The Genre of Genesis 1

A question that comes up in the case of Genesis 1 is the following: what is its genre?[1] In terms of what conventions and expectations are we to read it?

It is a question most people ask, so I might as well address it. I happen to be a pastor in a just-about-anything-goes denomination, so I can speak my mind without fear of someone challenging my call to preaching and teaching if I cross one of someone else’s red lines.

 In general terms, it might first be observed that the narratives of Genesis 1-11, Genesis 12-50, and 2 Kings 11-25, for example, relate to history in diverse ways. The Primary History (Gen – 2 Kgs) reworks sources whose closest extra-biblical parallels, in terms of genre, range from myth to chronicle. It is not without interest that the myths the biblical text plays off of are demythologized in a variety of ways and recast in monotheistic terms.

 For its part, Genesis 1 might be called a cosmological treatise. Traces of myth are detectable, but they have been thoroughly resignified. The result, it seems to me, is absolutely striking: the refining power of the affirmation of a single, all-powerful creation-affirming God was so great that Genesis 1, which derives from that matrix, succeeds as does no other text, ancient or modern, in describing an orderly, intelligible, and positively splendid creation in which humankind is given awesome responsibilities by the author of all. It is not too much to say that the text has a scientific cast. It also provides cogent grounds for pursuing science in every imaginable direction.

 This is not to say that Gen 1 is meant as science as the term is usually understood. It aims far higher than that. It seeks to answer questions that are beyond the purview of science as conventionally defined.

 Here Thomas Aquinas got it right: theology properly understood is the queen of the sciences. From its theological viewpoint, Gen 1 is able to address questions with a full reconnaissance of data, questions which other sciences can only address in a fragmentary way. The subject matter of theology is God, of course. According to Gen 1, God is the creator of heaven and earth, who saw what he made and liked it very much. These affirmations entail many things the importance of which is difficult to overestimate.[2]

 But if Gen 1 is a cosmological treatise which plays off of and reworks motifs whose origin lies in the realm of myth rather than in history as these terms are usually understood, it is confusing to describe Gen 1 as “fully historical.”

 On this view of things, Genesis 1 is a scientific (=wissenschaftliche) text without having to be a historical (=historische) text.

 Another way of seeing things goes back to e.g. John Calvin and before that to Jewish tradition. On this view, the biblical text does not recast and demythologize pre-existing myth but is based on independent oral tradition transmitted by an unbroken chain extending from Moses back to Abraham, Noah, and Adam.

 On this view of things, the full historicity of the text in the sense of creation in seven days must be defended against all naysayers.

 But, as far as I can see, the view that imagines the book of Genesis and Gen 1 in particular to be a product of an unbroken chain of oral tradition extending back to Adam is a case of pure supposition which tradition, not the biblical text, deemed necessary to make in the light of the dangers of affirming a view like the one I affirmed above.

 Is it not rather the case that the fence which tradition builds around Scripture to preserve it from misunderstanding is, in this and other instances, a sign of little faith? Is it not true that apart from questions of genre and tradition history, the book of Genesis (and Gen 1 in particular) is a self-authenticating text? In theological terms, the text on its own, through the witness of the Holy Spirit, is sufficient to impress upon the one who reads it that she or he is in the presence of absolute truth.

That the well-wrought urn in which we find this truth turns out to be a cosmological treatise the motifs of which originate in part in the realm of myth, a sociologically unexceptionable but historically inaccurate genealogy, or a tribal legend recast and retold for a purpose dear to the heart of God, is beside the point.

 Those who find such earthen vessels objectionable suffer, it seems to me, from a lack of spiritual and intellectual discernment. Like Peter of old, who saw all manner of unclean things spread out before him in a dream, and heard God say, to his amazement, “Eat!”, those with scruples about what literary genres God might use as a means of grace need to get over them.

 Theologians have often been in love with history,. I for one am not an exception to this rule. But to assert that Genesis 1 is and must be “fully historical” is an inappropriate way of defending its truth.

