
account in matters of hermeneutics, interpretation and theology—particularly in how we define and defend biblical
inspiration and inerrancy.140 To borrow a phrase from John Stott, as biblical scholars we must negotiate the
harrowing path "between two worlds," the ancient pre-scientific world of the ancient Israelite authors and the
modern scientific world in which we live and proclaim the eternal truth of God.

Spectrum of Hermeneutical Options

While our expectation for truth resides in the author, not in his audience, the biblical authors undoubtedly
took into account the situation of their audience, with whose worldview the author shared (aka what Hirsch refers
to as "shared types"). So what we expect to be true resides in the purpose of the author (the illocutionary force).141
The author surely intends to inform and persuade, but at what level of historical and conceptual worldview is he
intending to inform? Perhaps we can think of the options for understanding the cosmological structure of the world
presented in Genesis 1 as follows.142

1. completely scientific: no phenomenological accommodation heavenly ocean exists above cosmos: scientifically true
2. phenomenological appearance: scientifically compatible sky looks like heavenly ocean: scientifically compatible
3. completely phenomenological: neither scientific nor mythological sky looks like heavenly ocean: neither science nor myth
4. phenomenological appearance: mythologically expressed sky looks like heavenly ocean: mythologically expressed
5. completely mythological: no scientific or phenomenological reality heavenly ocean exists above cosmos: completely mythic

136
Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker 2005) 56.
137
I am indebted to my friend and colleague for calling these Second Temple Period references to my attention: Robert B. Chisholm, Jr.,
"The Structure of the World According to Genesis," unpublished paper 2004, page 3 note 6.
138
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, §1.1
139
Citation forthcoming.
140
This is the point raised by Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 15. This issue, of course, is why some of the questions Enns has raised are so
important, and also why evangelical responses to his recent book are so sharply divided about his suggestions of how to address the
vexing relationship between biblical inerrancy and the pre-scientific worldview of the ancient Israelite authors.
141
See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, "The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture's Diverse Literary Forms," in D.A. Carson and John D.
Woodbridge, eds., Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 53-104.
142
I am indebted to my colleagues in the Biblical Division of Dallas Theological Seminary for the idea of representing the spectrum of the
hermeneutical options in this kind of discussion in this kind of manner. This particular plotting of the major hermeneutical options dealing
with the primeval waters and heavenly ocean is my own doing. My colleagues are exempt from my own errors.

39
 Identity of the "Waters Above the Firmament" (Genesis 1:6-8):
Antediluvian Vapor Canopy or ANE Concept of the Heavenly Ocean?

Popular level evangelicalism features widespread belief in an alleged antediluvian water vapor canopy that
supposedly encompassed the world before the Flood but afterward disappeared when its contents were
disgorged. This notion of a putative vapor canopy attempted to provide a scientific explanation for several sets of
extraordinary but otherwise diverse phenomena in what was thought to be confined to the opening chapters of
Genesis: (1) waters above the sky, 1:6-8; (2) floodgates of heaven opening to flood the earth, 7:11 (cf. 8:2); and (3)
longevity of antediluvian forefathers, 5:3-32 (cf. 6:3; 9:28-29; 11:10-32). The vapor canopy thesis was given the
appearance of scientific hypothesis, at least in the eyes of popular level evangelicalism, with the publications of the
"scientific creationist" movement. It is no exaggeration to observe that the bedrock of this model was based largely
on the publication of Dillow's scientific defense of the vapor canopy hypothesis. This entire programme, however,
lies vulnerable to three serious problems.

First, recent scientific analysis has raised serious questions about the scientific viability of the vapor canopy
hypothesis. Once the consensus view of scientific creationists and young earth advocates, numerous young earth
creationists and members of the ICR have moved away from the theory. According to several recent scientific
studies by Christian scientists, the vapor canopy theory simply does not "hold water" (!).143

