I would like to respond to the letter writers (NZ Baptist, May) who, disappointingly, took Dr Jeff Tallon to task over his views of early Genesis. I approach the Genesis creation stories as a student of literature who has also done some graduate studies in biblical interpretation.

All texts, including those in the Bible, need to be interpreted on their own terms. These terms are often signalled in the texts themselves. Parables are to be interpreted differently from epistles, both should be interpreted differently from proverbs, and all three will only partially inform prophetic poetry.

Then there are many historical texts that have their own principles of interpretation.

We may be unwise to consider Genesis 1 and 2 as history, a much later type of literature. This is clear from the first words of Genesis, which are correctly translated, “In beginning God.” This phrase can be more elegantly rendered, “By way of beginning, God,” or less elegantly, “Well, to begin with, God.” The emphasis lies not on the factual sequence of creation but on the story of God and His active, effective words: God is mentioned 32 times in 30 verses (NRSV).

The Genesis writer has no interest in a scientifically or historically accurate chronological account because the point of the passage is on the actions, initiative, judgment and responsibility of God. Already at the time of recording the account, humanity had a moral sense and spiritual awareness, as the passage indicates. History and science were much later inventions.

Genesis 1 repeatedly refrains the words, “evening … morning … day.” This is very strange. Even young children know that the time from evening to morning is night – but Genesis 1 insists it is day (even though “night” is used correctly in verse 5). Why? This is a sign that the passage is not to be taken literally. Something besides literal fact, history or science is the aim of this narrative.

A clue to the strange use of the word “day” appears in the words that precede it. The Hebrew is best translated, “And there was evening there was morning ….” The Hebrew text lacks the word “and” between the two clauses of the sentence.

The omission of that “and” (an omission most English translations ignore) is a literary clue. The two clauses, without an “and” to join them, are called merismus, a literary device that appears elsewhere in the Old Testament and other ancient narratives. Merismus indicates a concept for which a language has no unique term, even though the people who speak it have the idea. This merismus, when used alongside the word “day,” should be understood as indicating an indefinite phase, period or even aeon. Merismus provides an adequate answer to the strange use of “day” in Genesis 1.

All this leads to an insight acknowledged by all Old Testament scholars that should be also recognised by all Christians: Genesis 1 and 2 are very complex. Any theory used to help understand these chapters must account for the irreducible complexity of these and the other early chapters of Genesis.

Any theory that simplifies them by relying inappropriately on later, often-helpful inventions like history or science will end up (as regards early Genesis) partially falsifying and harming the church’s mission of proclaiming and living in light of God’s kingship.

– Vic Lipski
Karori