Content uploaded by Andre van Rheede van Oudtshoorn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andre van Rheede van Oudtshoorn on Sep 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Andre van Rheede van Oudtshoorn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andre van Rheede van Oudtshoorn on Sep 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
7:1 (November 2015)
www.crucible.org.au
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
Mything the Point:
The Use of Mythology in Genesis 1-11
Andre van Oudtshoorn
Dean of Academics and Research
Perth Bible College
Abstract
This article proposes that Genesis 1-11 recasts the myths of Israel’s neighbours within a
new theological historical framework to undermine the underlying world-view which
makes myth-making possible. In order for the text to operate as intended the stories in
Genesis 1-11 should first be treated as myths. Genesis 1-11, in contrast to the
mythological world-view, draws a sharp distinction between God, the world and humanity.
This results in the radical secularisation of the world. It exposes humanity as sinful but
also creates the possibility for humanity to flourish by fully embracing what it means to be
human and not divine. God is shown to be the creator of the universe and the one who is
moved by compassion despite his anger at the evil which humans continue doing.
It is very difficult to preach from Genesis 1-11. Careful exegesis inevitably invites the question as to
how these chapters relate to the myths of the pagan nations surrounding Israel. In many evangelical
churches any suggestion of a link between the Biblical primeval history and other Near-Eastern myths
is seen as undermining the authority of Scripture and “not believing the Bible.” In this article I will
argue that Genesis 1-11 is set as a reaction against certain myths from the nations surrounding Israel
to challenge the underlying ideas which make myth-making possible: a world-view in which there is no
final and distinct barrier between humans, the world and God. This is done through a process of
deconstructing existing myths by using them to set up a radically alternative world-view. Those who
insist on reading the events depicted in Genesis 1-11 in a positivistic historical sense as ‘factually’
true, I will suggest, may actually perpetuate a non-Biblical mythological world-view.
The events related in Genesis 1-11 are often treated as a patchwork of stories that lacks coherence
and purpose. This approach is nowadays being challenged more and more.
1
In the book of Genesis
there are, for instance, ten instances of a major new section starting with the words “This is the
account of...” Five of these instances are found in Genesis 1-11. The intra-textual allusions also point
1
Thomas A. Keiser, Genesis 1-11: Its Literary Coherence and Theological Message (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
n.d.), 23.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
2
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
to an integrated theological purpose.
Texts Whose Purpose is to Create an Understanding of the Whole of Reality
John Searle in his speech-act theory, has indicated that communication often carries an illocutionary
or intentional force to affect and change the receiver's behaviour.
2
Habermas suggests that in the
communicative event we rely on a cooperative process of interpretation in which participants relate
simultaneously to something in the objective, the social and the subjective world. This cooperative
process allows the speaker and hearer to “use the references system of the three worlds as an
interpretive framework within which they work out their common situation definitions.”
3
Different texts
want to do different things: entertain, inform, persuade etc.
Texts which are intended to orientate people within their everyday reality by telling them who they are,
what God or the gods are like, and how they relate to God(s) and the world, are technically
designated as myths.
4
In this article I broadly follow Brevard S. Childs’ definition: “The myth is an
expression of man's understanding of reality.”
5
In popular speech the term ‘myth’ is used to indicate
generally accepted ‘truths’ that are, in fact, false – hence the name of the popular TV programme
Mythbusters. In ancient times myths came in the form of stories which functioned to convey deep
truths about ultimate reality – to tell people what God or the gods are like, who humans are, where
they come from, how they fit into the big scheme of things, including the world and the whole cosmos.
While we may consider mythical stories to be ‘fictional’, this does not necessarily undermine the truths
that they want to convey.
6
A myth is not debunked when its story is shown to be fictional; only, when
2
John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969), 30.
3
As quoted in Robert S. Fortner, Communication, Media, and Identity: A Christian Theory of Communication
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006), 98. “In any typical situation, people tend to ask the
mental question, ‘What is going on here?’ Their answer constitutes a definition of the situation”: Stephen W.
Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss, Theories of Human Communication (Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2008),
165.
4
There are many definitions of myths. Gunkel, for instance, defined myths as “stories about gods. They are to be
distinguished from sagas where the active persons are human.” Hermann Gunkel and Mark E. Biddle, Genesis
(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 382. Texts, here, does not exclude oral transmitted stories.
5
Brevard Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 17.
6
The mythical mindset would not readily have conceived the idea of myths being ‘fictional’. It is only when the
mythical world-view is destroyed that the possibility of the historicity of the stories in which the myths are cast
rises to the fore. A mythical world-view stems from “...a thought pattern which differs in decisive points from the
modern critical one. This is especially true in regard to the manner in which the world is conceived. Whereas
the man of critical mind thinks of the world about him as passive and impersonal, the primitive man conceives
of his surroundings as active and living, with powers which influence every area of his life. The activity of these
powers in nature is perceived by him in the manifold impressions of nature which force themselves vividly upon
him. Corresponding to his intimate contact with nature there is an unusual quality of openness and receptivity to
these impinging powers. The growth and decay of his fruit tree, the birth and death of his family, the rise and
setting of the sun, are the overwhelming signs of a reality which determines his life.” Ibid.,17. Referring to the
Greek author Pausanius, Greta Hawes, Rationalizing Myth in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014),
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
3
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
the truth that it wants to convey about reality is shown to be false. Myths thus convey general,
universal and timeless truths by which to make sense of reality. Genesis 1-11 was written as a
response to the underlying world-view which allowed myths to flourish: an understanding of the world
where there are no clear boundaries between God or gods, the natural world, and humanity. Because
ancient myths expressed this underlying world view, the stories in which these truths were cast were
never open to be questioned as to their historicity.
