sign in sign up
<<
Home , Biblical cosmology, Monad (philosophy)

The Unique of Genesis 1 Gerhard F. Hasel G. Hasel

he opening chapters of the Bible (Gen. and “knows” humanity in its totality. But T 1–11) contain the history of begin- in the biblical Creation, these realities are nings, focusing on natural and historical expressed in their totalities as originating beginnings and the ensuing history of the from the Creator. The totalities of ’s world and humankind.1 Nowhere else in created world and what is in it depicts how Scripture is found such a comprehensive the origin and continuing existence of the and detailed narration of the origin of the world and life is expressed in time and earth and humanity. space. While this is important in itself, it re- Today, there are many who believe that ceives greater significance when one it is unnecessary to engage in a dialogue be- recognizes that the Genesis account for tween the biblical presentation of Creation the origin of the universe (cosmology) in and the scientific quest for understanding the Creation account is without rival. No- the world and humanity. But such dialogue where in the ancient Near East or Egypt and interaction are not only desirable, has anything similar been recorded. The they are essential. The sciences can deal unique words about Creator, creation, and only with partial spheres of knowledge but creature—of God, world, and humanity in not with totalities. Genesis 1; 2—set the entire tone for the This totality is already revealed in the wonderful and unique saving message of first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning the Bible. It can be said without hesitation God created the and the earth” that the world and humankind were in the (Gen. 1:1).2 This simple sentence makes beginning and remain now in the hands four basic affirmations that are completely of the Creator. Scripture is able to speak new and profound in the human quest for about an end of the world and humanity an understanding of the world’s origin and only because God is the Creator of that themselves.3 world and humanity. The first affirmation claims that God made the heaven and the earth “in the beginning.” The Genesis of Totality There was, then, a time when this globe and This awe-inspiring Creation account its surrounding atmospheric did not in Genesis contains the first conception exist. In ancient Near-Eastern mythologies, of the world and humankind as totalities the earth had no beginning, and in Greek from their beginning. No one experiences philosophical thought, the world existed 14 He Spoke and It Was from . By the use of the words “in the of desolation and waste, the word create in beginning,” however, the Genesis cosmol- the first verse of Genesis must signify the ogy fixes an beginning for Creation. calling into existence of original matter in The pregnant expression “in the beginning” the formulation of the world. separates the conception of the world once The fourth affirmation deals with the and for all from the cyclical rhythm of pagan object of Creation, the material that is mythology and the speculation of ancient brought forth by divine creation, namely . This world, its life and history, “the heaven and the earth.” These words, is not dependent upon nature’s cyclical “the heaven and the earth,” are in the He- rhythm but is brought into existence as the brew language a synonym for our term cos- act of Creation by a transcendent God. mos. A close study of the forty-one usages of The second affirmation is that God is the the phrase “heaven and the earth” reveals Creator. As God, He is completely separate that they do not mean that God created the from and independent of nature. Indeed, entire universe with its thousands of gal- God continues to act upon nature, but God axies at the time He created the world. The and nature are separate and can never be focus remains on the planet Earth and its equated in some form of or more or less immediate surroundings. The . This is in contrast to the Egyptian elevated ideas expressed in this first verse concepts in which creator-god Atum himself of the Bible set the tone for the entire Gen- is the primordial mound from which arose esis cosmology. all life in the Heliopolis cosmology, or where, in another tradition, Ptah is combined with Modern Interpretations of “the land that rises” in the Memphis theol- Biblical Cosmology ogy. In Egyptian , “everything It is widely believed that the biblical is contained within the inert , even cosmology is a