State Street Community Church
Posts tagged Creation
Some Concluding Thoughts on Cosmogony
Mar 18th
If you’ve been reading with us for the last 10 days, let me conclude with a thought or two.
Ancient Near Eastern cosmogony mythology is not the literal word of God and should not be treated with the same respect. However, by knowing the intricacies of the various account and how they share similarities and the important places in which they differ can help our understanding of the truly remarkable story of Israel and their God YHWH. Maybe the modern American battle of getting creation taught in science classrooms should take a backseat to having it taught in history classrooms where the true uniqueness of creation can be properly handled. By knowing what God has done through history, especially in comparison to other historical mythologies, one can understand the uniqueness of Israel’s story and how important they are in the scheme of God’s plan for humanity. Knowing a truth like that has the power to change a person’s life.
Some Thoughts on Cosmogony: What does it matter?
Mar 17th
Hopefully the differences of the various Ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies are obvious by now as the myths have been summarized. But, what about any parallels? Did the authors of Genesis and the Torah have any knowledge of these other cosmogonies and, perhaps more importantly, did they influence their writing?
It is important to confess the background I am basing my opinions and findings on in regards to inspiration. It is my belief that that God’s Word in the original manuscript(s) are the unadulterated, completely inspired, message of God’s formation of His people. The authors were guided by what we know as the Holy Spirit. I am not, however, a fundamental literalist. The text deserves a great amount of scholarly respect in interpretation and, as stated near the beginning of this paper, has the earthly author’s mark on it as well (i.e. Moses, being an Egyptian, was influenced by Egyptian customs, motifs, and even myths). Thus, there are mechanisms, literary and cultural, that are used which, when found and used in responsible interpretation, can lead to an even better understanding than just taking God’s Word without any critical analysis.
With that stated and having my interpretive hand-of-cards fully shown, there are a few parallels in these texts, namely between the Memphite Theology and the Israelite story. One of the most notable comparison in cosmogonies is that of intellectual creation. Ptah spoke and used his thought to create. YHWH is noted for speaking creation out of nothing. Though some scholars argue that Ptah used a thought process that was dissimilar than YHWH who just spoke and it was, the comparison still is notable for its uncommon use of physical inaction (i.e. the gods were not physically exerting energy like in the Ogdoad and Ennead). In Genesis 2, God uses the act of fashioning together to create mankind out of dust. The Egyptians used the idea of fashioning (esp. with Atum) as well if you consider Atum’s self-copulation a form of building/fashioning. The parallel is certainly ideological more than literal.
We also see similarities in the state of the pre-foundation creation. It seems that all of the mythologies include a state of primordial chaos. Some believe that Moses started Genesis with this parallel to be on “level ground” with the people of that day. It was a way of connecting their stories with that of YHWH. This parallel could very well be true and very fitting considering Moses’ (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) main objective was to communicate “what” God did, not “how” God did it. Genesis communicates that God created everything ex nihilo and ordered a chaotic creation, including humanity, perfectly to align with Him and to reflect Him.
Both Genesis and Memphite Theology claim that the creator gods rested after creation. The similarity ends there, though, as the idea of “rest” in Scripture differs greatly from that of Ptah’s story. This can also be contributed to the idea that in the Israelite creation story, mankind was created in the imago dei and was to model life after the supreme life giver. Nothing indicates that the people of Memphis were to live in any way different than the usual slave-to-god relationship which permeated the various theologies of that time.
What you do not see in the other creation accounts outside of the Israelite’s account is the most important piece of this literary puzzle which is also the very reason why it is important to study, know, and be able to communicate Ancient Near Eastern mythologies. You do not see in Egyptian or Babylonian cosmogonies humanity created at the center and God taking delight and pleasure in His creation like you do in Scripture. You also do not see a continual unfolding story that stretches from cosmogony to eschatology in which God is consistently redeeming His people back to Him. The profundity of Israel’s account of creation is only strengthened and drawn deeper by the understanding of the continual nature of creation that is shown throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Tomorrow: concluding thoughts.