7
Myth and Parables
There is a resemblance between myths and the stories (or parables) that Jesus told in that both
communicate truths through the use of stories. The truth conveyed by the story of the prodigal son
does not depend on whether the events related actually ever happened. Parables are different from
myths in that they do not, in the first place, deal with universal, eternal truths but are closely bound to
a particular and immediate context that they wish to address. The story of the prodigal son, for
instance, was told in response to the Jewish leaders’ complaint that Jesus mixed with sinners. In it the
Jewish leaders were exposed as being like the older brother in the story. However, when we interpret
the text in such a way that we take universal, general, and, timeless truths from it – such as focusing
on the character of God as portrayed by the Father in the story, we are treating the story more as a
myth than a parable.
8
The use of parables shows that, at least in principle, God can use fictional stories to convey his truth
to us. Some people may argue that in the case of the parables the Bible clearly indicates that we are
dealing with fictional stories. If Genesis 1-11, however, was responding to some of the myths that
Israel already knew, then there would be no need to tell them that the stories recounted in Genesis
should not to be understood in the same way as the salvation historical events in which they have
participated experientially. The stories in Genesis 1-11 would quite naturally be understood as
engaging with existing myths, challenging them and creating an alternative world-view for God’s
people.
The first question that needs to be answered is whether there are, indeed, other instances in the Old
Testament where myths from the surrounding nations were challenged to create an alternative
understanding of reality? Psalm 82 furnishes us with a clear example of this.
181, points out that the relationship between mythical truth and rational historical truths are complex. It is not so
easy to discern what the Greeks believed to be ‘true’ in their myths.
7
Israel was unique in embracing an historical rather than mythical world-view. Israel, through her encounters
with the God of promise and fulfilment, emphasised new events, done by her God, that created history for-, and
with-, her and which ultimately determined her world-view.
8
At the time of Jesus the mythical world-view had already been destroyed by texts such as Ps. 82 and Gen. 1-11
which succeeded in demythologising the world-view Israel shared with the other Near Eastern nations and
replace it with an alternative world view in which historical events play a much more pronounced and critical
role. Jesus’ stories were thus understood as stories.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
4
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
Psalm 82
This Psalm starts with a mythical “assembly of the gods”. God enters this assembly and quickly turns
it into a court with him as the judge and the “gods” as the accused. The case centres on whether the
gods have the right to claim divinity. The Psalm does not directly debunk the mythological idea of ‘an
assembly of gods’. If, however, none of the gods ultimately meet the criteria to be recognised as gods
then the whole notion of an “assembly of the gods” also becomes redundant. I will argue that Genesis
1-11 forms part of this process of demythologising the myths that Israel encountered, especially
during the exile, and replacing it with an alternative world view which makes myth making impossible.
9
The Purpose of Genesis 1-11
In many places in the Bible truth is grounded on the narrative’s historicity: If Jesus did not die in
history and did not physically rise from the dead, then the truth claims of the message are annulled.
10
We can say that both the Old and the New Testaments are marked by an emphasis on historical
events; events where God miraculously intervened to overcome real obstacles in the realisation of his
promises to his people. Israel’s world-view had to be enabled to accommodate a reality in which (a)
the nation was no longer subject to the capriciousness of the gods but, instead, subject to a gracious
God; (b) Israel had no final exclusive claim to God but had to understand herself as being created by
God to bless the other nations of the world; (c) Israel (or the other nations) could not lay claim to any
vestige of divinity; and, (d) the natural world was no longer seen to be alive with spiritual realities but
instead viewed as a created entity subject to one God. Genesis 1-11 was written to challenge the
alternative mythological understandings or reality that may have tempted Israel. The text does this by
either co-opting certain myths and deconstructing them by setting them in an alternative historical
theological framework, or by constructing an antithetical account which engages with themes and
issues in the myths. Gerard Hasel, focusing on the depiction of creation in Genesis 1, stresses the
polemical nature of the Genesis account, which to his mind excludes any notion of demythologising:
It appears that the Genesis cosmology represents not only a “complete break”
with the ancient Near Eastern mythological cosmologies but represents a parting
of the spiritual ways brought about by a conscious and deliberate antimythical
polemic which meant an undermining of the prevailing mythological
9
In the case of the tower of Babel, the author does not transform an existing myth, but sets the impressive
Babylonian temple towers within a new historical theological framework to enable Israel to think differently
about their world and their place in history.
10
Bultmann embarked on a project of demythologising Scripture. He understood the whole of Scripture, including
the death and resurrection of Jesus, to be cast in the form of myths. Salvation then becomes a sub-set of
anthropology rather than theology or Christology.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
5
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
cosmologies.
11
Hasel, nevertheless, does not deny that the Biblical account of creation critically engages with other
mythological depictions or reality.
With a great many safeguards Gen. 1 employs certain terms and motifs, partly
taken from ideologically and theologically incompatible predecessors and partly
chosen in deliberate contrast to comparable ancient Near Eastern concepts, and
uses them with a meaning and emphasis not only consonant with but expressive
of the purpose, world-view, and understanding of reality as expressed in this
Hebrew account of creation.
12
As previously expressed, in this article I use the verb “demythologise” not to indicate a mythological
adaptation within a similar mythological interpretive frame as the nations surrounding Israel, but to
illustrate the smashing of these nations’ mythological interpretive frame. We miss the radical
deconstruction of the mythological world-view if we continue to read the different events in Genesis 1-
11 as ‘literal’ accounts of what ‘actually’ happened. In the process we are in danger of maintaining,
defending or even promoting a non-Biblical mythological world-view.
There are two particular Near-Eastern myths that spring to mind when considering Genesis 1-11. The
first of these is the so-called Enuma Elish and concerns creation, while the second, the so called
Gilgamesh epic, concerns the flood account.