describing a three-­ the creator God.”4 There is no separation in storied universe with a heaven above, a flat Egypt between god and nature. earth, and the netherworld underneath. If The third affirmation is that God has this understanding is coupled with the as- acted in fiat creation. The special verb for sumption that the Bible supports a geocen- “create,” bara’, has only God as its subject tric, or “earth-centered,” universe, then it throughout the Bible. That is in the Hebrew seems hopelessly dated. Thus, many mod- language—no one can bara’, or “create,” but ern scholars have become convinced that God. God alone is Creator, and no one else the biblical cosmology is historically and may share in this special activity. The verb culturally conditioned, reflecting a primi- bara’ is never employed with matter or tive and outdated cosmology of the ancient stuff from which God creates; it contains— world. They argue that the biblical cosmol- along with the emphasis of the phrase “in ogy should be abandoned and replaced by the beginning”—the idea of creation out of a modern, scientific one. nothing (). Since the earth is scholar Rudolf Bult- described in verse 2 as in a rude state mann wrote some decades ago that, in the The Unique Cosmology of Genesis 1 15

New Testament, “the world is viewed as Where has the interpretation come a three-storied structure, with the earth from that the Bible presents a geocentric in the centre, the heaven above, and the picture? This idea arose in post—New Tes- beneath”5 made up of , the tament times, when leading theologians place of torment. Other modern scholars adopted the Greek Ptolemaic cosmology believe that the cosmology of the Old Tes- of second century a.d. and interpreted the tament literally depicts such a picture of a Bible on the basis of this nonbiblical con- three-storied universe, with storehouses cept. The famous trial of Galileo in the sev- of water, chambers of snow and wind, and enteenth century could have been avoided windows of heaven. This is depicted in a had theologians of the church recognized vaulted canopy of the heavens above a that their interpretation of certain Bible , at the center of which is a na- texts was based on the cosmology of the pa- vel, with waters under the earth including gan mathematician-geographer Ptolemy. rivers of the netherworld. Such a mytho- Although we are freed today from the logical cosmology is now out of date, wrote Ptolemaic cosmology, a vast number of Bultmann. Modern people cannot believe biblical scholars still read the cosmology of in such a mythological cosmology while the Bible through the glasses of what they simultaneously flying in jets, browsing the believe to be the pagan cosmologies of the Internet, and using smartphones. ancient Near East and Egypt. In the final In modernist thinking, this leaves open analysis, these ideas are based on a faulty only two alternatives: (1) accept the as- interpretation of certain biblical passages. sumed mythological picture of the world It is important to recognize this claim, at the price of intellectual sacrifice, or (2) stating that the cosmology of the Bible is abandon the biblical cosmology and adopt mythological, is of fairly recent origin. whatever happens to be the latest scien- But the Bible, properly and honestly in- tific theory. terpreted on its own terms, is, in fact, ac- But these two alternatives are false. Do ceptable to the modern mind and does not we find, after careful investigation, any present the kind of cosmology so widely evidence in the Bible for a three-storied attributed to it. universe? Does the Bible support the no- tion of a geocentric universe? If anything, The Biblical Concept of Cosmology the Bible is human-centered, or more accu- The widespread notion that the biblical rately, it is centered on the interrelation- cosmology reflects a pagan picture of the ship between God and humans. In the Old three-storied universe has cast its shadow Testament, God is the center of everything broadly. But there is a question whether an- but not the physical center. The Bible does cient mythological cosmologies truly had a not provide information for a physical cen- clearly defined three-storied universe. ter. According to it, the solar system could The ancient Egyptian view in the Mem- be geocentric, heliocentric, or something phite was that the permanent else. place of the dead was in the West. In the 16 He Spoke and It Was

