To Henrybish: Please note that I did not say that Psalm 74:14-18 “contradicts” Genesis 1:1-2:3.

I did not say this of you, rather, I carefully worded what I said as:

…saying that Psalm 74 contradicts Genesis 1 if both are read as literal history

You also said:

Whether the depiction of Yahweh slaying “the heads of Leviathan” describes God’s work in creation or his work in providence, the passage unequivocally pictures Yahweh slaying the heads (plural) of Leviathan. So the question becomes: Who or what was the many-headed monster called Leviathan? Was this an actual historical monster that once roamed the earth in antiquity?

Yes, but this is a separate question. I was merely disputing the original point where you set Psalm 74 against Genesis 1 if both are read as literal history. Therefore, you concluded that one of them (or both) must not be talking in literal historical terms. I merely said this argument is undone if Psalm 74 is not even talking about creation, which it does not appear to be.

Regarding the other instances you cited in passing about diverse ways scripture speaks of God’s creating, more detail would be needed to establish your point, but in short it seems to me that some of them are quite obviously figurative (e.g. giving birth to creation like a woman) whereas others of them may perhaps be intended as literal history and can reasonably be seen as complementary accounts of Genesis.

I think my bottom line feeling is that unlike some of the other creation scriptures you mentioned, Gen 1-2 seems to have so many features that bespeak literal history that many readers may find it quite unnatural to view it in your terms.

Thanks

Here is the study note on Psalm 74:14 in the NET Bible on the psalmist’s declaration, “You crushed the heads of Leviathan.” Quote:

The imagery of vv. 13–14 originates in West Semitic mythology. The description of Leviathan should be compared with the following excerpts from Ugaritic mythological texts: (1) “Was not the dragon [Ugaritic tnn, cognate with Hebrew tanin, translated “sea monster” in v. 13] vanquished and captured? I did destroy the wriggling [Ugaritic 'qltn, cognate to Hebrew 'aqallaton, translated “squirming” in Isa 27:1] serpent, the tyrant with seven heads” (note the use of the plural “heads” here and in v. 13). (See CTA 3.iii.38–39 in G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 50.) (2) “For all that you smote Leviathan the slippery [Ugaritic brh, cognate to Hebrew bariakh, translated “fast moving” in Isa 27:1] serpent, [and] made an end of the wriggling serpent, the tyrant with seven heads” (See CTA 5.i.1–3 in G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 68.) In the myths Leviathan is a sea creature that symbolizes the destructive water of the sea and, in turn, the forces of chaos that threaten the established order. In the OT, the battle with the sea motif is applied to Yahweh’s victories over the forces of chaos at creation and in history (see Pss 74:13–14; 77:16–20; 89:9–10; Isa 51:9–10). Yahweh’s subjugation of the waters of chaos is related to his kingship (see Pss 29:3, 10; 93:3–4). Isa 27:1 applies imagery from Canaanite mythology to Yahweh’s eschatological victory over his enemies. Apocalyptic literature employs the imagery as well. The beasts of Dan 7 emerge from the sea, while Rev 13 speaks of a seven-headed beast coming from the sea. Here in Ps 74:13–14 the primary referent is unclear. The psalmist may be describing God’s creation of the world (note vv. 16–17 and see Ps 89:9–12), when he brought order out of a watery mass, or the exodus (see Isa 51:9–10), when he created Israel by destroying the Egyptians in the waters of the sea.

End Quote. So whether Psalm 74:14-18 refers to God’s work in creation or in providence/history, the point is still the same. The biblical author is describing the work of God vis-a-vis conventional ANE imagery. In effect, the biblical author is claiming that it was not Baal who slew Leviathan, but it was Yahweh! This is a sublime polemic that argues that Yahweh not Baal is the true Creator/Lord. For someone to argue that Psalm 74:14-18 describes history/providence rather than creation misses the larger question of this entire string: Do the biblical authors sometimes draw upon conventional ANE mythological imagery (such as Baal slaying Leviathan) for the sake of constructing a literary polemic (which in this case was that it was Yahweh [not Baal] who slew Leviathan). To ask whether Leviathan was a real historical multi-headed animal monster than once roamed the earth misses the point entirely. To ask what the Leviathan symbol represented in ancient Canaanite/Ugaritic literature is more to the point, and to ask what the Leviathan symbol in Psalm 74:14//Isaiah 27:1 represented is the most important point. But it is symbol. Symbol does not mean fiction; symbol is another way of conveying truth, even historical truth at that!

YHWH as creating heaven and earth by slaying the seven-headed Leviathan dragon and making the cosmos out of his carcass

The actual text itself does not say this, and so the entire discussion that is predicated on this point (saying that Psalm 74 contradicts Genesis 1 if both are read as literal history) seems to be rather undone.

My take is that ANY text needs to be read using the cultural assumptions of the audience to which it was written originally and you are attempting to do that.

Ps 74 does seem to contain anti-Baal creation myth polemic, as you point out.

Although, the latter half of Psalm 74:16 does say (NKJV),

“…You have prepared the light and the sun.”

I won’t quibble here about the meaning of “prepared”. I will grant that this portion indicates that light and the Sun were both created by God. But that certainly does not indicate that the psalm as a whole, nor even the just-preceding verses, were focused on or dealing with Creation.

Dr. Johnston, you said:

“Returning to the topic of biblical creation texts and historicity, what does the clearly literary polemical nature of Psalm 74:14-18 depicting YHWH as creating heaven and earth by slaying the seven-headed Leviathan dragon and making the cosmos out of his carcass (even feeding it those who dwell on the Mediterranean coast) say about historicity?”