Second, the vapor canopy theory fails to do justice to biblical data when it assumes the heavenly ocean
disappeared after the Flood. In the cosmic geography of ancient Israel, however, this heavenly ocean continues to
exist even after the Flood (e.g., 2 Kgs 7:2, 19; Pss 29:10; 104:13; 148:4; Isa 24:18; Jer 10:13; 51:16; Mal 3:10). The
floodgates that opened to inaugurate the Flood (Gen 7:11) closed to conclude the Flood (8:2). This closing of the
floodgates does not signal the demise of the canopy. Biblical passages describing the postdiluvian world refer to
the heavenly floodgates opening again, whenever God sends down abundant rain to bless rather than curse the
earth (2 Kgs 7:2, 19; Ps 104:13; Mal 3:10). Furthermore, the Hebrew expression in the Flood account is literally "the
lattice-windows of heaven" <árubbøt ha¡¡åmayim (Gen 7:11; 8:2).144 This reflects the ancient Near Eastern conception
of the heavenly palace of the storm god equipped with windows that open to pour down rain upon the earth.145
The ancient Israelites also conceived of the snow, hail, and wind locked up in the "storehouses" of the heavenly
palace, ready to be unleashed on the world below (Deut 28:12; 32:34; Jer 10:13; 50:25; 51:16; Mal 3:10; Pss 33:7; 135:7;
Job 38:22).146 For example:

The LORD sits enthroned over the engulfing waters,

the LORD sits enthroned as the eternal king. (Psalm 29:10)

He waters the mountains from the upper rooms of his palace;

the earth is full of the fruit you cause to grow. (Psalm 104:13)

Praise him, O highest heaven,

and you waters above the sky! (Psalm 148:4)

The one who runs away from the sound of the terror will fall into the pit;
the one who climbs out of the pit will be trapped by the snare.
For the floodgates of the heavens will opened up
and the foundations of the earth will shake. (Isaiah 24:18)

When his voice thunders, the waters in the heavens roar.

He makes the clouds rise from the far-off horizons.
He makes the lightning flash out in the midst of the rain.
He unleashes the wind from the places where he stores it. (Jer 10:13//Jer 51:16)

143
For convenient on-line essays, see Walt Brown, "Scientific Arguments Opposing a Canopy" (2006); Glenn Morton, "The Demise and Fall
of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea" (2000); Larry Vardiman & Karen Bousselot, "Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy
Temperature Profiles" (1998). Links for these may be retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_canopy". For a major proponent
supporting the vapor canopy, see the Kent Hovind link: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind".
144
The term <árubbâ "window lattice" refers to windows of a house that open and shut (Isa 60:8; Hos 13:3; Eccl 12:3) and the windows of
the heavenly palace that open to pour down rain (Gen 7:11; 8:2; 2 Kgs 7:2, 19; Isa 24:18; Mal 3:10).
145
see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 46.
146
The term <ôßår has a threefold range of meanings: (1) "storehouse" of resources, (2) "treasury" of riches, and (3) "armory" of military
weapons. The elements of the snow, hail, ice, wind, and rain are alternately pictured as stored up in the heavenly storehouses as the
resources of divinely sent blessings to fructify the earth, or as divine weaponry stockpiled in God's "ammunition dump" for use in times of
battle (cf. Josh 10:11; Exod 9:2-3; Isa 28:17; 30:30; Ps 18:12[13]).

40
 Bring the tithe into the storehouse so there may be food in my temple. Test me to see if I will not
open for you the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing until there is no room for it all. (Mal 3:10)

An officer responded to the prophet, “Even if the LORD made it rain by opening holes in the sky,
could this happen so soon?” Elisha said, “You will see it happen with your own eyes!” (2 Kgs 7:2//7:19)

Third, the scientific vapor canopy model wrecks havoc with the cosmic geography of Genesis 1. On Day 2,
God constructed the råqªá> (trad. "firmament") as a cosmic dam to separate the primeval waters into two bodies
with the heavenly ocean located above this cosmic dam, that is, the waters above the råqªá> (vv. 6-7). This råqªá>
(heavenly dam), called "sky" (¡åmåyim) in v. 8, reflects the ancient conception of the sky as a blue vaulted dome
stretching above the world, composed of a shiny translucent fabric revealing the blue heavenly ocean above. In the
pre-scientific conception of the world, the sky was a heavenly ocean since it was blue in color and pours down
water.147 To identify these "waters above the råqªá>" with a dense canopy of water vapor runs aground in vv. 14-19.
On Day 4, when God "made" (wayya>a∞) the sun, moon and stars (v. 15), then "placed" (wayyiten) them "in the
firmament of the sky" birqªá> ha¡¡åmåyim (vv. 17). Since the heavenly ocean (the waters above the råqªá>) is located
above the firmament (vv. 6-7), the sun, moon and stars placed in the firmament (v. 17) must be located under the
heavenly ocean! To identify the heavenly ocean with a putative water vapor canopy would demand that the canopy
encompass, not merely the globe, but the entire universe! While this fits the ancient pre-scientific phenomenological
conception of the world, it clearly flies in the face of our modern scientific understanding of the cosmos. It is ironic
that the vapor canopy theory, originally designed as a scientific defense of the Genesis cosmology, on closer
investigation ends up as a fanciful model that defies any rational scientific understanding of the cosmos.