Some Thoughts on Cosmogony: Heliopolis, Memphis, and Hermopolis
Mar 16th
Unlike the Mesopotamians or Babylonians, Egypt did not have as many changes in ruling factions. The Egyptians enjoyed having a fairly consistent history divided into two primary time periods; the Old Kingdom and the New Kingdom. Like other Ancient Near Eastern cosmogony myths, the myths of Egypt were that of the original, unadulterated stories whole others were adapted from other sources or associated myths.
In Ancient Egypt, the earliest traces of stable “schools” of cognitive reflections regarding the divine are the mythical & pre-rational theologies of the Old Kingdom, developed in Heliopolis (or “Ôn”), Memphis (or “Men-nefer”) & Hermopolis (or “Khemenu”). Shared among the myths was a belief in a chaotic and formless primordial ocean. As Egypt was at the crest of the great Nile River, the Egyptians would have been influenced by extreme water conditions. Like the Israel story and unlike the Enûma Eliš, there is a belief of a principle god who had been in existence since time began and had been the prime mover of all creation. Though the Egyptians narrative includes a divine family and departs from monotheism, this important factor certainly is shared amongst Israelite and Egyptian cosmologies.
The sources of Egyptian mythology are in various stages of completeness and are being found over time. The Pyramid Texts are the oldest of the three principal collections of Egyptian funerary literature. They are some of the oldest religious writings found from anywhere in the world. Approximately 200 Egyptian deities are mentioned in the Pyramid texts including major, creator gods and smaller, more miniscule gods. As Pinch so adequately states, it is important to understand when reading the Pyramid Texts through a modern, Western mindset that they are not intended to be narratives communicating the complete story of the gods. They are merely sections of the story that reveals various parts of the Egyptian myths.
The Heliopolis Ennead: Heliopolis was an ancient city situated five miles east of the Nile River. The city was also home to one of the most detailed accounts of creation. “Details concerning its cosmogony can be found scattered throughout the Pyramid and Coffin Texts, and a significantly newer (third century) papyrus that most likely evolved from earlier sources.” The myth starts with the primeval, primordial ocean Nun. Out of chaos (Nun) arose the self-created sun god Atum. Atum rose out of a lotus flower and stood on a raised mound he created. This act caused light to be created.
After Atum came Atum’s two children, Shu and Tefnut. As the text Pyramid Texts state, “Atum is he who once came into being, who masturbated in Heliopolis. He took his phallus in his grasp that he might create orgasm by means of it, and so were born the twins Shu and Tefnut.” Interestingly enough, Atum was both a male/female god which would give him/her the necessary components to create life in a way that would parallel the humane order; needing both male and female components. Tefnut (moisture) and Shu (air) engendered Geb (earth) and Nut (sky) through normal intercourse. The incestuous Geb and Nut participated in continual sexual intercourse until Shu separated them giving rise to land and sky. Geb and Nut give birth to four children; Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Horus, and Seth. The nine created gods in Heliopolitan theology formed the Ennead (from the Greek root “nine”).
The Ogdoad of Hermopolis: The priests of Hermopolis did not fully accept the various cosmogonies in other areas of the Ancient Near East. In an effort to leverage what they knew about the portrayal of a creation of chaos in their culture with what others purported about Nun. Out of their ideology sprung forth the mythology Ogdoad. The Ogdoad was a system of eight gods, paired together to make four male-female counterparts. Nun and Naunet represented the primeval waters; Heh and Hauhet represented eternity; Kuk and Kuaket represented darkness; and Amun and Amaunet represented air (or that which is hidden). The eight existed in a primordial state of “infinitely dark and limitless mire”. Out of these eight creating deities that represented different capacities sprung forth a big bang-like phenomenon that created a cosmic place in which the creator sun god emerged who was named Ra. The Ogdoad then became the creators of the creator god. Interestingly enough, many other mythological accounts from Egypt feature an even older and more primeval god than those in the Ogdoad. These gods would then be perplexingly noted as the creators of the creators of the creator god. There are four differing views of Thothian theology that communicates the formation of humanity and the earth. But, again, for the sake of keeping this to solely a cosmogonical focused paper, I will refrain from commenting on those any further.