That is simply not true about those passages. Absolutely nowhere in Psalm 74:14-18 (nor anywhere in that Psalm or the surrounding Psalms) does it say or even imply that YHWH created heaven and earth BY “slaying the seven-headed Leviathan dragon and making the cosmos out of his carcass”. In fact, that Psalm says absolutely NOTHING about HOW God created the heavens and the Earth. It is utterly silent on such matters. And, what this “says about historicity” might simply be just what it says: that God killed or destroyed a great sea serpent called “Leviathan” (or many of them), and gave his carcass as food to the people “inhabiting the wilderness” (Psalm 74:14 [NKJV]). After all, God Himself testifies to the historicity and literalness of Leviathan in the entirety of Job 41. It’s all really pretty simple. And if that was in fact an HISTORICAL occurrence (God’s destroying Leviathan and giving his body as food to a wilderness people), it is not unlikely that other people had vague REMEMBRANCES of it, and incorporated its corrupted memory into their mythologies. Thus, the Bible’s account would be like a “newspaper” description of Daniel Boone’s activities, while the “Ancient Near Eastern” mythologies would be like our extrapolated myths surrounding Daniel Boone.

“When we are looking at a literary theological polemic, we have to sort through the difficult (!) task of distinguishing the polemical imagery drawn from the alluded to text (in the case of Psalm 74, the Canaanite myth of Baal slaying Leviathan) from the actual historical event that underlies the Hebrew assertion.”

And what makes you suppose that you do not have the relations in reverse? Why couldn’t it be that Psalm 74 contains the true historical record, and the Canaanite myth has a distorted and vague version of that historical event?

“In this case, I venture to say that most of us would conclude that YHWH did not actually slay a seven-headed dragon in eternity past and create the cosmos out of his carcass.”

I should hope not, because nowhere does the Bible itself say anything of the sort. You apparently can’t even see where you are unconsciously inserting your presupposed theory into the Bible, and then arguing from that non-existent text.

“(With all due respect, Elliot Johnson was not familiar with Psalm 74 and completely missed the point when he tried to suggest on the spur of the moment that it alluded to God defeating Satan along the lines of the old gap theory of Gen 1:2).”

Poor Elliot. None of us is perfect.

“To assert that YHWH slew the seven-headed dragon Leviathan is clearly alluding to the Canaanite myth which asserting that Baal became the divine king when he slew the seven-headed dragon Leviathan.”

No, it’s not, as I have just above shown.

“Just about everyone who understands the conceptual background of Psalm 74 and understands how both literary allusion and theological polemic works, suggests that the only point (and it is a significant point!) of Psalm 74:14-18 is that Yahweh—not Baal—is the one and only true God and the Creator of heaven and earth.”

Those who do have bought into the theory and use it to argue for the theory’s applicability to Psalm 74:14-18. An embarassing example of circular reasoning. (And, bear in mind that I am NOT arguing that that passage couldn’t have been used, or been intended, as a polemic against Baal-as-God-and-Creator. But the HISTORICITY precedes the polemic both in actuality and in importance.)

“What does that say about the historicity of Psalm 74:14-18?”

It says that there are lots of learned men and women who need to do lots of unlearning.

“That Yahweh actually did in history what the Canaanites could only claim Baal did in mythology!”

What?? Are you saying that Yahweh “actually” slew a 7-headed Leviathan and “actually” fed its carcass to some people living in a wilderness, and did so “in history” (meaning, “actually”)? I thought you had just finished arguing against this occurrence being “actual”. Or perhaps you are using a different meaning for “actually” and for “history” than what is normally used.

“What did the author of Psalm 74 say ‘really happened’ when God created?”

He didn’t address this at all. Therefore, the author said NOTHING about what “really happened” when God created.

“Certainly not that God ‘really’ slew an actual physical seven-headed dragon, from whose corpse he made the cosmos.”

There is your theory cropping up in the midst of your argument again, where it ought not. Once again, Psalm 74:14-18 says absolutely NOTHING about God creating the cosmos, let alone His creating it from the corpse of Leviathan. But it DOES certainly say that God slew Leviathan, and Job 41 certainly shows that Leviathan was an actual/historical creature.

“What he is asserting about what really happened is that Yahweh—not Baal—really made the cosmos.”

No, he is not, because nowhere in that passage does the author at all reference the Creation, or how it was made, or Who made it. And certainly it does not mention Baal.

“The issue in Psalm 74 is WHO created the cosmos, not HOW he created nor FROM WHAT the created.”

No, because Psalm 74 says NOTHING about the Creation of the cosmos – thus, it does not deal with the either the issue of “Who” or “How” or “From What” the cosmos was created.

“If you are going to have such a narrow view of historicity in Genesis 1 that whatever the text presents as having happened at creation is what ‘really happened’ in terms of newspaper reporting, then I do not see how you can get out of having to say that Psalm 74 is asserting what really happened in terms of newspaper reporting.”

There is a very simple explanation, with which you as an Old Testament scholar should be familiar. And that is that the Creation account in Genesis 1-2 is clearly a narrative, and Psalm 74 is clearly poetic history. I would recommend the book, “Coming to Grips with Genesis”; especially the chapters, “Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis 1-11″ (by Todd S. Beall), and, “The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3 — What Means This Text?” (by Stephen W. Boyd). The latter provides a statistical analysis the genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3, and proves that it is narrative.

“Worse, you now have a contradiction between what Genesis 1 claims ‘really happened’ versus what Psalm 74 claims ‘really happened.’ ”

Not at all, because, as I have said and shown, Psalm 74 doesn’t deal at all with the Creation account, with “what ‘really happened’” during Creation.

“But if we understand the literary and polemical nature of both texts, the apparent contradicted disappears.”

There is a far simpler and more reasonable way to do this, and that is to note in the first place that there is no real or even apparent contradiction.

“Genesis 1 is a literary theological polemic which asserts what really happened, not in terms of a narrow definition of history writing and science, but in terms of theology: Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, is the one and only God and the true Creator, not the Egyptian gods.”

Not so. Its genre shows that it reveals “what really happened” in at least an historical sense, where “historical” simply and common-sensically means “actually occurred within history as described”.