Amduat of the New Kingdom, the deceased and of the primeval world ocean are swallowed with the sun by Nut in the in the national epic Enuma Elish. Tĕhôm is West, travel through the twelve hours of said to contain an “echo of the old cosmo- the night, and emerge with the sun in par- gonic myth,”8 in which the creator-god adise, experiencing daily and Marduk engages in battle and slays re-creation. In Canaanite mythology, the her. The interpretation that the biblical supreme had his throne near the term “deep” is linguistically dependent on “sources of the Two Rivers, in the midst of Tiamat is known to be incorrect today on the Double-Deep,”6 which means that the the basis of an advanced understanding did not always dwell in the heavens or of comparative Semitic languages. In fact, the upper story of a supposed three-storied “it is phonologically impossible to con- universe. The Canaanite god Baal, who, un- clude that [the original word translated fortunately, was also worshiped at times by as “deep”] was borrowed from Tiamat.”9 the Israelites, had his place of abode on the The thirty-five usages of this word and its mountain of Zaphon in northern Syria, at derivative forms in the re- the mouth of the Orontes River. veal that it is generally “a poetic term for a Such examples make it clear that there large body of water,”10 which is completely was no uniform ancient mythical picture “nonmythical.”11 To suggest that verse 2 of a three-storied universe. The dead could contains the remnant of a conflict from dwell in the West, and the gods could dwell the pagan battle myth is to read ancient in various parts of the earth rather than mythology into Genesis—something the in a heavenly world. The most compre- text actually combats. The description of hensive study on Mesopotamian cosmic the passive, powerless, and unorganized geography concludes that there was no state of the “deep” in verse 2 reveals that in a three-storied universe with a this term is nonmythical in content and solid metal vault, but rather, it concludes antimythical in purpose. that the Mesopotamians believed in six flat More recently, a Canaanite background heavens, suspended one above the other has been suggested for this -battle by cables.7 This concept is altogether ab- myth embedded in Genesis, marking a shift sent in the biblical cosmology. of origin from Babylon to the West. But The original word for “deep” in Genesis there is little evidence for this. The term 1:2 figures prominently in the argument translated as “seas” does not appear until of those scholars supporting the view that verse 10, when one would expect it in the the Genesis cosmology is three storied. initial few verses of the account. Any con- There is heaven above and earth below (v. nection with the Canaanite deity is, 1), and underneath is “the deep,” inter- therefore, not present, making it “difficult preted as the “primeval ocean.” It has been to assume that an earlier Canaanite dragon claimed that the original word for “deep,” myth existed in the background of Gen or tĕhôm, is directly derived from the name 1:2.”12 In fact, several scholars reject that Tiamat, the mythical Babylonian monster there even was a in The Unique Cosmology of Genesis 1 17 where these texts were found, and others “foundations” of the earth as resting on question whether Baal ever functioned as “pillars” (1 Sam. 2:8; Job 9:6; Ps. 75:43). a creator-god. These words, however, are used only in What can be said of “the fountains of the poetry and are best understood as meta- great deep” mentioned twice in the Gene- phors. They cannot be construed to refer sis Flood account (7:11; 8:2)?13 The “great to literal pillars. Even today, we speak met- deep” refers undoubtedly to subterranean aphorically of “pillars of the church,” re- water. But there is no suggestion in these ferring to staunch supporters of the com- texts that this underground water is con- munity of believers. So the pillars of the nected with the mythology of an under- earth are metaphors describing that God world sea on which the earth floats. During can support or move the inner foundations the Flood, the springs of the subterranean that hold the earth in place and together, waters, that had fed the springs and rivers, because He is Creator. split open with such might and force that, Moving from what is “below” the earth together with the torrential downpour of to what is “above,” the act of fiat creation waters stored in the atmospheric heavens, on the second day calls into existence the the worldwide Flood came about. (Gen. 1:7). The firmament is The