Are Depictions of Specific Creative Acts

Of God in Genesis 1 Also Contextualized?

Some Christians are willing to accept the idea that Genesis 1 draws on ancient Near Eastern myths, but only
if this means that it does so only for the sake of polemic. In other words, the biblical author knows better and does
not really embrace the mythical view of creation presented in Genesis 1. Rather, he only uses ancient Near Eastern
mythical imagery to refute the mythology on its own terms. To be sure, Genesis 1 contains an element of polemic.
Viewed against the background of ancient Egyptian creation mythology, it boldly asserts that Yahweh is the true
Creator—an implicit refutation of the various Egyptian creator gods. Although Genesis 1 is a clear polemic about
who created the world, it is not clear that it is a polemic about how he created the world. However, to argue that
all the mythical imagery in Genesis 1 appears only for the sake of polemic demands that Genesis 1 polemicizes not
only against the who but also the how.

That argument worked fine for a century when everyone assumed the main mythological backdrop of
Genesis 1 was the Babylonian epic of Enuma Elish. Conservatives emphasized the differences between the two,
trying to explain the similarities on the basis of polemic. Whereas Marduk was able to create only after doing battle
with Tiamat (personification of primeval waters of chaos), Yahweh was able to create by merely thinking a thought
and speaking a word.148 However, this tactic no longer works if we accept the thesis that the background was
Egyptian creation mythology. In the Memphite Theology, Ptah creates by thinking a thought in his heart and
speaking a word with his mouth. In the cosmogony Hermapolis, Atum also creates by thinking and speaking. No
doubt, there are stark differences between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation myths; but the means of creating the
material world is not one of them.

While Genesis 1 refutes the polytheism of Egyptian cosmogony, but it does not dramatically distance itself
from its putative acts of creation. In both Genesis 1 and Egyptian cosmogony, one of the first creative events is the
separation of the ground below and the sky above by the interlocution of the air/atmosphere. Though the what is
the same, the who is different. In the Egyptian viewpoint, the ground and sky (heavenly ocean) are the god Geb
and goddess Nut—divine husband and wife—whose eternal embrace must be separated by the air (Shu) to form
the inhabitable world. In Genesis, God forms the inhabitable world when he similarly separates the sky (heavenly
ocean) from the dry ground below by interposing the dry air between the two (Gen 1:6-8). The creative act of

147
Hebrew has another name for the clouds—in some cases, rain comes from the clouds, but in other cases, the rains pour down from the
heavenly ocean when its sluice gates are opened.
148
Another difference is that there is no cosmic battle against the primordial sea in Genesis 1 because Yahweh, unlike Marduk, has no rivals.
However, this approach to Genesis 1 undercuts the majesty of Yahweh in other biblical passages where Yahweh actually is shown doing
battle against the primeval waters of chaos. By this logic, Yahweh would then be no different than Marduk and would have genuine rivals.

41
separating dry ground and heavenly ocean by the creation of air between the two is strikingly similar; but the
identity of these three elements is dramatically different. In Egyptian myth, the three are deities—members of the
Great Ennead, material manifestations of Atum, and creator-gods themselves; in Genesis they are inanimate
elements—domains of the physical world which Yahweh, the sole transcendent God, created. Comparing Genesis
1 to Egyptian cosmogony, we find both similarity and difference: while the who (the Creator) is different, the what
(creative act) is similar. So, Genesis 1 rejects the polytheism of Egyptian cosmogony, but does not dramatically
distance itself from the way the Egyptians described the creative events. If we are unwilling to view the creative
events in the Egyptian myths as scientifically accurate, then we can hardly claim that the same event depicted in
Genesis 1 is scientifically accurate. We need to accept the idea that Genesis 1 is so thoroughly contextualized that
its depiction of God's creative activity is not what makes sense to modern scientific man. But it would have made
perfect sense to ancient pre-scientific Israel. Indeed, it would have communicated clearly to Israelites whose
worldview was profoundly shaped by centuries of life in Egypt and whose categories of cosmogony had been
inherited from their ancient culture.