The Creation Myth (Enuma Elish)
The Enuma Elish is described as one of the oldest myths in existence. The story is most often dated
in 1800 BC., when the god Marduk rose to prominence. Other Sumerian versions are thought to date
even further back.
13
There are a number of similarities between the Enuma Elish and Genesis 1.
1. The sequence of the days of creation.
2. The events of creation are similar: firmament, dry land, luminaries and humanity.
3. Darkness precedes creative acts.
4. There is a division of water above and below the firmament.
11
Gerhard F. Hasel, 'The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology', Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974), 91.
12
Ibid.
13
Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005), 25.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
6
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
5. Light exists before creation of sun and moon.
14
There are also obvious differences. Genesis 1 is not a copy of the Enuma Elish. It rather reads as a
polemic against the myth. In the Enuma Elish, Marduk battled with his great-great-grandmother
Tiamat and then, after he had killed her, created heaven and earth from her body. Enns, to my mind
correctly, points out:
Despite these differences, however, the problem remains. However different
these stories may be, they unquestionably share a common way of speaking
about the beginning of the world; both Genesis and Enuma Elish breathe the
same air.
15
This myth will obviously have to be taken into account when considering the Biblical accounts of
creation. In this article I will not focus on the superficial links between the myth and the Biblical
accounts but rather on the allusions to the myth which provide a door for the Biblical account to
address the underlying mythological world-view.
The Myth of the Flood (Gilgamesh)
There are also a number of very old myths concerning a flood. “It is truly astonishing: everywhere on
earth we find stories of a great primeval flood.”
16
The story of Gilgamesh reflects a number of
similarities with the Genesis account. The earliest Sumerian copies we have of this account is around
the first half of the second millennium BC although some scholars argue for an even earlier date.
17
There are, as with the creation myth, quite a number of similarities (as well as some crucial
theological differences) between this account and the story of Noah that we have to take into account
when trying to understand Genesis 1-11.
It may, of course be argued, that somehow the near eastern myths only copied the Biblical accounts.
There is, however, no evidence at all for the existence of Hebrew as a language before the tenth
century. The dates for written copies of some of the myths, as we have seen, go back a long time
before this.
18
We also need to recognise that the other cultures existed long before Israel. Israel,
according to Genesis 12 (which starts the salvation-historical narrative) was created through someone
called Abram who lived in the Babylonian city of Ur, from where he moved to Haran. Abram was thus
brought up in a world where these myths operated to inform the people who they were, who their
14
Ibid., 26.
15
Ibid., 27.
16
Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary (Augsburg Publishing House, n.d.), 51.
17
Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 27.
18
““...since the Mesopotamian story was written down centuries before the people of Israel came into being, the
Biblical story must be derived from it.” Norman Cohn, Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 15. For further dating see p 3ff.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
7
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
gods were, where they, as a nation, came from and what the world was really like. At some or other
time, the God of the Bible, had to reveal to the people of Israel, who He, the only God, was in contrast
to these myths, as well as who they really were, where they actually came from, why they were
created, and what the world in truth was like.
Specific Indicators that the Events in Genesis 1-11 are Not to Be Read as Literal History
Are there indications within the text of Genesis 1-11 which point to critical engagement with the myths
from the nations around Israel and require a non-literal interpretation of the text?
19
I would like to
suggest a number: Firstly, the communication of universal truths which apply to all people over all time
and everywhere concerning God(s), the world and ourselves. As most of the Bible is historically and
contextually grounded, this is a good indication that we may be dealing with a form of truth seeking to
inform and shape Israel’s world-view in contrast to that of the other nations.
A second indication is the presence of direct or indirect references and/or allusions to other myths,
including critical challenges to the truths promoted in other myths. These may come to expression in
‘other worldly’ elements that do not easily ‘fit in’ with depictions in the rest of the Bible. Elements within
the Biblical narrative which clearly must be taken figuratively to make theological and logical sense
but form an integral part of the story, also point to a mythological interest. This includes contradictions
and/or unanswerable questions when we read the text as relating to a historical narrative.
A final indication refers to stylistic features such as the use of poetry; symbols i.e., symbolic numbers
referring to extraordinary time spans that go well beyond the time spans in the rest of the Bible, as
well as theological symbolism, such as allusions to the receiving of the land and exile.
An analysis of Genesis 1-11 shows that many of these elements are present in the different stories.
Genesis 1: Creation
The mere fact that there are two different accounts of creation which have been placed directly after
each other, points to an alternative purpose than simply informing the reader of historical data. The
two accounts differ in a number of significant ways: In Genesis 1 there is, for instance, too much
water, while in Genesis 2 there is too little. Genesis 1 is about the whole universe, while Genesis 2
19
Framework truths do not, of course, exclude historical truth. A framework truth may be embedded in a story
which relates to historical events – the many accounts of the flood that have been told over thousands of years
point to such an event being a distinct historical probability. “Excavations indicate that around 2,800BC the
ancient Sumerian city of Shurrupak was destroyed by a flood... and of the three major flood stories that are
preserved in writing, one refers to Shurrupak by name, while in another the chief protagonist bears the name of
the King of Shurrupak, who is known to have reigned around the time of that catastrophe” (Enns, Inspiration
and Incarnation, 1). Our experience of sin tells us that there definitely must have been an event when humanity
turned from God.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
8
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
offers a more intimate account, depicting a garden into which God leads the people he has created. In
Genesis 1 humanity is created after the animals; in Genesis 2 humanity is created before them.
20
Alter
argues that these two depictions should be seen as complementary, rather than alternative
accounts.
21
It is, nevertheless, true that if they are interpreted literally as historical events the
differences present significant difficulties.
Many scholars have pointed to the poetic structure of Genesis 1.