subterranean features, such as “the frequently associated with firmness and waters beneath the earth” (Exod. 20:4; solidity, ideas derived from the Vulgate Deut. 4:18; 5:8; Job 26:5; Ps. 136:6), fail, on firmamentum and the Septuagint steréōma close investigation, to uphold the sup- but not from the original term in the He- posed three-storied or triple-decked view brew. Following the Vulgate, many have of the world. And what about the under- suggested that this was a “vaulted solid world? Šĕʾôl is invariably the place where body.”15 But this is a very recent interpre- dead people go.14 It is a figurative expres- tation, first suggested in the eighteenth sion of the grave and may be equated with century, by the French Vol- the regular Hebrew term for “grave.” In taire. The Hebrew term rāqîaʿ, traditionally the Bible, šĕʾôl never refers to an under- translated “firmament,” is better rendered world of gloomy darkness or waters as with “expanse.” Some have tried to docu- the abode of the dead, as was conceived in ment on the basis of nonbiblical texts that pagan mythology among Babylonians and the original word designated something Greeks. As a designation of the grave, šĕʾôl, solid, perhaps a strip of metal. But these of course, is subterranean, because it is in attempts at explaining the Hebrew word the ground. The three usages of the phrase fail to convince. Such interpretations are “the waters beneath the earth” (Exod. 20:4; based on unsupported philological guesses Deut. 4:18; 5:8) easily refer to waters below and extrabiblical mythical notions but not the shoreline, because, in one of the texts on what the biblical texts actually demand. (Deut. 4:18), it is indeed the place where In passages like Genesis 1:7; Psalm 19:1; fish dwell. Daniel 12:3, firmament has the meaning of Some poetic passages describe the the curved expanse of the heavens, which 18 He Spoke and It Was to an observer on the ground appears like the doors of heaven” (NASB). In the Old a vast inverted vault. In Ezekiel (1:22, 23, Testament, whenever it rains heavily, this 25, 26; 10:1), it has the sense of an extended is expressed figuratively by the expression platform or level surface. No text of Scrip- that the windows or doors of heaven are ture teaches that the firmament, or ex- opened. panse, of heaven is firm and solid and holds The recognition of the nonliteral, meta- anything up.16 phorical use of words—pictorial language— Rain does not come through “windows in the Bible is important. If the Bible is of heaven” in a solid firmament. Of the five read and interpreted on its own terms, it is texts in the Bible that refer to the “windows usually not difficult to recognize such lan- of heaven,” only the Flood story (Gen. 7:11; guage. We still refer to “the sun setting in 8:2) relates them to water, and here, the the horizon” today, when we, in fact, know waters do not come from the firmament that the earth is rotating on its axis away but from heaven. The remaining three from the sun. Such language was used in texts clearly indicate that the expression ancient times in the same way as metaphor “windows of heaven” is to be understood in or poetic language. a nonliteral sense; it is figurative language On the basis of this evidence, the wide- in the same way as we can speak today of spread view that the biblical cosmology the “windows of the mind” or the “vault of describes a three-storied universe cannot heaven” without implying that the mind be maintained. The so-called primitive or has windows with sashes and glass or that primeval view turns out to be an “assigned heaven is a literal vault of solid bricks or interpretation and not one which was de- concrete. rived from the texts themselves.”17 Even In 2 Kings 7:2, barley comes through when certain narratives of the Bible date to the “windows in heaven.” In Isaiah 24:18, the time of some of these pagan , this it seems to be trouble and anguish that does not necessarily imply that every an- use this entrance, while in Malachi 3:10, cient writer used the same ideas, whether blessings come through “the windows of inspired or not. heaven.” Such figurative language does not lend itself to the reconstruction of biblical Other Aspects of Contrast cosmology. This is underlined by the fact The reality is that the Genesis account that the Bible makes abundantly clear that strongly contrasts with ancient Near-Eastern rain comes from clouds (Judg. 5:4; 1 Kings and Egyptian accounts so that there is an 18:45), which are under and not above intended polemic or argument against the firmament of heaven (Job 22:13, 14). these myths. In Psalm 78:23, this association of clouds Sea Monster or Sea Creatures? On the fifth with the “doors of heaven” is explained day of Creation (Gen. 1:20–23), God created in poetry, where the first line and second the “great whales” (v. 21) or “great sea line repeat the same concept: “Yet He monsters,” as more recent translations commanded the clouds above, and opened (RSV, NEB, NAB) render the Hebrew term. The Unique Cosmology of Genesis 1 19

