In ancient Near Eastern literature outside of the Bible there exist differing accounts of creation. These creation stories represent mythopoeic thought, which held high explanatory value for these cultures, but were not representative of reality. These creation stories present epic battles between the gods of the pantheon which, in one way or another, result in the creation of the earth and human kind.
Keeping this in mind, we turn in our Bibles to Ps 74.12-17, which reads:
Yet God my King is from of old,
working salvation in the midst of the earth.
You divided the sea by your might;
you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
You split open springs and brooks;
you dried up ever-flowing streams.
Yours is the day, yours also the night;
you have established the heavenly lights and the sun.
You have fixed all the boundaries of the earth;
you have made summer and winter.
Before reading the texts of various ANE creation myths, especially those at Ugarit, this passage seems very odd. The psalmist is calling to mind YHWH’s creation narrative of Genesis 1-2.4a, yet also including some strange facts that we do not see in Genesis, such as breaking the heads of sea monsters and crushing the heads of some poor sap called Leviathan. But when one takes into account the various creation myths founds in the ANE literature available to us, one comes to the natural conclusion that this part of Ps 74 is polemical against those various creation myths. The psalmist seems to be incorporating language from both the creation narrative found in Genesis and the mythopoeic language from various ANE creation myths to make a point: YHWH, not the various gods of the Canaanite pantheon, is the one who created the cosmos and is, therefore, the greatest of all the gods.
This seems to be a simple enough conclusion based on the evidence. Almost every scholar I have read, both evangelical and critical, would take this viewpoint.
But as I am currently functioning within the Reformed community of evangelicalism, this raises some questions for me, particularly on the proper function of extra-biblical literature. In the ninth section of the first chapter of the WCF, it reads:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
This has come to be interpreted, in the midst of recent discussions, in terms of the proper use of extra-biblical sources. Namely: extra-biblical sources should never be used in a determinative way when interpreting Scripture. Rather, Scripture should be the only thing determinative.
While that sounds spectacular in the abstract, it does not seem to make sense of the data we have in front of us. It seems to be the case, at the very least with Ps 74.12-17, that the ANE creation myths have helped us, as Biblical interpreters, determine the meaning of a particular section of Scripture. No amount of searching the texts of Scripture would cause one to come to the conclusion that Ps 74.12-17 is polemical in nature, taking on the mythopoeic language of the surrounding cultures. One might think this would be the case because of the strange language found in this passage, but any theory based solely on Scripture would be merely conjecture and, therefore, completely unverifiable.
So what choices do we have before us?
It seems, at least in my understanding at the moment, that we are either left with being unable to use extra-biblical literature to be determinative of our interpretation of Ps 74.12-17 or the extra-biblical literature is able to be determinative of our interpretation of Ps 74.12-17.
If the former route is chosen, we are either left with the inability to interpret Ps 74.12-17 or, perhaps less desirable, a pretty strange understanding of creation which combines Gen 1-2.4a with the epic battle between YHWH and sea monsters. The minute we use ANE creation myths to understand Ps 74.12-17 is the minute we violate WCF 1.9, because that extra-biblical literature would be determinative of our understanding of Ps 74.12-17. One might be able to get around the dirty word “determinative” by using phrases like “ANE literature sheds light on Ps 74.12-17,” but that seems, to me at least, to be pious doublespeak. In reality, the extra-biblical literature has become determinative of your interpretation.
If the latter route is chosen, we understand Ps 74.12-17 in the way in which modern scholars, both evangelical and critical, understand Ps 74.12-17 and, most likely, the way an ancient Israelite, surrounded by and familiar with the myths of other cultures, understood Ps 74.12-17 as well.
If such is the case (and I am open to correction on my evaluation), then perhaps we need to rethink how we are interpreting the words of WCF 1.9 in our current discussions. Could it have been the case that when the WCF was penned, the issue was not extra-biblical literature such as ANE creation myths, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and second Temple literature, but, instead, the traditions of the Catholic Church? Could it be that the Westminster Divines were aiming their cross hairs at the Church of Rome and their literature/traditions, which sought to determine the meaning of Scripture, and not ancient texts, such as ANE creation myths, the DSS, and second Temple literature, which can shed great light on determining the meaning of Scripture?
I think it is more than likely the case.
26 June 2008 at 8.20 am
Do you know of any good articles dealing with a lamentation genre?