“Likewise, Psalm 74 makes a similar assertion by rejecting Baal.”

Nope. It doesn’t mention Baal at all, nor does it address what or Who was involved in Creation. It simply does not address the events of Creation at all.

“You are going to have to be willing to understand the limits and nature of the literary genre of a literary theological polemic designed to refute ancient Near Eastern mythology.”

And you are going to have to do a far better job of proving your theory rather than merely assuming it. (In particular, in the case of Psalm 74.)

“What your question reflects is the assumption that all literary genres make the same kind of assertion about history.”

Narrative literature makes different assertions about history than does poetry; specifically, it asserts that its narrative IS about actual historical events which happened just as described in the narrative. And Genesis 1:1-2:3 has been statistically proven to be narrative literature.

Gordon Johnston

Although my discussion with Elliot Johnson about Genesis 1 on our campus in April has come and gone long ago, I became aware of your post only recently. It is unfortunate that you did not alert me to your post to invite my response for three reasons. First, your post misrepresented my approach in some very significant ways. Second, your post raised three important questions that I would have wished to have been able to respond in a more timely manner. Third, since your post misrepresents my view, it gives your readers a false impression and raises illegitimate suspicions about whether or not my approach coheres with inerrancy. Consequently, I am writing to try to set the record straight. I wish my response was not so long. However, your post is filled with so many examples of oversimplification, overgeneralization, misrepresentation and false inference that a simple response would not have been adequate.

Disappointing Features of Your Post

1. I am disappointed that you entitled your post, “DTS Debate about Genesis and Myth.” This misrepresented the April discussion in two ways.

First, the event was neither advertised nor framed as a debate, but as a “friendly discussion.” The preliminary comments for the evening emphasized this point. When the Student Forum originally invited me to present my approach to Genesis 1, it was at my suggestion that Elliot Johnson (one of my best friends on campus) be included so that the students could have the opportunity to hear more than one approach. However, both Elliot and I agreed to participate together on the condition that the evening would be framed as a discussion rather than a debate. Despite the fact that we made this clear throughout the evening, you not only use the term “debate” in the title to your post, but refer to it as such no less than seven times in your review. Why does this disappoint me? The term is rhetorically charged and suggests sparks are flying. Since your post also refers to the recent controversy at Westminster, anyone who reads this post but did not attend the event might easily come away with the impression that a similar debate is brewing on our campus. There is not the case. It is, in fact, a disservice to our school—and your alma mater no less—for your post to suggest what is not in fact the case.

Second, by entitling your post, “DTS Debate about Genesis and Myth,” you give the false impression that some on our campus suggest Genesis is myth or that one of the presenters holds this. In fact, neither Elliot nor I suggested in any way that Genesis 1 is myth. Both of us clearly affirmed that Genesis 1 is—to one degree or another—a polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation myths. To assert that Genesis 1 rejects ancient Near Eastern creation myths does not mean that Genesis 1 is a creation myth.

In the light of these two mispresentations of the event in the title of your post, I would have to characterize this as yellow journalism. As you know, yellow journalism is a pejorative term used to decry reporting of an event that uses eye-catching headlines to attract an audience by exaggeration, sensationalism and scandal mongering that distorts the actual facts (see W. Joseph Campbell, Yellow Journalism [Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2001]; Daniel Cohen, Yellow Journalism [Brookield, Conn: Twenty-First Century Books, 2000]).

2. I am disappointed that your post misrepresents the approach that I presented both during the course of the evening and in my recent article in Bibliotheca Sacra. In both, I suggested that Genesis 1 is a literary theological polemic designed to refute ancient Near Eastern creation myths in general and ancient Egyptian creation myths in particular. During the Q&A session, a couple of students asked whether my approach might somehow imply that Genesis 1 itself was myth. I explicitly stated on both occasions that it does not. After the event was over, you personally asked me the same question and received the same answer. Despite the fact that I rejected this idea no less than three times within the course of the evening, you twice describe my view of Genesis 1 in your post as a “mythical approach.” This grossly misrepresents my approach. It also fails to acknowledge that I explicitly reject such an approach when you yourself directly asked me about this. As I stated several times that evening and in my article, I view Genesis 1 as a literary theological polemic that rejects ancient Near Eastern creation mythology. Surely you can understand the difference. Even if you cannot, it is unprofessional for you to characterize my view as a “mythical approach” when I explicitly rejected such an approach. Let me be clear: I do not hold a mythical approach to Genesis 1.

3. I am disappointed by the way you misrepresent me when you claim to explain my approach in layman’s terms. On the one hand, I commend your summary of my approach when you put it in scholarly terms: “Johnston argues against the widely held view that regards Enuma Elish as the conceptual background of the Genesis 1 creation narrative. He argues that parallels between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation myths are much more compelling and should replace the older critical view which links Genesis 1 to later Mesopotamian myths.” On the other hand, you grossly oversimplify the issues and badly misrepresent my presentation and Bib Sac article when you claim to explain it in layman’s terms: “In layman’s terms, that means Genesis 1 derives from an Egyptian myth.” The expression “derives from” is misleading, since it suggests the source of Genesis 1 is an Egyptian myth. This confuses the issues by suggesting Genesis 1 does not derive from divine inspiration but from borrowing of Egyptian mythology. Let me set the record straight by putting my view in layman’s terms: As I see it, Genesis 1 derived from divine inspiration, and originally was designed to function as a literary theological polemic refuting—not deriving from—ancient Egyptian creation myths.

4. I am disappointed that you feel qualified to critique the views of a fellow evangelical colleague who is working in a discipline in which you admit that you have no formal/specialized training. This is why you need to be more careful and recognize your limits in understanding the nuances of these kinds of technical OT discussions. You really owed it to me to be more careful. One of the problems with these kind of posts is that—unlike a professional news organization—you do not have an editor sitting over shoulder insisting on fact checking before a story goes to press. At the very least, it would have been more responsible to double-check with me to see whether or not your post accurately represents my view. In fact, it does not.