In Ugaritic texts, a related term appears one is found in Genesis.”20 as a personified monster, a dragon, who A number of scholars have claimed was overcome by the goddess Anath, the that creation by word of mouth is best creator-god.­ Is it justified to link the bib- paralleled in Egyptian cosmologies. There lical term to mythology in this context? are several different traditions, however, The word in verse 21 appears in a clearly that developed over time with significant “nonmythological context.”18 On the basis variations. In the Heliopolis cosmology of other Creation passages in the Bible, it or theogony, Atum generates the Ennead appears to be a generic name for large wa- (nine gods) from himself by the act of mas- ter creatures in contrast to the small water turbation or spitting, “and the two siblings creatures created next (Gen. 1:21; Ps. 104:25, were born—Shu and Tefnut.”21 In another 26). God’s totally effortless creation of tradition, the Coffin Texts describe Atum these large aquatic creatures, as expressed as the sun with the name Re-Atum. Some- through the verb “create,” which always times, the two are separated as in “Re in stresses effortless creation, exhibits a delib- your rising, Atum in your setting.”22 In this erate argument against the mythical idea of sense, Atum, often equated with the sun- creation by battle and combat. god Re, is self-developing and is the origi- The Lack of Combat, Force, or Struggle. The nator of the gods and all things. red thread of opposition to pagan myth is In the Memphite theology of Egypt, also visible in the fiat creation of raising Ptah is compared and contrasted with the “firmament,” or “expanse” (Gen. 1:6, Atum. Whereas Atum created by “that 7), without any struggle whatsoever. An- seed and those hands, (for) Atum’s En- cient Near-Eastern and Egyptian mytholo- nead evolve(ed) through his seed and his gies link this act of separation to combat fingers, but the Ennead is teeth and lips and struggle. The ancient cosmologies are in this mouth that pronounced the iden- not absorbed or reflected in Genesis but tity of everything and from which Shu are overcome. and Tefnut emerged and gave birth to the Creation by Word of Mouth. In the biblical Ennead.”23 Here, the writer achieves his Creation story, the most striking feature is goal of merging the two accounts by say- God’s creation by the spoken word. On the ing “that the origin of ennead through the first day, “God said, ‘Let there be light, and teeth and the lips (of Ptah) is the same as there was light’ ” (vv. 3–5). This is without the origin through the semen and hands parallel in Mesopotamian and Egyptian of Atum.”24 The mouth is, thus, equated mythology. In Enuma Elish, Marduk does with the male organ “from which Shu and “not create the by utterance, but Tefnut emerged and gave birth to the En- by gruesomely splitting Tiamat.”19 In the nead.”25 It was through self-development Atra-Ḫasis Epic, humankind is created from that Atum or Ptah created the gods. That the flesh and blood of a slaughtered god this teeth and lips here are to be compared mixed with clay, but “no hint of the use of to the effortless speech found in the Gene- dead deity or any other material of a living sis Creation ignores the parallelism made 20 He Spoke and It Was with Atum and the sexual connotation. The Creation of Humanity. The magnificent In contrast, there is no hint at self-​ Creation narrative of verses 26–28 speaks generation or procreation in the Genesis of humanity as “the pinnacle of creation.”