 It is wrong to prop Genesis 1 up with ill-fitting crutches. As a scientific treatise in the sense defined above, Genesis 1 stands on its own.

---

[1] In this post, Gen[esis] 1 is shorthand for Gen 1:1 - 2:3.

[2] For a classic statement, see Langdon Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth: The Christian Doctrine of Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge (New York: Doubleday, 1965 [1959]).

Comments

[Robert Holmstedt]

Nice post, John. Your observations accord quite closely to what I discuss with my students in my "myth and legend" Hebrew course.

However, I'd like to follow up on a small but important detail in your third paragraph. You write that "the myths the biblical text plays off of are demythologized in a variety of ways and recast in monotheistic terms." Why use the word "monotheistic" here? In your other post on exegetical details of Gen 1:26-28 you suggest (correctly, IMHO) that the 1cp references are to the divine council. So, how does a divine council, in Gen 1 and elsewhere in the HB, fit with a monotheism? It seems that these other council beings are "gods" (as you know, Heb. mal'ak and Grk. angelos refer to a functional category not an ontological one).

This issue is precisely where I found Mark Smith's book on monotheism seriously deficient, since my reading of the texts leads me to concclude that the only really defensible interpretation of the worldview behind the texts is that of a henotheism.

Rob

[JohnFH]

Rob, you bring up an interesting point. We probably agree on substance here, but not on nomenclature. If I don't have much use for the term henotheism, it's because I think of both polytheism and monotheism in dynamic terms and view neither as mutually exclusive of the other in an absolute sense.

The buzz words among historians of religions these days include terms like inclusive and exclusive monotheisms, explicit and implicit monotheisms, and the translatability (or not) of deities across theological systems.

I think Mark Smith is right to challenge Assmann's claim that ancient Israel lacked translatability. If, however, translatability was pursuable within the monotheizing religion of Israel (a number of Psalms point in this direction), it stands to reason that polytheistic elements will have been folded into the monotheizing process and will have occasionally subverted it (though I don't think that's the case in texts like Gen 1:26; 11:7, and Isa 6:8).

Did you see the abstracts of the papers just given in Princeton? I'll send you a link if you haven't.

[Robert Holmstedt]

John,

Thanks for the Princeton conference information. Although this isn't my primary field, I have done enough reading of myth theory, folkloristics, theology, etc., to continue to be surprised that the term "monotheism" in any form and with any qualifiers is used of ancient Israel and early Judaism. Do they not even cast a glance beyond the Tanakh? It doesn't take much deep reading in, among other texts, the DSS, Philo, the NT, and the Talmud to see that a framework involving more than one divine being was not only operative for the writers of the first three sets of texts, it became central to the interreligious polemic of the second-fourth centuries C.E. and was a major theological concern in the fourth set of texts (the Talmud). Segal's work on the Two Powers controversy, while flawed, highlights the basic issues nonetheless. For the 2nd Temple Period, Mike Heiser's UW thesis contains a wealth of textual information.

I agree that the issues between you and I are probably terminological. Indeed, it is somewhat silly to replace one Indo-European prefix meaning "one" (mono-) with another one (heno-) to refer to two distinct concepts, but I still find the distinction itself useful. And, as you have little use for "henotheism," I think that qualifiers to monotheism, like "exclusive" and "inclusive," are more than a bit ridiculous. If the concept of "belief that only one exists" doesn't apply, don't use it -- that's my motto.

[Hebrew Student]

In Hebrew, the style of Genesis 1 is narrative. The teamim (accents) are those of narrative and not of poetry like Psalms, Job and Proverbs. In Hebrew Bibles and manuscripts it is laid out as simple narrative, and not poetry like the layout of some of the Songs in the Tanakh. So given that Hebrew tradition has always presented it as a factual narrative and it has been preserved like this from the beginning, I think we should respect that and not try to re-invent it with our modern western 'wisdom'.

[JohnFH]

It is not true that Jewish tradition has always presented Gen 1 as "factual" narrative, if by "factual" is meant a straightforward chronicle of events.