5. I am disappointed that your post framed our discussion in terms of the recent controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary over the views of Pete Enns. Both your introductory and concluding paragraphs placed our discussion within the context of the Pete Enns controversy. Although you do go on to acknowledge that our discussion had nothing to do with Enns’ book, your introductory and concluding paragraphs contextualized our discussion in a way that only confused matters. Why did you frame your introductory paragraph in terms of a DTS debate about Enns’ book when you knew when you were writing that it was not about it at all?

6. I am disappointed that your post characterizes my view as “an Enns-friendly interpretation.” In fact, I made no reference to Enns’ approach during the entire evening, nor do I refer to him anywhere in my article. My approach differs from Enns in significant ways. The only thing my approach has in common with Enns is that I suggest Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise, but is contextualized against the background of ancient Near Eastern literature. But whereas Enns suggests Genesis 1 is mythological, I suggest it is a polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation myths. In fact, many evangelical Old Testament scholars view Genesis 1 as a literary polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation myths, e.g., Gerhard Hasel, Bruce Waltke, John Walton, James Hoffmeier. Although Waltke views Genesis 1 as a polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation mythology, he has criticized Enns’ approach to Genesis 1 as too extreme and provocative. If you had asked me whether I characterize my view as “an Enns-friendly interpretation,” I could have explained the critical differences. In fact, I would characterize my view as a Waltke-friendly interpretation. My approach most closely resembles that of Jim Hoffmeier and James Currid (cf. bibliography in my article for their recent publications), two evangelical Egyptologists. To suggest my approach was an “Enns-friendly interpretation” not only misrepresents my view, but reveals your own lack of control of this area of Old Testament studies. Worse, it creates a guilt-by-association scenario.

7. I am disappointed that your post misrepresented the nature of our discussion by suggesting that we were raising the same kind of doctrinal questions that Peter Enns raised in his book: “The DTS debate wasn’t about Enns’ book, but many of the same doctrinal questions were at stake.” This grossly mischaracterized our discussion. While Enns’ book was asking questions about inerrancy, our discussion focused on hermeneutics. In fact, the title of the forum was, “Hermeneutics of Reading the Biblical Creation Narratives.” My opening slide intentionally distanced myself from the kind of doctrinal questions raised by Enns. Let me reproduce its content: “My Theological Presuppositions: (1) divine revelation, (2) biblical inerrancy, (3) diversity of hermeneutics. Everyone at DTS is committed to inerrancy, but the question in Genesis 1 is hermeneutical: ‘How do we read the biblical creation accounts? In what way are the creation accounts inerrant?’” The main purpose of my presentation, in fact, was to defend the inerrancy of Genesis 1 from skeptics who claim it is in error since it seems to conflict with science. By viewing Genesis 1 as a literary theological polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation myths, evangelicals can better defend its inerrancy by appealing to its literary genre and authorial intent (two issues for which the Chicago Statement makes allowance).

8. I am disappointed that the closing line of your post suggests that evangelicals who view Genesis 1 as a literary theological polemic are somehow questioning inerrancy: “For many evangelicals, the nature of scripture’s inerrancy is very much an open question.” I appreciate the fact that your post acknowledges that I affirm inerrancy. In case there is any question, let me be clear: I firmly believe Scripture as a whole and Genesis 1 in particular is inerrant. Let me also emphasize the point of our forum discussion: We were not questioning whether or not Genesis is inerrant—we were attempting to explain how Genesis 1 is inerrant.

Response to Your Three Questions

The three questions you raised on your post are not only legitimate questions, but necessary ones. All three were asked in different terms during the Q&A time. Although I attempted to answer these questions, our time was limited so it is understandable that further clarification is needed. This is understandable since each of us has a different interpretive grid through which we sift discussions. Sometimes it takes multiple conversations to actually hear what a person is saying if it is something new. Part of the problem is that evangelicals have typically thought there are only two approaches to Genesis 1: pure history/science versus pure myth/fiction. My approach (which is similar to the views of Waltke, Walton, Hoffmeier, Currid) represents a genuinely third approach: literary theological polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation myths. In any case, let me take each of your questions in order. Your questions are quoted first, my responses follow.

1. “First, how does Johnston’s ‘Egyptian myth’ hypothesis affect our understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1:1-2:4? Johnston said that the mythological approach does not render Genesis 1 unhistorical. He affirms the historical existence of the first man, the first women, the fall into sin, etc. Yet it is difficult to understand why one would affirm such things if the Genesis accounts amount to nothing more than Egyptian myths with Yahweh’s name plugged in here and there. If everyone agrees that the Egyptian narratives are fanciful, then why do the stories all of the sudden become ‘historical’ when the true God’s name is inserted? It seems to me that affirming historicity is a non sequitur if one is working from the Genesis-as-myth point of view.”

Let me begin by trying to disabuse your question of several misconceptions. First, my view of Genesis 1 is not a “mythological approach,” as you repeatedly characterize it. I view Genesis 1 as a “literary theological polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation mythology in general and against ancient Egyptian creation myths in particular.” Your mischaracterization of my position is the foundational problem with your subsequent concerns that you raise.

Because you not only misrepresent my view, the hermeneutical conclusions and theological implications that you draw from what I assert do not logically follow. For any syllogism to be valid, the foundational premise and subsequent assertions must be true for the conclusion to be valid. However, since you misrepresent my foundational premise, it is not legitimate for you to suggest that my position is a non sequitur. Your syllogism is faulty. I am not “working from the Genesis-as-myth point of view,” as you assert. I am working from the “Genesis-as-polemic” point of view.