Relationship of the Cosmogonic Activity Depicted in Genesis 1

and the "Actual" Historical/Scientific Activity of God in Creation

As the opening chapter in the biblical canon, Genesis 1 enjoys a privileged position as the best-known
creation account in Scripture. Due to its canonical placement, most Christians deem it the normative and original
creation account. In this view, it is not only the historically first creation account written by ancient Israel, but
preserves the original account orally passed down from Adam through many generations until it was composed in
the form in which it now appears. However, historical literary evidence shows that most ancient Near Eastern
cosmogonies were written before Genesis 1, while comparative evidence may suggest Genesis 1 was written in
response to some of these (particularly the Egyptian). When confronted with this kind of evidence, many Christians
propose the theory—and it is only a theory at best—that Genesis 1 must preserve the original account of what God
actually did in creation. The ancient Near Eastern accounts that predate Genesis 1 are pagan corruptions of the
original oral tradition; Genesis 1 corrects these myths by removing their polytheistic perversions of who created the
universe, and pre-scientific distortions of how God created the universe. According to their argument, Genesis 1
engages ancient Near Eastern creation myths simply to give us a purified account of creation. It now identifies the
real Creator, but also tells us how he actually created the universe, in a purified, undiluted, pristine form.

In theory, this sounds safe; in reality, it fails to deal with the historical evidence. According to the popular
level approach, the ultimate source of the Egyptian creation myths was the original oral tradition of the real creation
story, passed down from Adam but later corrupted by the Egyptians or their predecessors. Egyptologists, however,
would find this popular level explanation of the subject matter of their specialization to be naïve at best, laughable
at worst. As far back as I can trace, the consensus of Egyptologists long has been that the ancient Egyptian
cosmogonies originally arose from observation of the natural phenomena of their own world, which they
retrojected back into their etiological myths to explain the origin of their world. Vincent Arieh Tobin, a specialist in
ancient Egyptian creation myths, explains:

Myth had two main sources. One was the natural world, which humans perceived and interpreted by personalizing
the natural forces so as to relate to them. The other was historical individuals and incidents, which were idealized and
incorporated into myths as heroes or gods and their deeds. It is relatively easy to detect the natural sources of myth,
but identifying specific historical elements is often a matter of interpretation. The ultimate sources of myth are highly
complex, but in the final analysis, all myths reflect the reaction of the intellect to its background and environment.149

Origin of Egyptian Imagery of Primeval Waters and Primordial Hill:

Annual Inundation of Nile and Recession of Waters from Hillocks

Egyptologists agree that Heliopolis derived its creation myth from the analogy of the dominant generative
act in the ancient Egyptian world—the annual flooding of the Nile River. The analogy of the Watery Deep was
provided by the Nile. Its annual inundation flooded the Valley, seemingly overtaken by watery formlessness. As
the waters subdued the hillocks began to appear, their slimy mud glistening in the sunshine, rich with fertile
potential. When the waters of the Nile would subside, the ground was covered with fertile alluvian soil and teeming
with life. As the sun rose on the first day of the waters receding, the first isolated hillocks would appear in the midst

149
Vincent Arieh Tobin, "Myths," in Donald J. Redford, ed. et al., Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1002) 2:465 [464-69].

42
of the waters, teeming with life—frogs, snakes, eggs, and embryo. As light burst on the eastern horizon, life broke
forth on the newly fertilized ground. Thus, the dawn creation was conceived as the birth of Atum, the sun god,
whose rising in the east reenacted the original creation on a daily basis. This cosmogonic idea is associated with
Heliopolis and Hermapolis, both of which evolved out of the observation of nature. The antiquity of these cycles is
evident in that they both take their beginning from a fundamental entity, Nun (the primeval waters), the chaos
from which creation emerged. The symbol of Nun was derived at an early (probably prehistoric) date from the
flooding of the Nile; the primeval mound reflects the emergence of mounds that appeared as the waters subsided.

Previously, we suggested that the picture of the precreation chaotic waters in 1:2 and the emergence of the
dry ground in 1:6-8 is drawn from the ancient Egyptian mythic imagery of the primeval waters (Nun) and the
emergence of the primordial hillock (Tatenen). If indeed this Egyptian mythic imagery was originally drawn from
the ancients' observation from nature and an intellectual projection back into the hoary past of the creation of the
cosmos, it is difficult to claim that the Hebrew—which is drawing upon the Egyptian imagery—is a pristine
ontological scientifically framed "purified" account of creation.