The genre of a cosmological narrative proceeds according to parameters that are different than those of a chronicle.

Midrash is often premised on a correct understanding of the genres of the Bible. That's why it doesn't hesitate to embellish on the text in ways that would be inappropriate if the dialogue in the texts for example were understood to be a transcript or tape recording of actual conversations.

In both Jewish and Christian tradition, Gen 1 has always been understood as *true* narrative. A snake speaking to the first couple is also presented as *true* narrative. YHWH slaying Rahab at the beginning of time is also understood as *true* narrative.

These narratives are not less true because they are not free of symbolical narrative. They are more true.

[Cameron Willis]

Hi John, nice post. I linked here from your recent post on the ZIBBC which was also very interesting. I hope our library gets a copy soon if it hasn't already.
I hate to be the guy who doesn't contribute anything new of his own to the discussion ... but I did think you might find the following article interesting: http://www.stimulus.org.nz/index_files/Stim12_4RikkWatts.pdf
Rikk starts approximately where you did and postulates a way in which this may have come about given the ANE context. For someone who grew up with his Grandmother's Genesis ... it was an interesting read! :)
Blessings!

[JohnFH]

Cameron,

Thanks for the link to a great read.

For those who land on this thread from elsewhere, the post on ZIBBC Cameron is referring to is found here:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/10/genre-identifications-in-the-zibbc-part-1.html

[Nell1]

I’m confused to if you are stating the Bible is made of myths or if myths are referenced to in the Bible? The bible was written by God, through people he chose. Even though humans physically wrote the Bible, the book contains the true words of God. I do not believe that anything written in the Bible is a myth. I wouldn’t necessarily say that God refers to myths, rather parables and other stories to help explain a certain point he is trying to make. I almost feel as though Genesis 1 is being accused of containing myths. However, if God wrote the Bible, why would he include myth? Wouldn’t he tell the truth, exactly how the world was created with no need for debate? It makes me wonder how Genesis, a book written by God can even be questioned in terms of science. “It seeks to answer questions that are beyond the purview of science as conventionally defined.” To me, this quote is suggesting that Genesis needs to explain science. In fact, God has nothing to explain to science at all. It’s almost as though scientists find it “too good to be true” about the creation of the world and are trying to find a way around God’s creation. I do not feel that God had any intention of trying to prove science. The bible was written by God and I truly believe that everything written in it is God’s true words that should not be related to science. Science cannot explain God’s words, they must be believed through faith.

[JohnFH]

Hi Nell 1,

Very good questions.

If compared to Enuma Elish and Atrahasis (Babylonian creation accounts), Genesis 1 comes across as anti-mythological, as a narrative that takes the myth out of its presentation of how the universe came to be. No battle between the gods is spoken of.

However, Psalm 74 recounts creation as a victory of God over Leviathan the primeval dragon. This text does more than cite a myth; it retells it.

IF I understand your line of argument, you want to suggest that God would not choose people to write scripture unless they signed a contract as it were not to speak of God as having a fight with a dragon and cutting it up in pieces.

But in fact some of the biblical authors speak in this way, Old and New Testaments. Many interpreters think of such language as symbolic; that seems to be a fair description.

Such language is also legitimately called the language of myth. There is no contradiction, unless you define myth as an untrue story. But that misunderstands what myth is. Myth is a form of speech that intends to express deep truths. See:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2011/02/wendy-donigers-positive-definition-of-myth.html

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2011/02/bruce-lincolns-neutral-definition-of-myth.html

The other question you raise is whether the claims of science and the claims of a religion can ever be in conflict. Some religious people argue in this way. For example, if their religion teaches that the world has always existed and was not created, they do not think that is contradicted by science which argues on the basis of evidence that the universe came into existence as a specific juncture.

The problem with that way of arguing is that the claims of religion would then be true no matter what science comes up with. This protects religion but also makes it irrelevant to life as we experience it.