Memphite Theology: Memphite Theology is named for the place it originates; Memphis, Egypt. Memphis, following its unification by the pharaoh Menes, was the first capital of Egypt. Most of what we know about Memphis Theology is derived from the Shabaka Stone, a stone commissioned by the pharaoh Shabaka to take the theology off of a worm-ridden piece of papyrus and to put a sense of permanence on it by writing the details on stone. Oddly enough, since its creation, the stone has been used for other tasks including a millstone and to grind grain giving archeologists and scholars an increasing challenge to find the true meaning and details of the original authors.
According to the people of Memphis, their god Ptah was the God of gods. The Memphites “transformed the Heliopolitan Ennead by giving the primacy in the activity of creation to Ptah.” The preeminence of Ptah can be demonstrated by this section of the Memphite Theology;
Ptah who is upon the Great Throne,
Ptah-Nun, the father who begot Atum;
Ptah-Naunet, the mother who bore Atum;
Ptah the Great, that is, the heart and tongue of the Ennead
(Ptah) who gave birth to the gods.
Ptah was everything and in everything. His power was so great that he could speak the world into existence unlike Atum who creates through onanism (which is a nice word for masturbation). As the heart and tongue of the Ennead, Ptah was said to create everything that existed through the powers of thought and speech. After Ptah created the cosmos, the Earth, and everything within, Memphite texts indicate that he rested giving credence to an interesting parallel to YHWH’s first sabbatical actions in Genesis.
Tomorrow we’ll get into the meat of why I think this all matters.
Some Thoughts on Cosmogony: The Genesis Narrative
Mar 12th
The beginning of the story of Israel’s creation account says, “In the beginning, God…”. Just a few words into this incredible piece of literature exists a quest to find the crux interpretum. It begs the question; in the beginning of what?
The author of the Genesis narrative never informs the reader of anything before God. Instead, he uses God (Elohim) as the starting point. As will be demonstrated in the later stories, the finality of God is important in the Israelite story. Not only was God there in the beginning but He is there in the present and will be there in the end. We are then to assume that the Israelite cosmogony starts off with God creating ex nihilo or out of nothing. The absence of a story about God’s origination or location prior to the acts of creation gives credence to the assertion that God is not the only point to the creation account. Whereas some of the other Ancient Near Eastern creation mythologies are consumed with the telling of divine propaganda, the Israel account gives enough information for the reader to know that God is big enough to create the cosmos but involved enough to let someone or something else take a significant amount of the plot-line.
Craig Bartholomew talks of Genesis being a bit like what might happen at a really great art exhibition. After being overwhelmed with the beauty and magnitude of the art, someone approaches you and says, “How would you like to meet the artist?” Genesis 1 is an introduction to the Artist and His work. Genesis is not to be a literary work at how God does things but what God does. This incredibly beautiful and mystical story is, in literary terms, a narrative and its end goal is to reveal truth. The story, which certainly does not end in Genesis or even the Old Testament, is also the beginning of a larger story that unfolds the complicated and life-changing story of God and His people. For Israel, the cosmogony or how it all began was only meant to be a pericope of God’s ultimate story of revelation through Scripture. In other words, you can study Genesis and the creation account to great detail on its own including critical historical, literary, and theological motifs but you also cannot separate it with the rest of Scripture to get a full grasp on what is happening in Israel’s history. Unlike the Enûma Eliš or the Gilgamesh Epic (stories that will get into later), the Genesis narrative is not complete without the rest of the story and will only tell a portion of the real truth behind the purpose and intent of the actual story. Yet, we can still compare and contrast certain elements and characteristics amongst all of the stories and attempt to look at portions of the Genesis account through a smaller lens in order to get to a larger understanding of the true meaning.
The Genesis Narrative Plot-line: The cosmogony of Israel starts with one God (not many) and works nothing into something. First, God creates the heavens and the earth. After God has created the heavens and earth, He speaks into existence light/darkness (on the first day), the sky (on the second day), the land/seas (on the third day), vegetation (on the third day), two great lights dictating night/day (on the fourth day), birds/fish (on the fifth day), mammals/reptiles (on the sixth day), and man/woman (on the sixth day)12. As Craig Bartholomew says, “The ‘heavens and earth’ (Genesis 1:1) refers to the whole of creation. Light and darkness, day and night, sea and sky and land, plants, animals and humankind – all come from this God, from his powerful and good activity of creation.” And, at the end of all of His creating, He declares in Genesis 1:31 that all He had made was “very good”.
