Book Review: The Genesis Creation Account and its Reverberations in the Old Testament

This collection of ten essays is produced by Old Testament scholars and archaeologists in the Seventh Day Adventist tradition, and is understandably quite conservative in its approach. Thus Genesis 1–2 is defined as the creation account, not accounts (Priestly and Yahwist). The authors indeed quote the research of critical, liberal scholars, but they are most heavily indebted to their fellow SDA colleagues in their documentation. In general, the articles address key issues in the biblical text with detailed analysis, a very logical approach, and extensive footnotes. A perusal of their articles should serve as warning to critical scholars that not all biblical literalists are naïve fundamentalists; some are very sophisticated in their arguments, and refutation of their position requires a serious grappling with both the biblical text and their arguments. I teach a course on the Bible and Creation, and in one-third of that course I review the history of the Creation Science movement and respond critically to the biblical and scientific arguments of proponents of that movement. Likewise, I would love to respond critically to the ten essays in the volume, but I would need to write an entire book to respond adequately to all their arguments. In a short analysis, I would say that when you read the Bible in extremely literal fashion you will discover far more than the biblical authors intended.

Richard M. Davidson authored three of the key essays in this volume: “The Myth of the Solid Heavenly Dome,” “The Genesis Account of Origins,” and “The Creation Theme in Psalm 104.” He affirms that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch in the 15^th century bce and that the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour days in which all life was created. He and the other authors affirm that particular variation on the “gap theory” which believes that Genesis 1:1–2 describes the creation of an old universe and earth, but beginning with Genesis 1:3 the creation of young life on earth is described. Davidson spends much time in one essay refuting the simplistic paradigm of the three-storey universe to indicate that the Bible views the firmament as a vast empty expanse and thus is in accord with modern science, and this becomes his “straw dog” argument to counter “liberal” arguments that Genesis 1 is a symbolic narrative. I notice that he has little to say about Genesis 1:26–27 with its affirmation of human equality and the equality of the sexes, other than to note that is how things were before the “fall.” In his essay on Psalm 104 he affirms that David is the author of this psalm and that, of course, David then knew the 14^th century bce Egyptian Hymn to Aten at such early date. Also, Psalm 104 alludes to the Genesis flood of Noah as a literal, global event. (Thus the beliefs of Creation Science are assumed in this volume, if not discussed.) The arguments of literalists always have a consistent, internal logic throughout.

Other essays also reflect similar hermeneutical assumptions. Angel Rodriguez (“Genesis and Creation in the Wisdom Literature”) assumes that since Job and his friends were historical personages, Elihu could have known Mesopotamian thought to shape his argument. Martin Klingbeil (“Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament”) assumes Daniel was a historical prophet in the 6^th century bce. Rodriguez also wrote an essay (“Biblical Creationism and Ancient Near Eastern Evolutionary Ideas”) to show how ancient Near Eastern myths assume an evolutionary theory for the earth's origins (he had to choose his ancient texts selectively for this argument), and thus Genesis 1 refutes both ancient and modern evolutionary theories. In further response to the modern evolutionary theory, Jacques Doukham (“When Death Was Not Yet”) affirms that death is not part of the natural scientific order in our world, but it was introduced only with the historical sin of Adam and Eve.

If you look beyond these idiosyncratic literalistic interpretations of the authors, you can observe that their theological observations are good Christian theological commentary on the biblical passages discussed. For that they should be praised. (They do hint, however, that maybe Christian worship should occur on the Sabbath! I would be disappointed if they didn't promote that a little bit.) I was raised a Protestant fundamentalist in my early theological training, so I recognize all of these arguments. I understand them; I no longer respect them. Reading the Bible will destroy your fundamentalist beliefs. This book is testimony to the fact that literalist or fundamentalist scholars are not fools or naïve, as is too often suggested, but they are very intelligent people driven by their extremely conservative theological assumptions to craft logical, turgid, and detailed arguments to bolster their beliefs.