­ 27 account. The recurring expression “God The term for “create” is employed three said, . . . and there/it was” (e.g., Gen. 1:3, 6, times in these verses to emphasize the 9, 11) speaks of the effortless, omnipotent, fiat creation of humanity by God. Humans and unchangeable Divine Word of Crea­ appear as the creature uniquely “blessed” tion. God’s self-existent Word highlights by God (v. 28); they are “the ruler[s] of the the vast unbridgeable gulf between the world,”28 including the animal and vegeta- biblical picture of Creation and pagan my- ble kingdoms. All seed-bearing plants and thology. The Genesis cosmology stresses fruit trees are for food (v. 29). This lofty the essential difference between Divine picture of the divine concern and care for Being, creation, and created being in order humanity’s physical needs stands in such to exclude any idea of emanationism, pan- sharp contrast to the purpose of creation­ , and dualism. in ancient Near-Eastern mythology that Descriptive Argument. The Genesis cosmol- one is led to conclude that the Bible writer ogy exhibits in various crucial instances a described the purpose of humanity’s cre- sharply antimythical polemic or argument ation deliberately to combat pagan myth- in its description of created material. This is ological ideas, while, at the same time, em- evidenced in the description of the “deep” phasizing the human-centered orientation (v. 2), the creation of the large aquatic of Creation. creatures (v. 21), the creative separation All the ancient Near-Eastern myths of heaven and earth (vv. 6–8), the purpose describe the need of humanity’s creation of the creation of humans as the pinnacle as an afterthought, resulting from an at- of created on earth (vv. 26–28), tempt to relieve the gods of hard labor and and creation by Divine Word (v. 3). To this procuring food and drink. This mythical impressive list should be added that the notion is contradicted by the biblical idea description of the creation and function of that humanity is to rule the world as God’s the sun and moon (vv. 14–18), whose spe- vice-regent. Obviously, this antimythical cific Semitic names were surely avoided, emphasis cannot be the result of adopting because the same names refer, at the same pagan mythical notions; rather, it is rooted time, to the sun-god and the moon-god. The in biblical anthropology and the biblical use of the terms “greater light” and “lesser understanding of reality. light” “breathes a strongly anti-mythical In Egyptian cosmologies, “so far no de- pathos,”26 or polemic, undermining pagan tailed account of the creation of man is and mythology at fundamental known.”29 The primary focus of Egyptian points. The author of Genesis intended the cosmologies is the creation of the Egyp- reader to know that the sun and the moon pantheon of gods; thus, they are bet- were not gods but were the creation of God ter described as theogonies, although the for specific functions. gods themselves represent the elements of The Unique Cosmology of Genesis 1 21 nature. A few texts indicate that human- as a solar deity and from what is said about kind came from the tears of Re. “They [Shu the creation of the moon in Tablet V is and Tefnut] brought to me [Re] my eye with difficult). (3) There is no description of the them, after I joined my members together creation of vegetation. (4) Finally, Enuma I wept over them. That is how men came Elish knows nothing of the creation of any into being from the tears that came forth animal life in the sea, sky, or earth. A com- from my eye.”30 The primary emphasis is parison between Genesis and this account not on the creation of humanity, which is indicates that twice as many processes of simply mentioned in passing, but in the creation are outlined in Genesis 1. There restoration of the eye of Re, which had such is only a general analogy between the or- significant magical and protective powers der of creation in both accounts; “there in ancient Egyptian mythology. In a Coffin is no close parallel in the sequence of the Text (7.465, Spell 1130), “I created the gods creation of elements common to both by my sweat, and mankind from the tears .”32 Concerning the time for of my eye.” It is pointed out that humans creation, the only possible hint is provided are “created like everything else and are in the Atra-Ḫasis account of the creation called ‘the cattle of the god’ (Instruction to of humankind. Here, fourteen pieces of King Merikare) or ‘cattle of Re,’ but it is the clay are mixed with the blood of the slain gods who occupy the center state in the god and placed in the womb goddess. Af- cosmogonies.”31 In the Memphite theology, ter ten months of gestation, the goddess the creation of humans is not mentioned gives birth to seven male and seven female at all. offspring. The birth of humankind after a The Seven-Day Week and Order of Creation. ten-month gestation is not found in Gen- The complete sequence of Creation in Gen- esis; humanity is