22
This poem deals with mythological
issues in that it wants to situate Israel within the cosmos and in relationship with God and the
surrounding nations. It also refers to humanity in general, abstract, terms rather than as individual
characters, so for instance it depicts male and female together as reflecting the image of God. Its
scope encompasses the formation of the whole cosmos and all the people of the world.
This passage clearly also wants to challenge other myths about creation and show Israel that their
God is the true creator of everything. The first line of the poem uses the Hebrew words tohu wa bohu
(formless and void). The Old Testament scholar, Claus Westermann, points to a possible word play
here on the God Tiamat who features in the Enuma Elish.
23
David Tsuamara disagrees:
I have thoroughly reexamined the problem from a linguistic point of view, and it is
now clear that it is phonologically impossible to conclude that tehôm ocean was
borrowed from Tiamat . The Hebrew tehôm 'ocean' together with the Ugaritic thm
, the Akkadian tiamtu , the Arabic tihamat , and the Eblaite ti-à-ma-tum /
tiham(a)tum / is simply a reflection of a common Semitic term tiham.
24
While any direct illusion to Tiamat is questionable, the poem in Genesis 1 clearly alludes to similar
themes, objects and events as in other mythological creation accounts.
25
While there is no direct
dependency between the Enuma Elish and Genesis 1, the word tehom provides a natural allusion to
the myth.
26
Genesis 1, however, reflects a radically alternative theology, ontology and anthropology
20
Adrio König, New and Greater Things: Re-Evaluating the Biblical Message on Creation (University of South
Africa, 1988), 23.
21
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 145.
22
See ibid., 12ff.
23
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 8. So too, Gunkel, see Abigail Pelham, Contested Creations in the Book of Job:
The-World-as-It-Ought- and-Ought-Not-to-Be (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 215.
24
“Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part I,” no page number,
accessed August 24, 2015, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/02/17/Genesis-and-Ancient-Near-
Eastern-Stories-of-Creation-and-Flood-An-Introduction-Part-I.aspx#Article.
25
“Although some early scholars such as Gunkel (see Wenham) saw a connection between tehom and the
Mesopotamian goddess Tiamat, this has subsequently been discounted as unwarranted, especially because in
Genesis there is no indication of any struggle like the one in which Tiamat was involved.” Jacques Van
Heerden, Creation and Evolution (Author House, 2014), 61.
26
John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (CUP
Archive, 1985), 4, argues for a Canaanite mythological background. “Since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts
from 1929 onwards, however, it has become clear that the immediate background of the Old Testament
allusions to the sea-monster is not Babylonian but Canaanite.” He identifies the Hebrew word tehom with the
Ugaritic thm. Ibid., 7 and argues that the similarities between the Enuma Elish and the Canaanite Baal-Yam
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
9
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
than the myth. At the centre of Genesis 1 is a theological vision of God. Elohim is repeated 34 times in
the chapter. While the plural for God is used here, it is a pluralis amplitudinis, a plural which does not
denote a numerical number but points to the overwhelming nature of the subject.
27
By using a plural
form for God who, then, functions as a singular entity, Genesis 1 emphasises the difference between
Israel’s Creator God and the multiplicity of gods amongst Israel’s neighbours as demonstrated in the
Enuma Elish. The references to the sun and moon as big and little lights, that are nothing more than
created objects, bound to a set path within which Elohim has set them, would have sounded shocking
to a world in which the sun and the moon were revered as gods in their own right. Furthermore,
Elohim does not fight against the formless emptiness or other gods, as in the Enuma Elish or other
Canaanite creation myths, but just speaks a word that transforms the given chaos. God creates
because he wants to and not out of need, or external pressure such as a divine cosmic battle.
Ontologically, creation is radically secularised and all traces of the divine within it summarily
removed.
28
Both the world and humans are shown to be created, made by the God who remains
radically different from his creation. The world becomes a physical object. While the Genesis account
shares certain cosmological ideas with the Enuma Elish, the world is depicted as having been created
good and not flawed through a voluntary decision by Elohim. Anthropologically, humans are given the
unique status as “created in the image of God.”
29
While male and female together reflect the image of
God, God is nevertheless not depicted in sexual terms as either a male or a female.
30
conflict is the result of a common intellectual background. Ibid., 12. It is my contention that Israel shared this
same intellectual background which accounts for the mythological allusions in Gen.1.
27
A van Selms, Genesis (Nijkerk: G.F. Callenbach, 1973), 21. Wiggins, S. A. (2002). A reassessment of biblical
Elohim. Journal of Biblical Literature, 121(3), 538-540. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview
questions if the term Elohim does not point to an original form of polytheism in Israel. Fretheim is of the opinion
that it does: “Its pl. form may mean it had polytheistic (or at least less than fully monotheistic) overtones at one
time. Yet its use in the OT for Israel’s God (always with sing. vbs.) probably means that the pl. has reference to
intensification or absolutization or exclusivity (say, God of gods).” According to Fretheim “...it is less commonly
considered a pl. of majesty.” Fretheim, in Willem A. VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 2.
28
While the world becomes an object that humanity must rule over (v.28) this does not imply humans being given
the freedom to exploit the world: “The term used in the text is not “to dominate” but “to have dominion” (the
Hebrew “v 'yirdu” suggests “to rule over” or “to take care of”). The distinction is important: having dominion over
something is a matter of having it in one's charge, of needing to see to its needs, stability, and orderliness.” S.