Ancient Hebrews Drew on Their Own Creative Acts

To Metaphorically Describe God's Creative Activity

In considering its relationship to Egyptian cosmogony, James Hoffmeier, an evangelical Egyptologist, resists
all notions that the Hebrew author of Genesis 1 was trying to communicate a scientific explanation of creation,
much less reveal the actual (scientific) means that God actually used to create. It is metaphorical, if not mythopoeic:

To the Hebrews, cosmogony was not as it was to the Greeks—the search for the physical origin or central organic
principle of the universe—but simply the account of how the various natural phenomena within it had come to acquire
their functions vis-à-vis the life of man on earth. Hebrew conception of creation was mythopoeic rather than scientific,
issuing more out of imagination than out of empirical study of the created order. Accordingly, all efforts to reconcile
biblical cosmogony with modern science rests, in the final analysis, on a fundamental misunderstanding of its purport
and intent and on a naïve confusion between two distinct forms of mental activity.150

Hoffmeier's proposal is supported by the Hebrew words traditionally used to describe God's creative activity. Most
of the Hebrew terms are drawn from the arts and crafts. They describe mechanical fashioning of shapes or
biological birthing of a child, not metaphysical creation ex nihilo. Several Hebrew terms for God's creative activity
are drawn from the realm of human biological reproduction. For example, qånâ, "to birth [child]" (Gen 4:1), pictures
God creating the world (Gen 14:19,22)151 by giving it birth (Deut 32:6152; cf. Prov 8:22153).154 The Hebrew poets were
not even afraid to use the term ˙ûl, "to writhe [in pain]," used of a woman in the throes of labor giving birth to a
child,155 to depict God giving birth to his creation (Deut 32:18; Ps 90:2; cf. Prov 8:24). Other Hebrew terms for God's
creative activity are taken from the work of the craftsman. For example, the verb bårå<, often used of God's creative
activity and traditionally glossed "to create,"156 actually means "cut down [a tree]" (Josh 17:15, 18) or "cut out
[sculptured statue]" (Ezek 28:13).157 It is related to Arabic bry "to cut out [stone], pare leather." The verb yåßar,
often used of God's creative activity as well,158 literally means "to mold [pottery]."159 This is graphically reflected in
Genesis 2:7, which pictures God as Divine Potter molding, man out of clay (see Appendix A). In case after case, the
ancient Hebrews drew on their own context and contextualized their description of God's creativity activity.

150
James K. Hoffmeier, "Cosmogony," in George Arthur Buttrick, ed. et al., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1962) 1:702-703.
151
The related term in several other Northwest Semitic languages also convey this sense, e.g., Ugaritic qnyt <lm "Creatress of the gods,"
and Phoenician <l qn <rß "El, Creator of earth."
152
This reproductive imagery is clear in Deut 32:6, where qånâ "to beget" is paired with the divine epithet, <åbªkå "your father."
153
For discussion of this sense in Prov 8:22, see Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 279; William
McKane, Proverbs, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970) 352.
154
BDB 889.3; HAL 112.3.
155
Isa 13:8; 23:4; 26:17-18; 45:10; 51:2; 54:1; 66:7-8; Jer 6:24; 22:23; 50:43; Mic 4:9; Ps 48:6; Job 15:7; 39:1; cf. Ps 51:5; Job 15:7.
156
Gen 1:1, 21, 27; 2:3, 4; 5:1, 2; 6:7; Deut 4:32; 40:26, 28; 42:5; 45:12, 18; 54:16; 65:17; Ezek 21:30; 28:13, 15; Amos 4:13; Mal 2:10; Pss 89:47;
104:30; 148:5; Eccl 12:1.
157
For example, bårå< describes God creating the king of Babylon like a master craftsman carving an ornate, jewel-covered statue with
engravings of precious stones: "they were prepared on the day you were cut out" (Ezek 28:13).
158
Gen 2:7-8, 19; Isa 43:1, 7, 21; 44:2, 24; 45:18; Jer 1:5; 51:19; Amos 4:13; Zech 12:1; Pss 33:15; 74:17; 94:9; 95:5; 104:26; 139:16. See especially
the Divine Potter and human clay motif in Isa 29:16; 45:9; 64:8.
159
2 Sam 17:28; Isa 30:14; 41:25; 44:10, 12; Jer 18:2,3,4,6; 19:1, 11; Hab 2:18; Zech 11:13; Ps 2:9; Lam 4:2; 1 Chron 4:23.