You also misrepresent my approach when you suggest I am asserting “the Genesis accounts amount to nothing more than Egyptian myths …” My Bib Sac article and forum presentation made it clear that Genesis 1 is certainly much more—not nothing more—than Egyptian myth. For example, in Egyptian mythology, the physical world is the embodiment/manifestation of the gods. Egyptian creation myths are both cosmogony (creation of the cosmos) and theogony (creation of the gods). By asserting that all the elements of the physical world are inanimate objects that the one true God created, Genesis 1 rejects Egyptian mythology. Genesis 1 asserts absolute monotheism, absolute transcendence of God as distinct from the material world and the eternal pre-existence of the Creator. There are a half dozen other ways Genesis 1 rejects Egyptian mythology and is much more than Egyptian creation myths (see my Bib Sac article).

You grossly oversimplify the issue when you write: “the Genesis accounts amount to nothing more than Egyptian myths with Yahweh’s name plugged in here and there. If everyone agrees that the Egyptian narratives are fanciful, then why do the stories all of the sudden become ‘historical’ when the true God’s name is inserted?” There is much more going on than simply the name Yahweh/Elohim replacing Atum, etc. Nowhere did I suggest in the article or presentation that it was simply a matter of “cut-and-paste” divine names. The literary and polemical nature of Genesis 1 is much more sophisticated than this. Genesis 1 is not simply substituting the name Elohim for Atum, etc. It is rejecting the entire mythological approach to the cosmos and to creation that permeate all the Egyptian creation myths. Please refer to my article, where I list half dozen theological polemical assertions that Genesis 1 is making which reject the Egyptian mythological view of creation. In effect, Genesis 1 asserts that Yahweh is the one and only true God, who did in history what the Egyptians could only claim their gods did in mythology. Contrary to your mischaracterization, none of us suggests that Moses simply substituted the name Hebrew name Elohim into the Egyptian myths and that the fanciful Egyptian creation myths suddenly became historical. You have grossly oversimplified the issues and misunderstood what we are suggesting. I think that if you take the time to read the couple of dozen evangelical articles that suggest Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation mythology, you will realize how naïve your current misunderstanding is.

Contrary to your over-simplification of the issues, the Egyptian creation myths did not “all of a sudden become ‘historical’ when the one true God’s name was inserted into Genesis 1.” That is not at all what I am saying. You fail to appreciate how the hermeneutics of literary allusion and theological polemic work (For a convenient introduction to the hermeneutical techniques of literary allusion, please see the first of my three Bib Sac articles from 2002/03). For example, Psalm 74:14-17 clearly features a literary allusion to the Canaanite myth of Baal slaying the (seven-headed) dragon Leviathan and creating the cosmos out of his carcass, which functions as theological polemic against Baal worship and promoting Yahweh. The Canaanite myth “did not all of a sudden become ‘historical’ when Yahweh’s name was inserted” in place of Baal. In terms of philosophical logic, that would be a naïve simplistic reductio ad absurdum. The rhetorical point of Psalm 74:14-17 is that Yahweh, not Baal, is the one and only true God and Creator. By adopting the imagery used of Baal in the Canaanite myth, the Canaanite myth does not all of a sudden become historical by simply inserting God’s name in place of Baal. Rather, it is a sophisticated rhetorical technique of polemically rejecting the false Canaanite theological claim that Baal is the one true God and Creator, and asserting that YHWH alone is the only one worthy of those titles. Please compare:

Hebrew Creation Poem: Psalm 74:14-17 (ca. 1000 BC)

You destroyed the Sea by your strength;
you shattered the heads (plural) of the Sea Monster (tnyn)
You crushed the heads (plural) of Leviathan (lwytn);
you fed him to the people 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.

Canaanite Myth: CTA 5.1-5//1.28-32 (ca. 1500-1200 BC)

When you smite Leviathan (lwtn), the crooked Serpent,
and destroy the writhing seven-headed Dragon (tnn),
the heavens will wither,
they will go slack like the folds of your tunic.

Likewise, OT scholars have traditionally suggested that Gen 1:2-8 featured a literary polemic against the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish, in which Marduk defeated Tiamat (the mythological embodiment of the chaos waters), hacked her into two halves, then created the cosmos from her corpse. While liberals suggested the connections between Gen 1 and Enuma Elish suggests the Hebrew account was no different than the Babylonian myth (just a Hebrew version of the same myth), evangelicals and conservatives have always insisted that the similarities between the two did not mean that Genesis 1 was “mythical,” but polemical. The Hebrew account has just as many theological differences with the Babylonian myth as it has literary similarities. Any theological polemic based on literary allusion typically features both striking literary similarities (to create the intertextual connections necessary to activate the allusion in the consciousness of the audience) and even more dramatic theological differences (to assert the superiority of Yahweh over the other gods). The reason many OT scholars have seen Gen 1 as a polemic against Enuma Elish is because it seemed to both draw upon, but also distance itself from the Babylonian creation myth. Although more recent scholarship is showing that the polemic in Genesis 1 was more specifically directed against ancient Egyptian creation myths rather than Babylonian creation myths, the hermeneutics are essentially the same. In a wonderful article several decades ago, Gerhard Hasel clearly demonstrated that whereas Genesis 1 was certainly alluding to ancient Near Eastern creation myths for the sake of theological polemic, this did not mean that Genesis 1 was itself mythological, but merely polemical. More recently, Gordon Wenham (Genesis, WBC) and Bruce Waltke, conservative evangelical OT scholars without peer, both adopt the same approach advocated by Gerhard Hasel.