D. N. Cook, “Technology and Responsibility: Reflections on Genesis 1-3,” Judaism 45, no. 4 (Fall 1996): 415.
29
“The possibility that a human being might bear the image of a god was granted in Assyria and Babylon, but it
was bound to the elitist notion of sacral kingship. All other human beings were created to serve the gods. Such
an ideology legitimated a rigidly stratified social order, and it guaranteed oppression of the masses. Of this
powerful and pervasive culture Israel provided an ideological critique. It grounded its egalitarian social order in
a “democratized” notion of imago dei in which all human beings share God's ruling function within the sacral
temple that is God's creation. By perceiving in human beings the gift and responsibility of stewardship in the
earth, described as kingly rule shared by all, Israel delegitimated both royal and priestly hierarchies and
elevated the status of the individual.” W. Sibley Towner, “The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1,”
Interpretation 59, no. 4 (October 2005): 409.
30
The only time goddesses are mentioned in the Old Testament it is to condemn them. It is noteworthy, however,
that the final author of Genesis 1-11 replaces an individual character in both the creation and flood myths with a
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
10
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
Genesis 2: Second Creation narrative
In this chapter there are also a number of indications that the account does not want to be read as
plain history. There is reference to a garden which is surrounded by four rivers.
31
Two of the rivers
exist and the other two do not. This may indicate that the account wishes to deal with our reality on
earth, but also wants to say that it is about something that goes beyond our everyday world. A second
indication is that when ‘Adam’ does something, it does not only have consequences for the individual
but affects the whole of humanity.
32
In the third place there are some theological allusions which
reflect God’s covenantal engagement with Israel. The way Israel is taken into the garden and then
banned from the garden could be seen as reflecting the giving of the promised land to Israel and their
later exile from the land because of their sin. All this points to an engagement with Israel’s underlying
symbolic world by which they interpreted reality, rather than simply relating an historical account.
The account also challenges certain mythological presuppositions underpinning the symbolic worlds
of Israel’s neighbours, such as the notion that humans were created by the gods to be of service to
them, such as providing food for them. In Genesis 2, in contrast, God provides for the people he has
created. The story, furthermore, sets a clear boundary between humanity and the animals, i.e., an
animal could not be found as a suitable helper for man. It is also notable that humanity is said to have
been made from the earth and even bears the name ‘ground’. To be human is to be be earth, not a
heavenly, divine or semi-divine being. To be human is to be a physical object. While the passage also
depicts God as breathing life into the little clay dolls he had formed, his breath is only said to bring
their physical existence into life. The story gives no indication that humanity’s true existence is
spiritual rather than physical, or that it somehow participates in the divine through this God-breathed
life.
Genesis 3: The Fall
There are a number of strange ‘other-worldly’ elements in this chapter which create great difficulties if
we read it as a literal historical account. The snake is depicted as an animal that could both walk and
talk. There is also a, so called, ‘tree of life’ in the garden. God fears that if people somehow manage to
eat from this tree they would live forever. This raises an obvious question: Is eternal life really about
eating fruit from a physical tree? The story ends up with the two people being excommunicated from
the garden, with angels (cherubim) with flaming swords placed on the east side of the garden to bar
man in the context of a family (wife and children). David L. Petersen, “Genesis and Family Values,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 9.
31
According to Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical
Hebrew Literature (ISD, 2000), gardens in ancient mythology presented a liminal border between humans and
the divine.
32
The whole of Genesis 1 -11 consistently does not speak of Israel and her history but instead focuses on
humanity and the destiny of all the nations of the world.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
11
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
their way to the tree of life.
33
There is no escaping the strong mythological characteristics that mark
the story as a whole.
While the Eden narrative is presented in the form of a myth the story also deliberately deconstructs
the mythological world-view’s lack of distinction between the natural and supernatural worlds. The
otherworldly snake end up as a normal reptile. The idea of an idealistic garden (utopia) that humanity
may still regain is debunked. Humanity is supernaturally barred from ever re-entering the garden. The
story, furthermore, radically condemns any mythological presupposition that humanity is somehow
intrinsically god-, or semi-god-, like. The endeavour to be like God is shown to lie at the heart of
human sinfulness. In this story humans are not inherently heroic, or the helpless victims of the
capriciousness of the gods. Humanity is, instead, shown to be guilty in seeking to be like God: the
very idea presupposed in many of the creation myths of the nations surrounding Israel.
This account does not directly reflect any known ancient Near Eastern myths. The closest
resemblance is the myth of Adapa. He turned down the offer to eat the bread and drink the water of
life, and thus lost immortality. The Biblical account, on the other hand, responds to the perplexing
question how the world, which God had declared to be very good, has now come to be marked by
evil.
Genesis 4
In this chapter we, again, encounter a number of unanswerable problems if we insist on asking
historical questions of the text. Who are the people that Cain fears? Where did these people come
from if the second child, Seth, was only born after the death of Abel? How did Cain manage to build a
city if he was the only other person on earth apart from Adam and Eve? Such questions obviously go
against the intention of the text. Genesis 4 exposes the violence perpetrated by humans against each
other as being against God’s will and signs of human sinfulness. Genesis 3 and 4 are contra-
examples of the command for Israel to love God (Deut. 6:1) and their neighbours (Lev. 19:18). The
theme of human violence is later repeated in Genesis 6 as the reason for God’s condemnation of
humanity.
The text also challenges a key theological truth which forms part of many myths, namely that violence
is sanctioned by God. In Genesis 4 God is shown as neither the instigator, nor the justifier of violence,
but as the judge and avenger of violence. And yet, God is also depicted as the One who is gracious,
33
Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2-3 (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), XII sees the Genesis 3 account as linking obedience to the attainment of eternal life,
and suggests that this reflects “significant elements of Deuteronomistic theology, the law and obedience.”
Theodore Hiebert, “The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2-3,” The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 71, no. 2 (April 2009): 384, “links the Eden narrative to two other Near Eastern myths: “In the
Eden narrative, just as in Adapa and Gilgamesh, wisdom and immortality are two divine prerogatives, one of
which - wisdom - humans come to share with the divine, but the other - immortality - humans are denied.”
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
12
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
even towards the guilty murderer.
