Discussion Board Prompt
Having read chapters 1 through 5 of Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, respond to the following two prompts in an initial post, followed by discussion with peers:
- Based on the presentation of each position from the book, state the point from each chapter that you believe presents the strongest argument for that position. This of course does not mean that you agree with the ultimate conclusions of each position, but you should recognize a sound exegetical argument for what it is (whether based in literary, historical, or theological support). Be sure to articulate the “strong argument” from each position with clarity, and state why you think that particular point carries “strength of argument.”
- Based on the presentation of each position from the book, state (in your opinion) what you believe is the weakest argument from each position. In other words, where (specifically) does the position encounter exegetical or philosophical problems that weaken the overall plausibility of the position? As you read through the positions you will likely favor one over the others; even so, be honest in assessing any potential weaknesses within that position.
In discussion, remember to keep any criticism of others within the scope of collegial “conversation.” Within evangelical scholarship, over the past decade, there has been renewed interest in the “hermeneutics” of Genesis 1-11 (in particular, 1-2), and it is in the interest of furthering this conversation that we have discussion around this topic with our peers. Our focus is on the hermeneutical approaches to the text… less so on matters of science that relate to general positions in terms of creation (although some of this may come into play… keep the focus where it belongs).
Discussion Board 1[1]
Reading Genesis 1-2_ An Evangelical Conversation
Richard Averbeck provides what he calls a literary day, inter-textual, and contextual reading of Genesis 1-2. Averbeck’s approach is, for the most part, a non-literal reading of Genesis 1-2 that is significantly informed by an ancient Near Eastern context. Although not completely coherent, his Hebrew syntax analysis, lexical study, and intertextual examination is insightful. However, because the author of Genesis told the story in a way that would make sense to the ancient Israelite readers, Averbeck’s strongest argument for a non-literal contextual reading resides in the parallels with the ancient Near East. While carefully avoiding direct borrowing, Averbeck compares and contrasts Genesis 1-2 with the ancient literature of Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Egypt in order to illuminate the meaning of the text.
Averbeck’s weakest argument is his attempt to avoid literalism by explaining that the seven-day structure of the week is an analogical initiative to reinforce the rhythm of life for the ancient Israelites. Even Averbeck admits that there is “no other seven-day creation story in the Bible or the ancient Near East.”[2] His argument is that God’s efforts provide an analogical pattern for the Israelites’ work week and God’s rest is analogically or anthropomorphically patterned after the ancient Near Eastern temple residences of the gods. Averbeck’s connections are not illogical, they simply lack evidence, and thus, provide a weak argument.
Todd Beall approaches Genesis 1-2 utilizing a literalistic approach to the text. Genesis 1-2 is considered historical narrative and ought to be viewed as history. Beall’s strongest argument is the intertextual connections between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Although not all New Testament references to the book of Genesis are equally clear, it is difficult to dismiss every reference as neither literal nor historical. For example, Paul states that “Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim 2:13-14).[3] It is difficult to understand this passage as Paul referring to somebody other than real individuals, a man named Adam and a woman named Eve.
Beall appears to stake a significant portion of his argument upon the utilization of a consistent genre when interpreting all fifty chapters of Genesis. Unfortunately, the cornerstone of Beall’s polemic appears to be the weakest argument due to the nature of genre classification. Grant Osborne observes significant overlap between genres within any given text. For example, epistolary content can appear in various genres such as narratives or apocalyptic material (cf. Rev 2-3). Certain scholars even suggest that “every form contains all genres and so is ‘non-genre’ because each type actually comprises a mixture of genres.”[4] Clearly, the diversity of genre can be taken to an inappropriate extreme. However, to suggest that a book, chapter, or even pericope requires a completely consistent genre appears to miss the point of genre and sub-genre analysis.
John Collins’s view appears to be a non-literal reading that rests on the idea that the six days of creation were analogical days rather than the first days of the universe. Collins’s strongest argument is the reading of Genesis 1-11 as a coherent whole because the literary context of any passage provides the basis for its meaning. By pointing out the coherence of the chapters within the broader ancient Near Eastern context and linking the content of chapters 1-11 together, Collins provides a strong argument for integration that highlights the meaning of the first two chapters. From the foundational argument of unity, Collins then teases out the details of his overarching assertion of analogical days.