The objectivity of your evaluation of my approach is tainted by your own lack of appreciation of the complexities of the hermeneutics and lack of familiarity with the past 20+ years of discussion of this topic by evangelical OT scholars. Thus, when you write, “It is difficult to understand why …” and “It seems to me that …” you are not representing what I actually asserted in my article or presentation, but what you yourself think the implications might be. That is tantamount to putting words in my mouth or trying to divine my thoughts. Worse yet, you suggest that the implied (by you) hermeneutical and theological fall-out of my approach is incompatible with historicity and inerrancy. When asked about the implications of a literary polemical approach upon historicity and inerrancy, I explicitly affirmed that I did not believe it jeopardizes either. Granted, we must be careful in how we articulate issues (this is the problem with Peter Enns—he was too cavalier and not cautious enough about how he articulated the implications). However, just because you cannot understand how to reconcile a literary polemical approach with biblical historicity and inerrancy (”It is difficult to understand … It seems to me that …”), does not mean that it cannot be done. Nor is it fair to raise suspicions that evangelicals who view Genesis 1 as literary polemic are somehow in danger of losing hold of historicity and inerrancy.

You question how I can hold my view and at the same time hold the historicity of Genesis 1. You begin by stating, “Johnston said that the mythological approach does not render Genesis 1 unhistorical,” then go on to question how a mythological approach can hold to historicity. However, the basis of your skepticism is based on your misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my approach as “mythological.” I myself would agree with you that a mythological approach to Gen 1 would be quite problematic for one to hold Gen 1 as historical. However, I do not hold a “mythological approach” to Genesis 1, but view it as a “literary theological polemical against ancient Egyptian creation mythology.” Can you understand the difference?

You twice invoke the term “historicity” without defining precisely what you mean by this. You seem to imply the concept of “historicity” means the biblical text tells us exactly what really happened in terms of the brute historical events. The topic of biblical historiography has been the topic of much discussion in conservative OT studies over the past generation. It is generally accepted in conservative evangelical OT circles that biblical historicity does not mean that the OT prose narratives are simply “newspaper accounts” or the equivalent of a “videotape” recounting of the brute historical events. John Walton’s recent book on the OT in its ancient Near Eastern cultural environment distinguishes about a dozen different kinds of historical writing within the broad literary genre of OT narrative. Dr. Eugene Merrill, the evangelical community’s leading conservative writer in the history of ancient Israel, took pains in his recent article (in Giving the Sense [Kregel]) on the nature of historiography within Israel’s historical narratives to note that the historical books are not just the facts, but more than the facts: the historical narratives contain theological interpretation of events.

Returning to the topic of biblical creation texts and historicity, what does the clearly literary polemical nature of Psalm 74:14-18 depicting YHWH as creating heaven and earth by slaying the seven-headed Leviathan dragon and making the cosmos out of his carcass (even feeding it those who dwell on the Mediterranean coast) say about historicity? When we are looking at a literary theological polemic, we have to sort through the difficult (!) task of distinguishing the polemical imagery drawn from the alluded to text (in the case of Psalm 74, the Canaanite myth of Baal slaying Leviathan) from the actual historical event that underlies the Hebrew assertion. In this case, I venture to say that most of us would conclude that YHWH did not actually slay a seven-headed dragon in eternity past and create the cosmos out of his carcass (With all due respect, Elliot Johnson was not familiar with Psalm 74 and completely missed the point when he tried to suggest on the spur of the moment that it alluded to God defeating Satan along the lines of the old gap theory of Gen 1:2). To assert that YHWH slew the seven-headed dragon Leviathan is clearly alluding to the Canaanite myth which asserting that Baal became the divine king when he slew the seven-headed dragon Leviathan. Just about everyone who understands the conceptual background of Psalm 74 and understands how both literary allusion and theological polemic works, suggests that the only point (and it is a significant point!) of Psalm 74:14-18 is that Yahweh—not Baal—is the one and only true God and the Creator of heaven and earth. What does that say about the historicity of Psalm 74:14-18? That Yahweh actually did in history what the Canaanites could only claim Baal did in mythology! What did the author of Psalm 74 say “really happened” when God created? Certainly not that God “really” slew an actual physical seven-headed dragon, from whose corpse he made the cosmos. What he is asserting about what really happened is that Yahweh—not Baal—really made the cosmos. The issue in Psalm 74 is WHO created the cosmos, not HOW he created nor FROM WHAT the created. If you are going to have such a narrow view of historicity in Genesis 1 that whatever the text presents as having happened at creation is what “really happened” in terms of newspaper reporting, then I do not see how you can get out of having to say that Psalm 74 is asserting what really happened in terms of newspaper reporting. Worse, you now have a contradiction between what Genesis 1 claims “really happened” versus what Psalm 74 claims “really happened.” But if we understand the literary and polemical nature of both texts, the apparent contradicted disappears. Genesis 1 is a literary theological polemic which asserts what really happened, not in terms of a narrow definition of history writing and science, but in terms of theology: Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, is the one and only God and the true Creator, not the Egyptian gods. Likewise, Psalm 74 makes a similar assertion by rejecting Baal. You are going to have to be willing to understand the limits and nature of the literary genre of a literary theological polemic designed to refute ancient Near Eastern mythology. What your question reflects is the assumption that all literary genres make the same kind of assertion about history.

You also need to consider that literary symbol is a valid genre for conveying real historical events in the past. For example, Ezekiel 16 symbolically recounts the salvation-history of God’s covenant relationship with Israel. The prophet symbolically depicts Israel as an abandoned baby girl, whom Yahweh rescued, then who grew up to become a beautiful young woman, whom Yahweh married, only to become an unfaithful harlot, whom Yahweh cast away. The fact that Ezekiel uses extended literary symbol does not mean this is “mythical,” nor “fictional.” It does not challenge the historicity of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh, nor threaten inerrancy. Although Ezekiel’s literary presentation does not tell us “what really happened” in terms of the brute historical events (Sinai, conquest, monarchy, idolatry, exile), it does dramatically and graphically convey “what really happened” in terms of the theological/religious/moral dimensions of Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel. My literary approach to Gen 1 is not much different than my approach to Ezek 16. There are clues in both texts that the author is giving us more than history—he is giving us theology, which is not less than history.