Genesis 5: Genealogy
In this chapter we find a strange extension of time, probably indicating that the events described here
go back a long, long time. Its purpose is not to give us exact historical records of how long everybody
lived, but places the primeval history in the context of long long ago. The genealogy thus depicts
people as becoming very old (Methuselah became 969 years old) which is very different from the life-
span for individuals that the people of Israel knew. These supernatural lengths of time reflect a similar
indication in the Sumerian flood accounts (where people lived for extraordinarily lengths of time before
the flood and a more normal life span afterward).
34
The account has some symbolic overtones which militate against a direct historical reading. There are
ten generations from Adam to Noah and ten from Noah to Abraham and they each end up with three
sons born to the last entry. The genealogies (with ten generations and naming only one son) parallel
ancient Sumerian King lists.
35
The names Enoch and Lamech also feature in the genealogies of both
Cain and Seth with some added narrative comments in both cases. The first Enoch finds protection in
a city, the second escapes death.
36
The first Lamech justifies himself and claims his sin should go
unpunished while the second Lamech hopes for deliverance from sin.
The text challenges the existing myths regarding the foundation of culture. An example is the ancient
Sumerian myth “which told of sages who rose from the ocean and taught mankind the arts of
civilisation such as metal working, city building and music. By ascribing such arts to the line of Cain
and Lamech, Genesis is intimating that for all their glory they too are tainted by human sin.”
37
Genesis 6: The Sons of God
The narrative which tells of the Sons of God having sexual intercourse with humans and the resulting
offspring being giants and ‘heroes of old’
38
clearly draws on ‘gods’ and ‘sons of god as characters in
the Near Eastern myths. Robin Routledge argues that the Nephilim are ‘the offspring of the ‘sons of
God’, understood as divine beings, and human women.”
39
He concludes that the reference to the
34
James D. G. Dunn and John William Rogerson, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 36.
35
David McLain Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), 72.
36
In the Sumerian tradition the seventh sage Utuabzu is also said to have ascended to heaven.
37
Dunn and Rogerson, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, 42.
38
“The majority of commentators take the view that the terms Nephilim and Gibborim in Gen.6:4 both refer to the
divine-human offspring of the ‘sons of God’ and daughters of humans’. ” Robin Routledge, “The Nephelim: A Tall
Sory? Who Were the Nephelim and How Did They Survive the Flood?,” Tyndale Bulletin 66, no. 1 (2015): 23.
39
Ibid., 40. According to him the Nepahlim are also linked to the Gibborim, the ‘heroes of old’. His article
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
13
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 is
linked with the hubris of human beings who intentionally consort with the sons of
God to seek to re-acquire some kind of immortality. Their description as ‘heroes’
serves to emphasise the distorted values of that generation, and so serves as an
important element in the characterisation of the widespread human corruption
that results in the flood. If that is the primary purpose of the reference to the
Nephilim Genesis 6:4 it would account for their very rare appearance elsewhere
in the OT.
Routledge also points to the play on words regarding the term ‘olam. In Genesis 3 God had
announced that the humans will not live forever (le’olam) which is linked with the birth of the Gibborim
who are ‘from the old’ (me’olam). “It thus suits the theological purpose of the writer to include the
reference to them here, in the catalogue of human sin leading up to the flood. And having referred to
the offspring of these divine-human liaisons, it is natural, further, to identify them with the Nephilim of
folklore.
40
The intention of this account as a cause for the flood is clearly to demythologise the idea that humans
(or particular nations) somehow have a spark of the divine in them. Israel had to understand herself
as being created by God, being a creature who is different from God, but the same as all the other
nations. The story depicts the same attempt by humans as depicted in the stories about Adam and
Eve and the tower of Babel, to cross the boundary between themselves and God. Whereas the other
nations could boast about their divine DNA and having giants as forefathers, Israel was forced to see
any attempt to be like God as a taboo, in this case the final straw which led to God’s decision to
destroy the world.
Genesis 6-8: The Flood
If the oldest accounts of the flood were already known from the time of Abram (who was a Sumerian)
then it is probable that the Israelites would have read and interpreted the Biblical account of the flood
against the backdrop of those ancient myths. It is important to note that the Bible does not simply
repeat these myths but writes an alternative account which interprets the flood event in a radically
different way. It thus functions as a critique of the ancient flood myths and not simply as the historical
account of “what actually happened.”
41
identifies how in later extra canonical representations they became the epitome of evil, being responsible for
the flood. In the Bible itself, however, he argues, “these demigods are not viewed essentially negatively; and in
the popular mind might have included Gilgamesh, Nimrod and figures from Greek mythology, such as
Herakles.” Ibid.
40
Ibid., 32..
41
B.W Anderson, “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Gen. 1-11,” JBL 97 (1978): 28. There are
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
14
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
The structure of the flood account shows that it was written with a theological rather than historical
intent:
42
Reason for flood: the inclination of humanity towards evil 6:5
7 days 7:4
7 days 7:10
40 days 7:17
150 days 7:24
God remembers Noah 8:1
150 days 8:3
40 days 8:6
7 days 8:10
7 days 8:12
Reason for not repeating the flood: the inclination of humanity towards evil 8:21
There are significant differences between the Biblical account and the Sumerian accounts of the flood.
In an old Mesopotamian myth, the gods are not fully in control of the situation: they are said to “cower
like dogs after the flood.”
43
In contrast to this, while God is said to ‘repent’ about sending the flood, He
remains in full control of the situation. Similarly, in the Biblical account “God remembers Noah” and
makes the flood cease while in the parallel Gilgamesh epoch Enlil (one of the top three gods), when
visiting the sacrifice of Utnapashtim, is astonished to find that there are still some humans alive.