To recap: if I am preaching I'm not going to talk about myth in the Bible because there are people who can't get it out of their heads that myths are untrue stories rather than stories that express deep truths.

In a university setting, however, one must learn to make careful distinctions. Once that is done, it becomes clear in what sense Genesis 1 is an example of ancient science, with an anti-mythological thrust. It also becomes clear that Psalm 74 presents the act of creation in mythological terms precisely in order to express a deep truth. Finally, it becomes clear that what passes for science is sometimes science falsely so-called. See this excerpt from a lecture by Kenneth Miller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pZRyVX9bY

[Breaker Morant 5]

Psalm 74 really struck me as interesting when I first read it. The mention of God fighting the Dragon and the Leviathan really made it clear to me how the authors of the bible use the power of words to make their stories that much stronger. When I was first learning the Bible, I had the mindset that every word was to be taken literally and seen as truth. The more I have looked into the Bible the more I see colorful use of language to accentuate points being made.
One question I have about it is who decides what is just “colorful use of language” and what is truth? Are we supposed to decide for ourselves? If we say one part of the bible is just great storytelling who’s to say other parts aren’t fabricated as well?

[True Grit 4]

As I have stated before I do not believe the Bible is myth in anyway shape or form. I think if there is a genre to the Bible it is nonfiction. I think that if the Bible is related to myth it is because before all these stories were written down they were shared with other people and became part of others myths and tales. I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and nothing less than that. It was written down by men but all of it comes from God whatever is in the Bible is in there because he wants us to see it.

[Chariots of Fire 1]

I completely agree with True Grit 4. You really need to read the whole Bible as God’s words to you. If you look at it as just historical or just scientific, you are missing the point of the Bible. You can include the historical and the scientific views as you read it, but it can’t be solely just that. You can’t really place the Bible into a “genre” per se.

[Pulp Fiction 1]

Genesis is a straight forward, yet difficult chapter to understand/believe. There have been so many physchologists and biologists that have tried to prove the 7 days of work to be wrong. It seems as if people just come up with ridiculous ways and persuade others as if they are the "right person" as if they are turning there back on the Bible. If the Bible says something it may not seem right in modern day, but he did everything the way he did for a reason. If he didn't want light until the 4th day then that's fine. He's God... In the long wrong it was what was best for us.

[TheMission7]

I agree with True Grit 4 as well. You have to read the bible, especially Genesis almost as a bibliography written in the third person and God is the author. Whoever starts it with the perception that it’s either all historically true or false IS missing the whole concept. It’s for the reader to identify with the situation at hand and not expect exact truth, but ponder on how the scripture makes them feel in a personal level. These words were written down thousands of years ago, so they are hardly myths or tales conjured up by some men with spare time. The authors clearly believed in the Word, and they took their time to make sure that they were never to be forgotten. That kind of mindset is what a first-time AND a veteran reader of the bible should have when reading Genesis or any other book in the bible.

[Breaker Morant 6]

On Genesis, these are Hebrew tradition concerning creation, the fall, the flood, and the first man, Adam. Since it is a Hebrew tradition, I believe that when we approach the Genesis we must have a understanding of Hebrew tradition. Whether Genesis contains historical, scientific truths, the point is that God is trying to convey something to his people. That tradition that preserved that God is talking and working with men is recorded for us to read, so that we know how the lives of former saints have talk to God. The Fathers of the church have understood genesis story as something symbolically and literally. I guess the bible can be understood in different light as the Holy Spirit brings more light into the bible.

[גופי תאורה]

I understand these topics, to suggest that God choose people to write the Bible, if he signed the agreement because they did have to talk to God.

[The Truman Show 5]

I had never thought of the book of Genesis being scientific. I completely agree with the idea of Genesis not being a book of history. In the past I had always perceived this book to be a historical text. I like how theology, a intellectual science can explain how Genesis can be more science than history.
I also agree with Breaker Morant 6. If we knew more about Hebrew tradition would could better understand the book of Genesis, and the theology behind it.