Your last point is built on a faulty understanding of my view: “It seems to me that affirming historicity is a non-sequitur if one is working from the Genesis-as-myth point of view.” I do not work from the point of view of “Genesis-as-myth,” but “Genesis-as-polemic.” The approach that I embrace holds that God really did create heaven and earth as a real historical event. However, since the imagery and events depicted are polemics against the imagery and events in the ancient Egyptian creation myths, I do not think this commits us to assert that the polemical imagery in Genesis 1 mirrors the actual historical/scientific actions that God mysteriously performed in creation any more than Psalm 74:14-18 commits us to assert that the polemical imagery of YHWH slaying the seven-headed dragon Leviathan mirrors the actual historical/scientific actions of God’s creation. Both Psalm 74:14-18 and Genesis 1 tell us what really happened—but they are not giving us a scientific treatise of what really happened, but a literary theological polemic of what really happened.

Even Elliot Johnson suggested Genesis 1 is a “literary presentation of what really happened,” not “an historical/scientific treatise of what really happened.” As Elliot acknowledged during his presentation, he changed the title of his paper from “what really happened” to “a literary presentation of what really happened.” That seemingly minor revision speaks volumes. Although no one pressed Elliot on the significance of the difference between his original title and his revised title, I think that he would acknowledge that Gen 1 should not be viewed like a “videotape” of what really happened, but a “literary presentation” of what really happened. Somewhere in there, Elliot himself acknowledges that Genesis 1 features some degree of polemic against the Egyptian creation accounts. Whatever degree we are talking about, that is where Genesis 1 as “literary presentation” is distinct from Genesis 1 as “videotape.”

2. “Second, what exactly are the doctrinal implications of reading Genesis as a myth (whether Egyptian or Babylonian)? Although both presenters affirmed their belief in the inerrancy of scripture, it was not altogether clear how the newer hermeneutical approach cohered with such a confession. That’s not to say that it doesn’t cohere. It’s simply to observe that issue wasn’t even discussed. I think the confusion on this point was reflected in many of the questions that students asked during the Q & A time. They simply weren’t sure how the Genesis-as-myth approach should impact their belief in the inspiration of scripture.”

This question is based on the faulty premise that my approach is a matter of “reading Genesis as a myth,” which you also called “the Genesis-as-myth approach.” Nowhere in my article and not once in my presentation (whether orally or in written form in my ppt) did I suggest Genesis is “myth.” Your mischaracterization of my position is based upon your failure to understand the nature of a literary polemic against an ancient Near Eastern myth. Just because a biblical author/character constructs a polemic against a myth does not make that polemical construct mythological itself. For example, Elijah engaged in theological polemic at Mount Carmel when he challenged the prophets of Baal to a showdown, using the very elements Canaanite mythology ascribed to Baal. According to Canaanite myth, Baal was enthroned on Mount Carmel and was the god of the thunderstorm/rain/lightning. Hence, Elijah prayed to YHWH—the true God—which it not rain for three years in the very territory where Baal was worshipped. Then he challenged the prophets of Baal to a duel on Mount Carmel, seemingly giving Baal “home court advantage.” Then he challenged them to pray that Baal light the altar with lighting, seemingly giving Baal his “choice of weapons.” Baal failed to act, while YHWH did. The point: YHWH is the one and only true God, not Baal, because YHWH was able to do in history what Baal could only do in mythology. There is nothing here that challenges the historicity or inerrancy of the account.

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledged that both Elliot and I affirm inerrancy. You were also accurate in your observation that this was not the focus of our discussion. As advertised, the topic of our discussion was the hermeneutics of reading the Genesis creation accounts. Due to the limits of time, Elliot and I narrowed our presentations to the hermeneutical issues. However, we anticipated that students would want to explore questions related to inerrancy and historicity during the Q&A time. It was not surprising that several questions were directed to this. It was legitimate for you to observe, “Although both presenters affirmed their belief in the inerrancy of scripture, it was not altogether clear how the newer hermeneutical approach cohered with such a confession. That’s not to say that it doesn’t cohere.” Part of the reason that it was not altogether clear how this coheres with inerrancy was that we did not have adequate time to address all the questions in the detail that we might have wished. I hope that my detailed written response helps explain how this coheres with inerrancy.

I think it important to emphasize that Elliot and I, both of whom see theological polemic in the text to one degree or another (I more than he), both clearly asserted THAT Genesis 1 is inerrant. As I noted on my second ppt frame, the question at hand is this: “HOW is Genesis 1 inerrant?” This gets to the question of authorial intent and literary genre. For example, when Jesus said, “The sun rises and the sun sets on both the righteous and the wicked,” his statement was inerrant. As evangelicals we assert THAT Jesus’ statement is inerrant, but we then have to explain HOW it is inerrant. It would be naïve to suggest that a straightforward reading of the text means that Jesus was teaching that the sun rotates around the earth, which would be contrary to scientific fact. Evangelicals typically understand his statement to be laden with phenomenological language, not scientifically precise language. The intent of Jesus’ speech was not to teach the astronomical relationship of the sun and the earth, but the theological truth that God is benevolent to provide for the basic needs of human life (the shining of the sun and all its resultant benefits) to all people, regardless of their moral state. I think it is hard to avoid the self-evident conclusion that the Scriptures feature a pre-scientific conception of the world (e.g., earth is flat, heavenly ocean, sun rotates around the world [phenomenological language for Jesus, to be sure, but the ancients really believed that prior to Galileo and Copernicus) and a cosmic geography (e.g., heaven is up, hell is down, chaos waters surround the cosmos, earth is held up by pillars). The Church could only resolve the apparent tension between Scripture and the scientific discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus by appealing to hermeneutics and adopting a more sophisticated understanding of biblical revelation and inerrancy.