44
The
list goes on: Whereas in the Gilgamesh epoch it is the noise people make which irritates the gods and
leads to the decision to destroy them, in Genesis 6 it is the sin of humanity and their violence against
each other which lead to the flood.
45
In the Sumerian myths the gods want to limit the number of
some difficulties in reading the text as an exact historical account. There seems to be two stories of the flood
which were skilfully combined to form one account: (a) One account consistently refers to God as Yahweh, and
the other as Elohim; (b) According to the one account seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean
animals entered the ark (7:2-3). According to the other there was one pair of each (6:19,20, 7:15-16); (c)
According to one account after seven days rain fell for forty days and forty nights (7:4). According to the other
account the water rises for 150 days (7:3) and recedes for 150 days.
42
Walter C. Kaiser, The Christian and the Old Testament (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1999), 35.
43
Gordon Wenham, “Genesis” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John William
Rogerson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 37.
44
Ibid.
45
“Whereas the Babylonians ascribed the flood to divine caprice, the Hebrews attribute it to God’s anger at
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
15
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
people on earth, in this passage God commands humanity to be fruitful and multiply. Finally, unlike the
Sumerian myths Noah is not built up as the hero of the story: he simply obeys God’s command. The
Lord, for instance, shut Noah in the ark, while in the Gilgamesh epoch Utnapashtim shut himself in.
Intra-textually, it is also important to note the contrasts and similarities between the creation account
in Genesis 1 and the flood account in Genesis 6-9. They indicate that Genesis 1-11, as a whole, was
constructed to present a theologically balanced picture rather than a purely historical account.
46
The
phrase, used repeatedly in Genesis 1, “God saw that it was good,” is, for instance, replaced in
Genesis 6 by the contrasting phrase “God saw that the hearts of humans were evil.” Also, in Genesis
1, water is separated and removed from the earth, with the exact opposite taking place in the flood
narrative with water now again covering the whole earth. Both accounts also stress the supply of food
for humans and animals but there is a post-flood reversal of the depiction of humans as essentially
vegetarian. There are also a number of similarities to be noted between the two passages. In both
cases there is a strong wind that hovers over the water. Both accounts use the same terminology
referring to animals. In both accounts God blesses both humans and animals with the command to be
fruitful and multiply. Finally, in both passages there are references to humans being created in the
‘image of God’.
Genesis 9: Rainbow
In the cases of both Noah and the Gilgamesh epoch a rainbow is given as a sign of the survivor of the
flood’s sacrifice being accepted. In the Gilgamesh epoch the rainbow is Isthar’s jewelled necklace that
is given with the promise that she will never forget the flood.
47
In the Genesis account the rainbow
becomes a sign of God’s commitment that He will never again destroy the world by a deluge. The
rainbow thus becomes a sign of God’s heart of compassion towards humanity and his turning away
from a final judgement of the world. In Gilgamesh, Utnapashtim is granted immortality but not Noah in
the Biblical account. The idea of the deification of humankind is thus again avoided.
Genesis 10-11: Table of the Nations and the Tower of Babel
In chapter 10 we have a normal dispersion of the nations “by their clans within their nations, each with
its own language.” This statement is repeated for every clan and stands in sharp contrast to the story
of the tower of Babel in chapter 11, where everybody spoke the same language and lived together
before being scattered across the earth. The story of a wall or tower of Babylon should obviously not
be read as an historical account concerning the origin of different nations and languages; it
human violence”: Wenham, “Genesis” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, 37.
46
Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis, 65.
47
Lorena Laura Stookey, Thematic Guide to World Mythology (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group,
2004), 55.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
16
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
appropriates the folk-lore around the Babylonian zigurath or temple tower and then mocks and
challenges its claim to fame.
48
Instead of depicting the Babylonian buildings as an impressive
technological feat by which humanity “can reach heaven,” it is now re-described as being so small
that God has to come down from heaven to have a closer look at it.
49
Intra-textually God’s comment in Genesis 11:6: “If as one people speaking the same language they
have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them,” and his subsequent
action to curb humanity’s ability to work together, mirror God’s statement in Genesis 3:22 “The man
has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand
and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever,” and his action to banish humanity from
the garden.” This story again de-constructs the idea of humans trying to become like God (Gen. 3 and
6) or reach God’s abode.
It is clear that the story also acts as a bridge between the prehistory and salvation-historical starting in
chapter 12 with Abram and leading to the story of Israel by acting as a foil to Abram’s faithful
obedience. While the people at babel want to make a great name for themselves, for instance, God
promises to give Abram a great name. Similarly, whereas the people at babel drew together and had
to be dispersed by God, Abraham willingly left his home to follow God’s leading to a new country.
What about the New Testament?
Does the fact that the New Testament refers to some of the characters that we meet in Genesis 1-11
mean that they have to be historical? The obvious answer is that reference to a character does not
necessarily bestow ‘existence’ on that character. I may refer to Humpty Dumpty in my sermon to
illustrate a point about human frailty, without implying that Humpty Dumpty has to exist for the point
that I am making to be true.
The way in which New Testament authors refer to some of the characters mentioned in Genesis 1-11
resembles the way the author of Genesis 1-11 employed myths to make a theological point. Let us
shortly consider the way the apostles referred to Enoch, Abel and Noah to make their theological
points.
50
48
Westermann points out that the reference to Babylon puts the story on the boundary between history and
prehistory. He does not believe it had originated in Babylon. “A wealth of parallels to the tower story exists
throughout the world, although scarcely any have been found in the immediate environment of Israel.” Claus
Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, n.d.), 80.
49
There is a mocking wordplay between babel (Babylonia) and mabel (confusion). There is also a mocking of the
technological expertise of the Babylonians’ use of clay bricks. Ibid., 81.