Collins’s weakest argument centers upon his reasoning around Genesis 1:1 with regard to his syntactical and lexical analysis. First, Collins asserts that Genesis “begins with God creating everything.”[5] However, all Hebrew Bibles that have pointing show a vocal shewa (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית) under the bet; thus, no definite article exists. Accordingly, the first verse is rendered syntactically as a dependent clause, “When God began…” (Gen 1:1). For Collins to assert that verse 1 is the absolute beginning, he must address and overcome the issues surrounding syntax. Furthermore, Collins also claims that verse 1 clearly implies that God “created from nothing.”[6] Although the verb ברא can mean creation ex nihilo, it is not required to mean out of nothing (cf. Gen 2:7).
Tremper Longman argues for a non-literal literary approach to Genesis 1-2 while suggesting that the biblical creation account has nothing to do with how God created the universe. The strongest argument proposed by Longman is his assessment of genre, and more specifically, the observation of pervasive figurative language within the first two chapters of Genesis. For example, Genesis 2:7 states, “The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Without question, God does not have lungs and thus does not actually breathe on dust to create a human. The anthropomorphic language is not explaining how God literally created man. Accordingly, Bruce Waltke suggests that Genesis provides a “literary-artistic” genre with the purpose of communicating a theological message.[7] In sum, Genesis is not science and is not explaining how creation happened in a literal way.
The weakest argument pertains to Longman’s use of intertextuality. Longman provides a brief analysis of parallel creation accounts from the Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. Under normal circumstances, intertextual analysis would contribute significantly to the breadth and depth of the passage under study. However, one would always expect to find figurative language within the creation accounts written in poetry regardless whether the language was attempting to convey a literal description of history. Accordingly, the intertextual examination adds very little to the overall argument of a non-literal reading of Genesis 1-2.
John Walton asserts that Genesis 1 ought to be read as ancient cosmology. More specifically, the creation referred to in Genesis 1 is not materialistic, but instead, a functional creation. Walton’s strongest argument arises from a clear reading of the text in light of the cognitive contextual environment of the ancient Near East. Although few scholars prior to Walton focused on the topic, when God began creating the heavens and the earth, “The earth was without form and void” (Gen 1:1-2). In other words, at the start of the magisterial story, earth material already existed. Walton then supports the plain reading of the text and the functional aspects of the creative process with Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Sumerian parallels that explicate the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East.[8]
Walton’s weakest argument also pertains to his functional perspective of creation. The challenge to Walton’s argument can be summarized in the following colloquialism: everything is good until it is not. The contribution of Walton’s work should not be underestimated. However, a plain reading of the text also makes it difficult to conclude that every instance of the creative process in Genesis 1-2 pertains to functionality. For example, in Genesis 2:7-8, God formed the man and then formed the woman from the man. It is difficult to imagine that Genesis 2 had nothing to do with material creation, and that God solely added functionality to a humankind that already existed.
__________________________________________________
[1] Richard Averbeck et al., Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, ed. J. Daryl Charles (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013).
[2] Ibid., 27.
[3] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
[4] Grant R Osborne, “Genre Criticism: Sensus Literalis,” Trinity Journal 4, no. 2 (1983): 7.
[5] Averbeck et al., Reading Genesis 1-2, 89.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Bruce K. Waltke, “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Crux 27, no. 4 (December 1991): 9.
[8] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 21–34.
Bibliography
- Averbeck, Richard, Todd S. Beall, C. John Collins, Jud Davis, and Victor P. Hamilton. Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation. Edited by J. Daryl Charles. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013.
- Osborne, Grant R. “Genre Criticism: Sensus Literalis.” Trinity Journal 4, no. 2 (1983): 1–27.
- Waltke, Bruce K. “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One.” Crux 27, no. 4 (December 1991): 2–10.
- Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.