3. “Third, how do we square the mythical approach with what other biblical writers say about Genesis 1 and 2? As David Howard has noted, ‘The modern focus on the events, or happenings, of history is important in the Bible’s case because the Bible makes numerous claims—explicitly and implicitly—concerning the factuality of the events it records’ (An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books, p. 35). Both OT and NT writers treat the Genesis creation narratives as if they were straightforward historical reports. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 11:3, the apostle Paul comments on the Genesis narrative by saying that the ’serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness.’ In 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul cites the order of creation in Genesis 2 as the basis for his instruction about gender roles (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9). These are just two examples, but more could be cited. Is it proper for Christians to regard Genesis 1-2 as myth when OT and NT writers clearly do not? (See also, 1 Chronicles 1:1; Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-8; Luke 3:38; 1 Corinthians 15:45.) This is no small point since the evangelical doctrine of scripture has always been based to some extent on scripture’s testimony about itself.”

The central issue you raise is excellent; however, the question itself is poorly worded and as a result creates a straw man argument. Once again, you have framed the question wrong from the outset by misrepresenting my approach. You begin, “How do we square the mythical approach with what other biblical writers say about Genesis 1 and 2?” You go on to say “Is it proper for Christians to regard Genesis 1-2 as myth when OT and NT writers clearly do not?” As noted repeatedly above, I do not adopt a “mythical approach,” but approach Gen 1 as a literary theological polemical against ancient Egyptian creation mythology. This distinction dramatically frames the issues in altogether different terms. I would restate the question this way: “How do we square the literary theological polemical approach with what other biblical writers say about creation?”

In fact, framing the question as I am suggesting helps us reconcile the eleven different texts that present creation in an extended manner (two narrative passages, nine poetic … see ppt handout for OT references). As noted in the presentation, all nine poetic passages depict the order of the events in creation differently, as do the two prose passages. If we insist on taking these as precise “historical, scientific” treatises of what “really happened” (equivalent to a newspaper or videotape recounting), then we are faced with a serious problem of grave contradictions within Scripture. However, if these are literary presentations (the expression Elliot himself used) of God’s creation, with several targeted as theological polemics against different ancient Near Eastern creation myths (Egyptian, Sumerian, Canaanite, Babylonian), then the so-called “contradictions” disappear. The biblical creation accounts feature both unity and diversity. The diversity of the creation accounts can be explained on the basis of different targets of the biblical polemic. The creation accounts are all unified around one common central confession: Yahweh, the one and only true God, created heaven and earth!

Although you make the point that “the evangelical doctrine of scripture has always been based to some extent on Scripture’s testimony about itself,” I see nothing in your post that acknowledges there are no less than eleven extended OT passages that present God’s creative activity, each of which feature both unity and diversity. For the evangelical view of Scripture to survive, I think we must acknowledge that some of these creation passages are literary in nature. Otherwise, a straightforward forward reading that does not allow for the possibility of a literary dimension or theological polemic would result in mass contradictions. Now, we do not view the claim in Ps 18 that God is a “rock” as contradicting the assertion in Ps 23 that God is a “shepherd,” because we recognize a literary dimension here. I assume most evangelicals harmonize the nine different creation passages in the poetic texts as also having a literary dimension. Why are we so reluctant to entertain the possibility that the differences between the two narrative creation texts (both the differences between Gen 1 and Gen 2, as well as the differences between these two prose creation texts and the nine poetic creation texts) can be just as easily reconciled by allowing for a literary dimension?

Please note that neither my Bib Sac article nor presentation on Thursday night was directed beyond anything that Gen 1:1-2:3. Your third question focuses on the hermeneutical and doctrinal implications of a literary theological approach to Gen 2:4-3:24. As far as I am concerned, the questions in Gen 2:4-3:24 are quite different than those in 1:1-2:3, and much more complex. For example, Gen 1:1-2:3 seems to function as a literary theological polemic to refute ancient Egyptian creation myths, while 2:4-3:24 is clearly set against a Mesopotamian background. Second, the historical issues are more involved since 1:1-2:3 says nothing about Adam and Eve per se, only the creation of humanity as a whole on the sixth day, whereas Gen 2:4-3:24 clearly depicts the creation of the first man and woman. Third, 1:1-2:3 says nothing about the fall of man, while 2:4-3:24 centers on explaining how the fall came about. Fourth, several NT texts engage the order of creation (1 Tim 2:13-14) and the effects of the fall (Rom 5:12-22) in a manner that Gen 1:1-2:3 does not broach. Since there are dramatic distinctions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3, one’s approach to Genesis 1 does not necessary determine how we should approach Genesis 2-3.

Final Impressions

1. My visceral reaction is that your post is not an objective representation of my presentation and article. Your wording is often unnecessarily pejorative. You repeatedly misrepresent my view, then base your critique on false caricature. I certainly welcome dialogue and interaction. However, I am disappointed that many of the concerns you voice and suspicions you raise are based on misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my view. It is perfectly appropriate for you to offer your evaluation of someone’s view, but it is inappropriate to critique someone’s view if you are misrepresenting one’s view. At the very least, I would have appreciated the courtesy of being alerted that you had posted a critical review of my presentation and article. Such professional courtesy would have given me opportunity to respond in a timely manner. As it was, I only discovered your post after it already had been online for some time.

2. Denny, let me encourage you to be more cautious in your representations of the views of others. Mine is not the first that you have misrepresented. In a recent review of Darrell Bock’s support of the Evangelical Manifesto, you repeatedly fell into over-generalization and over-simplification of his views. Fortunately, Darrell was alerting to your post so that he was able to interact with you in a timely manner, to correct your mischaracterization of his position. If I had to rely upon your summary of Darrell’s view, I would have not had an accurate understanding of his position since you did not represent him in a balanced manner. However, once he was able to disabuse your readers of your oversimplifications and overgeneralizations of his approach, the lively exchange between the two of you was greatly to be appreciated. I only wish that I had been given the same kind of opportunity to disabuse both you and your readers of the mischaracterization of my view.

Hope that this lengthy missive has provided a fuller response to your three really good questions, and that it has provided a more balanced presentation of my approach.

Gordon Johnston
Associate Professor
Dallas Theological Seminary