50
In later Jewish writings the person of Enoch became very important. The fact that he was the first person to
ascend to the presence of God (2 Enoch 22:5) meant that he was seen as the source of human knowledge.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
17
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
Enoch
Jude 14-15 refers to a prophecy by Enoch which is not found in the Biblical text but in the apocryphal
book 1 Enoch 1:9. It is clear that the author of Jude thus included some traditional folk-lore which had
developed around the mysterious figure of Enoch to make his theological point. The author of
Hebrews in chapter 11 also quoted extensively from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the
so called Septuagint (designated as LXX).
51
The Septuagint, for instance, expanded the Hebrew text
of Genesis 5:24 by adding the words: “and Enoch pleased God...” The author of Hebrews used this
extra bit of information and qualified it further by adding that it was by faith that Enoch was taken
away. In the same way, in Genesis 5:22 the Septuagint also added the words: “and Enoch pleased
God.” Here again the author of Hebrews quoted from the Septuagint and then elaborated further on it
by inserting the words: “before Enoch was taken away, he pleased God.
52
Abel
We see the same methodology being used in the reference to Abel in Hebrews 11. The Septuagint
had introduced a reason why Abel’s sacrifice was more acceptable than Cain’s - because Cain did not
divide the offering correctly.
53
The author of Hebrews linked his comments to the tradition shared by
the Jewish philosopher, Philo, who had stated that Abel’s sacrifice was of a superior quality to Cain’s
offering.
54
The author of Hebrews expanded on this by indicating that Abel’s offering had been
reckoned as superior because of his faith. Again, the reworking of the original Hebrew text and the
traditions around it, served the author’s theological intention – to show the importance of faith in
Christ.
Noah
The reference to Noah in 2 Peter 2:5 links closely to the tradition that Noah preached righteousness,
either to his children (Jub. 7:20ff) or to the nations (see Josephus’ Antiquities, 1.3.1 par.74; Sibylline
Oracles, 1.125 -95; I Clement 7:6, 9:4).
55
Here also, the author of 2 Peter incorporated extra-Biblical
material to develop his theological argument. In Hebrews 11 we again find a number of references
with added words taken from the Septuagint.
51
It is true that the author of Hebrews resisted a lot of the Jewish speculations regarding Enoch. For him the
person of Enoch was not the point, he only used him to serve his theological point.
52
Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (Presbyterian Publishing Corp, 2006), 282.
53
Joel N. Lohr, “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4:1-16 in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the New
Testament,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71, no. 3 (July 2009): 485–96.
54
David A. deSilva, “Hebrews” in The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John’s Gospel, Hebrews-
Revelation, ed. Craig A. Evans (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2005), 240.
55
Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 578.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
18
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
Implication: World-view transformation
The apostolic authors took the characters in Genesis 1-11 out of their original context and placed
them in a new context, the context of the risen Christ. The characters, and the stories and traditions
surrounding them, were used to serve the apostles’ theological purpose: to proclaim Christ and the
new reality in Him. From the New Testament writers’ perspective, everything had to be understood in
a radically new way. For this reason they included all the things which were shaping the world-view of
the people they were addressing. It is thus not strange that they used the Septuagint, which was the
popular text being used at that time, rather than the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to certain Old
Testament characters. And it is therefore also not surprising that they could refer to extra Biblical
literature which many people read and believed. This is exactly what the final author of Genesis 1-11
also did when he used myths from the nations around Israel to challenge and transform Israel’s world-
view. New Testament references to certain characters in Genesis 1-11 do not offer any automatic or
direct proof that these characters were necessarily historical. These characters were used to serve a
bigger purpose: to point the church to Christ, the one in whom everything has been made new.
Conclusion
I have argued that Genesis 1-11 differs from the rest of Genesis in that its primary purpose was not to
provide Israel with historical facts about her past but rather to help her orientate herself in the world in
the light of her God. In order to do so, Genesis 1-11, appropriated the same kind of stories that other
nations used to convey world-view truths. But Israel could not simply adopt the myths from the nations
around them. These myths had to be challenged, reworked and transformed to comply with God’s
revelation of himself to Israel.
56
A careful reading of the text of Genesis 1-11 shows a remarkable
number of elements usually associated with myths.
The composition challenged the underlying world-view which made myth-making possible for a new
world-view favouring a theological-historical understanding of reality. It did this by drawing sharp
boundary lines between God, the natural world and humanity, showing that these boundaries may not
be crossed at will. In doing so, the text grants freedom to humans to be fully human, people bearing
the image of God, but never being gods. It also enabled Israel to see the world as a created object: a
concrete reality that may be shaped and transformed by human endeavour. In of all this God was
shown to be, and remain, God: the creator and ruler of everything.
The ‘history’ operating in these passages is a present continuous existential history. Adam becomes
the designation of being ‘human’ and his sin reflects the sins we still continue to do today. This does
not mean that the stories are not real. They are theological windows to reality.
56
In the case of the tower of Babel, the author does not transform an existing myth, but sets the impressive
Babylonian temple towers within a framework truth story to enable Israel to think differently about their world.
Mything the Point
Andre van Oudtshoorn
19
www.crucible.org.au
Crucible 7:1 (November 2015)
ISSN: 1836-8794
I have also shown that the way in which the New Testament refers to characters within these stories,
does not force us to treat them as literal historical figures.
While some may fear that accepting the presence of myths in Genesis 1-11 opens the door to seeing
the whole Bible as purely fictional or mythological, I have shown that this is not a necessary
conclusion. Understanding what the text wants to do, enables us to read it in a richer way. It wants to
challenge our deepest understanding of how the world works, who we are, and most of all who the
God whom we worship, really is. It is ironic that those people who insist on reading Genesis 1-11 as
literally true, may end up reading the text with the very same mythological world-view that the text
wanted to destroy and replace with a new, alternative historical vision of reality.