One of the most pertinent factors to the Genesis narrative is that of the imago dei or the image of God. YHWH, the God of Israel, created humankind in His image. They were to be His people. Though God is the infinite Creator and humanity merely his finite creation, there is something fundamentally similar between them. On Earth, His people were to rule over the livestock and all the wild animals, the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, and even over all the other creatures that move along the ground. God was given humankind dominion over His creation. They were not to be gods, they were to be His unique possession and for whom He intimately cared about. God was not tyrannical or threatening. If anything, He ordered chaos into a controlled rhythm of life that could be managed by humans. Bartholomew states, “God’s creation is ‘good’, and this creaturely goodness merely highlights the Creator’s own incomparable goodness, wisdom, and justice.”
Humankind enjoys a unique and personal relationship with God in the Israel story. Adam and Eve, the firstborn of humanity in God’s creation, are not only made to be God’s own, they are given a special place from God to live; Eden. Genesis, in adding more personal attributes to the God/man relationship, even goes as far as describing God walking in humankind’s dwelling, Eden, in the cool of the day. In the perfect Eden, God created a being that was to be His creating and managing representatives on Earth. They were to care for what He cared for and be stewards of what He already owned. It was a divine relationship that truly was perfect “in the beginning”. With every good story, however, comes conflict (and fortunately as we discover throughout Scripture, resolution).
Eve, at the prodding of a superbly deceptive serpent, breaks the covenant set by God himself to not eat of a certain fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve’s eyes are opened and they register and see their nakedness for the first time. It causes them to be embarrassed. God then walks amongst Adam and Eve and discovers their disobedience. He issues this decree:
So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:14-19, NIV)
Thus begins the fall of humankind. What once was a perfect creation is now tainted. Humankind will not live in Eden and they will not have the same good fortunes given to them at the beginning. Yet, in all the disarray, God does not disown them and actively participates throughout the rest of Israel’s story in the redemption of humankind. YHWH’s redeeming love is one of the most integral parts to His character and the telling of Israel’s story. Like it was mentioned a few days ago, there is not an end to God’s creation. The story continues with Adam and Eve’s children, their children, their children’s children, and so on until we see humankind being redeemed at the cost of God’s son made incarnate through Jesus Christ. For the sake of these blogs posts and the fact that this we’re dealing primarily with Israel’s cosmogony and not the complete history of Israel (as difficult as it is to separate from a Biblical theology perspective), we will end the story of Israel with Adam and Eve’s disobedience.
Tomorrow we’re going to take a look at the Enûma Eliš.
Some Thoughts on Cosmogony: Intro to the ANE World
Mar 11th
Historians and others involved in ancient comparative studies have defined the Ancient Near East, in the widest of terms, as civilizations corresponding to the modern day Middle East. In today’s world, the Ancient Near East would occupy the countries of Iraq, Syria, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Western Iran, Northern Egypt, and Turkey. For the purpose of these blog posts, discussions of the Ancient Near East will be broken into four distinct civilizations containing within them various people groups. These civilizations, which will be unpacked and explained later in this paper, are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria-Palestine, and Israel.
It is crucial in our studies to note the role of mythology in the Ancient Near Eastern world. In our modern world, we have grown to equate mythology with a sense of falseness or fables that are more like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia than they are ways of communicating the ancient worldview and values. Walton explains the use of mythology in this way, “Mythology is [thus] a window to culture. It reflects the worldview and values of the culture that forged it.” There is a very important distinction between the implicit and explicit in Biblical interpretation and this is evidenced in the role of Ancient Near Eastern literature in comparison to the Biblical story. Walton also expounds on this idea,
“There is little that is more important about a biblical book than its purpose, which is either explicit or implicit. If it is explicit, then one only has to find it and read it (e.g. Josh. 21:43-45). It is implicit, it must be inferred by the interpreter based on literary criteria and logical observations concerning cohesion.”