43
 Figure A:
Representations of Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern
Conceptions of the Cosmological Structure of the World

Figure B:
Representation of the Ancient Egyptian
Cosmogonical/Theogonical Structure of the Cosmos

44
 Appendix D:
Genesis 2:7 and the Elephantine Tradition of Khnum and Heket
Man Formed from Clay and the Breath of Life Placed into Nostils

In Mesopotamian creation myths, man is formed from clay. For example, in Enuma Elish, Marduk forms man
out of clay mingled with the blood of Kingu or two Lamga gods (craftsmen gods).160 In the Atrahasis Epic (I, 210-12)
man is created from the flesh and blood of a slain god which is mixed with clay.161 Consequently, many scholars
assume that Genesis 2:7 is reflecting a Mesopotamian background when it depicts Yahweh forming the first man
out of clay. However, the Mesopotamian materials are missing a key element that appears in Genesis 2:7, namely,
putting/blowing the breath of life into man.

In 1933, Yahuda proposed that the author of Genesis adopted from Egypt the idea of creating man out of
clay and of animating him by blowing the breath of life into man.162 In 1982, Cyrus Gordon pointed out similarities
between the Egyptian and Hebrew traditions of man being formed from clay and the breath of life placed into his
nostrils.163 In the cosmogony of Elephantine, the Egyptian creator god, Khnum, is portrayed as a potter who creates
humans out of the clay mud of the Nile River on his potter's wheel. Similarly, Yahweh created man by forming him
out of the earth. While God is not called a potter in the Genesis 2, the verb yåßar "to form," "to fashion" (from the
noun yøßer "potter") seems to picture God as a potter. Furthermore, in many places in the OT, God is viewed as the
Divine Potter who formed mankind out of clay.164 Both Egyptian and Hebrew creation texts also use the phrase
"breath of life" to describe the life-giving force that the deity infused into the nostrils of the clay figure. However,
there is a dramatic difference between the Egyptian and Hebrew accounts. The Egyptian reliefs usually portray two
gods involved in the creation of man: Khnum, the potter god forms humans on his potter's wheel out of the clay of
the Nile, but Heket, one of his consorts, puts the breath of life (ankh) into man's nostrils, bringing it to life. On the
other hand, in Gen 2:7 it is Yahweh-Elohim who performs both functions.165

This notion was equally popular and of relative antiquity. Amenemope (12th century BCE) says, "Man is clay
and straw, God is his fashioner." Some texts dwell on the fabrication of the body as though it were a task for a
basket maker, and speak of "the tying on of heads, the affixing of necks, the knotting of backbones" (CT II, 37-38
Spell 80). Hoffmeier notes that the Egyptian tradition of Khnum is attested over a wide span of time, first appearing
in the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom Period (ca. 2800-2400 BC) down to a limestone relief in Hatshepsut's
temple at Deir el-Bahri in the New Kingdom Period (ca. 1485 BC).

The Hebrew verb yåßar "to form" frequently refers to the work of the potter "forming" a vessel from clay (Isa
29:16; Jer 18:2-6). The material from which man is made is >åpår "dust" or "particles of earth." The picture here is
reminiscent of Khnum forming man on the potter's wheel. A concept found as early as the Pyramid Texts (§§445, 522)
but not found in art until the 18th Dynasty.166 As Khnum forms man on the wheel, the goddess Hekat offers the clay
figure the breath of life to the nostrils. This motif is also found in Egyptian literature: "My life (<n∆.i) is in their nostrils,
I guide their breath into their throats" (CT II, 43).

160
Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 66-72.
161
W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard, Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford 1969) 21-22.
162
Yahuda proposes that the author of Genesis adopts from the Egyptians the idea of creating man out of clay and of animating him by
blowing the breath of life into man. Furthermore, he describes the creation of man in the “image of God” as a typical Egyptian conception
deriving from the belief that the first primeval god begat children “out of his body” thus bearing his likeness. Yahuda, The Accuracy of the
Bible, 146-7. Hoffmeier also comments on the “image of God” parallel. An Egyptian wisdom treatise from the 10th Dynasty, Merikare, states
that man is the “snnw of the creator-god. Snnw is derived from the word meaning ‘second’, hence ‘likeness’, ‘image’, and it is frequently
written with the statue for the determinative.” Hoffmeier, “Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2,” 47.
163
Cyrus H. Gordon, “Khnum and El,” in Scripta Hierosolymitana: Egyptological Studies, ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll, vol. 28 (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1982).
164
Gordon, "Khnum and El," 203-204.
165
Gordon, "Knum and El," 204.
166
E. Naville, Deir el-Bahri II (London 1896) plate 48.