created on the sixth day. esis 1 demonstrates a divine order, so that The link of the Sabbath to a Near-Eastern which was formless and void is formed and background has also been futile. filled into a complete ecosystem that will In Egyptian cosmologies, there is no fi- support life. The divine sequence of six lit- nality of creation. Rather, there is a “one- eral, twenty-four-hour, consecutive days day pattern of recurrent creation brought that culminate in the Sabbath rest is en- about each morning with the sunrise sym- tirely absent in ancient Near-Eastern and bolizing the daily rebirth of Rê-Amun, the Egyptian accounts. sun-god creator as embodiment of Atum.”33 Enuma Elish indicates some analogies The cycle of death and rebirth is so central in the order of creation: firmament, dry to Egyptian thinking that death itself is land, luminaries, and lastly, humankind. seen as part of the normal order of crea­ But there are also distinct differences: (1) tion. On a funerary papyrus of the Twenty-­ There is no clear statement that light is First Dynasty, a winged serpent on legs created before the luminaries. (2) There is is standing on two pairs of legs with the no explicit reference to the creation of the caption: “Death the great god, who made sun (to infer this from Marduk’s character gods and men.”34 This is “a personification 22 He Spoke and It Was of death as a creator god and an impressive which the biblical world reality and world­ visual idea that death is a necessary feature view rest, knows of no three-storied or of the world of creation, that is, of the ex- triple-decked universe. It provides inspi- istence in general.”35 A similar image can ration’s answer to the intellectual question be seen in the burial chamber of Thutmose of the who of Creation, which the book of III, in which during the eleventh hour of nature points to God as the Creator. It also the Amduat, Atum is shown holding the provides answers to the related questions wings of a winged serpent, surrounded on of how the world was made and what was either side by Udjat eyes—the eyes of Re made. Through action verbs such as “sep- and Horus. The concept of a Sabbath and arated” (Gen. 1:4, 7; NASB), “made” (vv. seven-day sequence is entirely absent. 7, 16, 25, 31), “placed” (v. 17; NASB), “cre- The Genesis cosmology represents a ated” (vv. 1, 21, 27; 2:4), “formed” (2:7, 8, “complete break”36 with the pagan my- 19), “fashioned” (v. 22; NASB), and “said” thologies of the ancient Near East and (1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26) an indication of the Egypt by undermining prevailing mythical how of divine creative activity is revealed. cosmologies and the basic essentials of pa- The third intellectual question asks what gan religions. The description of Creation the transcendent Creator brought forth. not only presents the true account, but in The biblical writer himself sums it up in so depicting it, the writer chose a great the words “the heavens and the earth, and many safeguards against mythology. He all the host of them” (2:1). used certain terms and motifs, partly re- The biblical Creation account, with the lated to cosmologically, ideologically, and Genesis cosmology, goes far beyond these theologically incompatible pagan concepts intellectual questions by addressing itself and partly in deliberate contrast to ancient also to the essential existential question, Near-Eastern myths, and employed them because it is also the report of the inau- with a meaning and emphasis expressive guration of the natural and historical pro- of the worldview understanding of reality cesses. It answers what the Divine Creator and cosmology of divine . is able to do. Since the Creator, who is none The exalted and sublime conception of other than Christ, the Father’s creating the Genesis account of Creation presents, Agent (:1–4; Heb. 1:1–3), made the at its center, a transcendent God who, as cosmos and all that belongs to it, since He supreme and unique Creator, speaks the is the Maker of the forces of nature and world into existence. The center of all the Sustainer of creation, He can use these creation­ is humankind as male and female. forces to bring about His will in the drama The Genesis cosmology, which unveils of ongoing time, through mighty acts and most comprehensively the foundations on powerful deeds in nature and history. The Unique Cosmology of Genesis 1 23