John Pilich designed a helpful chart which introduces key themes and characteristics of the Ancient Near East in comparison to the modern Western world. This chart is a great example of some implicit/explicit ideas that have been learned by studying history and archeology but might not be expressly determined in a cursory reading of the Biblical accounts.
Tomorrow we’ll dive into the Genesis narrative.
Some Thoughts on Cosmogony: Importance of ANE Mythology
Mar 10th
There is a significant group of conservative Bible scholars that do not find the study of Ancient Near Eastern creation mythology outside of the Bible important. For them, all truth is contained within Scripture so it is fruitless to look to other non-Biblical sources for keys to interpretation. While the heart of their logic, namely to preserve the true intention of the original author and inspiration from God, is noble it is also at the heart of those that look outside of Scripture for context. The reality is that one does not have to check responsible Biblical interpretation at the door when looking at these mythologies. As one Old Testament scholar appropriately states,
“The author of Genesis has made choices. He had to select what information to include. He had to decide how to communicate that information effectively to his audience and how to provide it with the emphasis that would serve his purposes. He had to guide his literary art with discretion so that it would contribute productively to his purpose.”
In other words, there might be more to the story then what we see on the surface.
In engaging in the crucial and difficult task of interpreting God’s word, it is helpful for many, including myself, to have a method in which interpretation can happen. An interpretive method is the means to a responsible interpretive end. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, created such a method called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (though he certainly didn’t name it this himself, we can thank Albert Outler for that). In short, the method consists of four aspects of interpretation;
- Scripture – the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testaments)
- Tradition – the two millennia history of the Christian Church
- Reason – rational thinking and sensible interpretation
- Experience – a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ
Using Wesley’s methodology in looking at Genesis, we would first look at the Holy Scriptures account. After studying what God has said through His Word, then a study of early church fathers, church doctrine, and other scholarly sources can assist in interpretation. Once this has been done, using one’s God-given logical and critical thinking skills in what we know about this world, what has happened in history, and what God has done through His people to that point is helpful. Finally, based on what we have experienced through a relationship with God and His interaction in our lives we can have significant insight into God’s truth.
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not without potential flaws. If, in your interpretation, the Holy Scriptures are not placed as the highest form of authority, this methodology could lead down a dangerous path where experience trumps Biblical truth and reason can explain away God’s miraculous wonders. However, when used properly, it is a responsible tool in interpreting God’s word.
When we look at Ancient Near Eastern creation mythology through the lens of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (or other methods in interpretation), we can see a great expanse in our understanding of what the world looked like to the original authors and the mythology of their day. This tool in our interpretation then becomes a crucial piece of our interpretive puzzle which leads to a clearer picture of cosmogony. As John Walton states,
“Evangelicals are committed to taking the text as face value, that is, we do not try to read anything into the text or squeeze something out of the text. We are not trying to sidestep the text or to avoid what it makes obvious. We are not trying to subordinate the text to our agenda or purpose, nor are we trying to commandeer it for our theology or make it answer our questions. We are simply trying to understand the text in the way that the author wanted to be understood by his audience.”
Tomorrow we’ll look at a primer to the Ancient Near Eastern world.
Some Thoughts on Cosmogony: Introduction
Mar 9th
The creation of the cosmos has been debated and discussed in many different fields and through many different periods of time. There are groups that aim to make their argument regarding creation have sweeping religious, social, and even political implications. It has been my experience that there are two very different groups amongst faithful Christ-followers in regards to the creation of the cosmos. One group wishes to dismiss the Genesis narrative as completely metaphor and disregard any form of literal truth in the creation account and the other group, a far more literalist group, has at their core a desire to take Scripture for what it says on the top where no further critical scholarship is necessary. In academia, often times, the first group is the most vocal and in the contemporary church the ladder group reigns supreme. This week I’ll write some things about creation/cosmogony in an attempt to leverage both groups and coming to a place of responsible interpretation in regards to Ancient Near Eastern cosmogony and the parallels, if any, with the story told in the Bible.
Tomorrow we’ll look at why I believe studying the Ancient Near Eastern parallels are important for Christians.