45
 Amenemope discusses man's creation: "As for man, he is clay and straw, God is his builder" (Amenemope
25.13-14).167 The expression, "Giver of breath," is an epithet of Aten in the Great Hymn of Aten (II. 48-49).168 R.J.
Williams calls the concept of god placing breath into the nostrils of man as an "Egyptianism."169 While this view of the
creation of man in Egyptian literature is only one among several,170 it comes very close to the description found in Gen
2:7. We are led to the conclusion that this Egyptian view, which spans the time from the Old Kingdom to the end of
the New Kingdom, is closer to the Hebrew tradition than the Hebrew is to the Babylonian.
One final note on the Merikare text: in the lines which immediately precede the statement on placing the
breath of life in man's nostrils, we are told: "He made heaven and earth for their sake after he had subdued the
monster of the waters" (skn n mw) (II. 134-35).171 In the Old Testament, a number of monsters are encountered which
might find a parallel with Apophis (the serpent) or "the monster of the waters" of Merikare (cf. Isa 51:9-10; 27:1; Ps
89:9-12; Job 9:13-14; 26:12-13). In these passages, the monsters Leviathan (a serpent known from the Canaanite
sources), Tannin (also attested in Ugaritic) and Rahab of the sea (dragon = chaos?) are mentioned.172 Interestingly
enough, skn n mw of Merikare uses a crocodile for a determinative (I-3 of Gardiner's list). When such monsters are
mentioned in the Old Testament, it is actually a protest against the pagan view that such beasts pose a challenge to
the gods.173 In each biblical passage where these creatures are mentioned, God is shown to be their master or creator;
there is no struggle for supremacy.

James Currid, another evangelical Egyptologist, draws a similar conclusion based on the frequently used motif of
creation in terms of the divine potter:

Some of the images used in the Bible to represent God as the creator resemble those used by the Egyptians of their
creator-gods. An obvious example is the portrayal of the creator-gods as potters crafting the universe.174 That was a
metaphor employed frequently by the Hebrews to describe Yahweh (e.g., Isa 29:16; 45:9, 18). The Egyptians likewise
often represented their creator-gods in that way. So, in the Great Hymn to Khnum, the god Khnum was portrayed,
"Forming all on his potter's wheel … He made mankind, created gods, he fashioned flocks and herds. He made birds,
fishes, and reptiles all."175 Memphite Theology also depicted Ptah as a potter creating the universe.176

167
Amenemope 25.13-14 in H.O. Lange, Das Weisheitsbuch des Amenemope, Danske Vidensabernes selksab, historik-filogiske meddeleser
II/2 (1925) 126.
168
N. de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna 6 (London 1908) plates xxvii, xli.
169
R.J. Williams, "Some Egyptianisms in the Old Testament," Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson's 70th Birthday, Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization 35 (1969) 93-94.
170
Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 158-82.
171
All three witnesses of this passage read snk n mw (see W. Helck, Die Lehre für König Merikare, 83). However, Posener (Revue d'Egyptologie
7 (1905) 78-81, observes that snk appears to be a metathesis of snk "greed" (CDME 251; Wb. IV, 318) which uses the crocodile determinative.
172
Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 102ff.
173
Cassuto, Genesis, 37-39.
174
For an extensive discussion of this imagery, see Gordon, "Khnum and El," 203-14.
175
M. Lichteim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 3 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980) 113.
176
W.K. Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973) 262.

46
 Figure C:
Khnum the Potter God Fashioning Pharaoh (Hatshepsut) on His Potter's Wheel
and Heket His Consort Inserting the Breath of Life into the Nostrils
Note: Khnum Also Has Fashioned Man's "Double" (Ka)

47
 Appendix E:
Literary Sources of the Major Egyptian Creation Myths

Figure:
Pyramid at Shaqqara and Pyramid Texts from the Old Kingdom

Figure:
Coffin Texts from the Old Kingdom Period

48
 Figure:
Selected Chapters of the Book of the Dead
from the New Kingdom Period

49
50
 Figure:
Shabaka Stone (Representing the "Memphite Theology")
New Kingdom Copy of Old Kingdom Original

51