Notes 1. Gerhard F. Hasel, “Genesis Is Unique,” Signs of “The Myth of the Solid Heavenly Dome: Another Look the Times®, June 1975, 22–­26 and “Genesis Is Unique~2” at the Hebrew Term rāqîaʿ,” Andrews University Semi- Signs of the Times®, July 1975, 22–­25. The article was nary Studies 49 (2011): 127. revised and expanded by Michael G. Hasel to include 17. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Literary Form of Gen- current sources and new information on ancient esis 1:11,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. Near-Eastern and Egyptian parallels. J. B. Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), 57. 2. Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural refer- 18. Theodor H. Gaster, “Dragon,” The Interpreter’s ences in this chapter are from the King James Version Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1 (1962), 868. of the Bible. 19. Gordon H. Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient 3. Gerhard F. Hasel, “Recent Translations of Gene- Egyptian Creation Myths,” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 sis 1:1: A Critical Look,” The Bible Translator 22 (1971): (2008): 187. 154–168; Hasel, “The Meaning of Genesis 1:1,” Ministry 20. Alan R. Millard, “A New Babylonian ‘Genesis’ 49, no. 1 (January 1976): 21–24. Story,” Tyndale Bulletin 18 (1967): 3–18. 4. Richard J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the An- 21. “From Pyramid Texts Spell 527,” trans. James cient Near East and in the Bible (Washington, DC: Catho- P. Allen, The Context of Scripture 1, no. 3:7. lic Biblical Association, 1994), 114. 22. James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy 5. Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythol- of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts (New Haven, CT: ogy,” in Kerygma and Myth, ed. H. W. Bartsch, vol. 1 Yale University Press, 1988), 10. (London: Harper & Row, 1953), 2. 23. “From the ‘Memphite Theology,’ ” trans. James 6. Albrecht Goetze, “El, Ashertu and the Storm- P. Allen, The Context of Scripture 1, no. 15:21–23. God,” Ancient Near-Eastern Texts (1969): 519. 24. Ragnhild Bjerre Finnestad, “Ptah, Creator of 7. Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geogra- the Gods: Reconsideration of the Ptah Section of the phy, 2nd corr. printing, Mesopotamian Civilizations, Denkmal,” : International Review for the History of bk. 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011). Religions 23 (1976): 89. 8. S. H. Hooke, “Genesis,” in Peake’s Commentary on 25. James P. Allen, “From the ‘Memphite Theol- the Bible, eds. H. H. Rowley and Matthew Black (Lon- ogy,’ ” The Context of Scripture 1, nos. 15–16: 22. don: Thomas Nelson, 1962), 179. 26. Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New 9. David Toshio Tsumura, “The Earth and the Wa- York: Schocken, 1970), 9. ters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation,” 27. Ibid., 14. Journal for the Study of Old Testament, supplement series 28. Otto Loretz, “Schöpfung und Mythos,” Stutt- 83 (Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1989), 31. garter Bibelstudien 32 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel- 10. Mary K. Wakeman, God’s Battle With the Monster: werk, 1968), 92–98. A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 86. 29. Jaroslav Černý, Ancient Egyptian (West- 11. Kurt Galling, “Der Charakter der Chaos- port, CT: Greenwood, 1979), 48. schilderung in Gen 1.2,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und 30. Papyrus Bremner-Rhind (British Museum 10188). Kirche 47 (1950): 151. 31. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near 12. Tsumura, “The Earth and the Waters,” 32, 33. East, 116. 13. See Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Fountains of the 32. Charles Francis Whitley, “The Pattern of Crea­ Great Deep,” Origins 1 (1974): 67–72. tion in Genesis, Chapter 1,” Journal of Near-Eastern 14. The term šĕʾôl is translated as “grave” (thirty-­ Studies 17 (1958): 34, 35. one times), “hell” (thirty-one times), and “pit” (six 33. Johnston, “Genesis 1,” 192. times) in the KJV. The rendering “hell” is unfortu- 34. Papyrus of Henuttawy (British Museum 10018). nate, because the term has nothing to do with tor- 35. Erik Hornung, in Ancient Egypt ture, torment, or consciousness. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982), 81. 15. Claus Westermann, Genesis (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 36. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Phila- Germany: Neukirchener, 1974), 160. delphia, PA: Westminster, 1962), 53. 16. Randall W. Younker and Richard M. Davidson,