26 June 2008 at 8.30 am
In relation to your article, I agree with you on the importance of allowing ANE literature to be determinative.
I think to continue this discussion you may need to explore why the WCF choose to write as they did and not on the actual evidence. As always we need to conform our evidences to the more straightforward – or chair passages – of Scripture.
26 June 2008 at 9.24 am
av: In regards to your question: I would check out Longman and Enns’ new Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings and check out the article on laments, which should also include some great bibliographic material.
I’m working from memory here because I’m in FL and the large majority of my books are in PA, but I remember an article by Brueggemann entitled “The Costly Loss of Lament” in the JSOT, but I forget the year and issue number. Other than that, I would check various chapters of books like Interpreting the Psalms by Johnston and Firth and Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms by Estes.
26 June 2008 at 9.37 am
This is well done, Art. But from my limited embroilment in this controversial issue regarding WCF and ANE, I would say you need to go just a little further in your post and remark on how ANE shows us precisely in what way Psalm 74 as scripture is authoritatve in order to make it as relevant as I believe you are trying to make it.
26 June 2008 at 9.48 am
Nathan: I agree. The photo in the post is actually a statue of Baal found at Ugarit that is on display at the Louvre. Levenson has some short, but excellent, comments on these parallels in Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 7-13.
cbovell: I agree with what you are saying. In order for this to have its full effect, I could have gone into the particulars of the ANE creation myths and compared/contrasted them with Ps 74.12-17 (and others), but I am working full time as a youth pastor and part time as a consultant for Accordance Bible Software, so, honestly, I just didn’t have the time. Not a good excuse, I know. But anyone familiar with the issue, I hope, will understand the points I was attempting to make. Perhaps I can expand this in the future.
26 June 2008 at 10.10 am
I’m not sure I expressed myself in a very clear above so I’ll take another go at it.
Art, virtually everyone would agree with what you’ve written about here. What particularly stings in the present controversy is the opinion that ANE phenomenon should actually be consulted when formulating a doctrine of scripture. It’s a meta-theological complaint. I don’t think the hermeneutical observations that you make in this post broach the topic, and I don’t think they will be able to simply by expanding upon them (that is, if that’s the controversy in the back of your mind when writing what you wrote).
26 June 2008 at 9.34 am
Great post, Art. If the language of WCF 1:9 is pushed to its illogical conclusion, it would entail all kinds of impossibilities such as grammars and lexicons of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that only make use of biblical texts, not to mention the abandonment of historical contexts.
By the way, the mention of splitting “yam” in 74:13a is very reminiscent of the Baal cycle; I wonder if it would be appropriate to translate that as “Yam” rather than “sea” with a footnote explaining the double-meaning.
26 June 2008 at 2.53 pm
I read Ps. 74 this morning.
Your post really brought light to the text and enjoyed reading the meat you offer.
You have a great blog.
I enjoy reading it.
Look forward to reading more in the future.
Keep up the great job.
26 June 2008 at 3.05 pm
Great post! Interesting observation about the debate framing the construction of the WC and the current debate today regarding the WC & ANE. Have we seen this play out before (i.e. the New Perspective in relation to “reactionary” Protestant theologies of justification?)
27 June 2008 at 7.16 pm
Art,
I’m not sure you are doing justice to the WCF. Here is a quote from the commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith by A. A. Hodges. His comments are from the section dealing with WCF 1.9 and 1.10.
Item 1 addresses the completeness of Scripture and item 2 addresses understanding Scripture. If someone uses ANE/DSS as part of “using all the helps of true learning” then one is doing well. However, if one says that Scriptures are incomplete without ANE/DSS then he is contra the WCF.
———————————————–
The authority of the Scriptures as the ultimate rule of faith rests alone in the fact that they are the Word of God. Since all these writings are one revelation, and the only revelation of his will concerning religion given by God to men, it follows: –
(1.) That they are complete as a revelation in themselves, and are not to be supplemented or explained by light drawn from any other source. (2.) That the different sections of this revelation mutually supplement and explain one another. The Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures is the only adequate expounder of his own words, and he is promised to all the children of God as a Spirit of light and truth. In dependence upon his guidance, Christians are of course to study the Scriptures, using all the helps of true learning to ascertain their meaning; but this meaning is to be sought in the light of the Scriptures themselves taken as a whole, and not in the light either of tradition or of philosophy.
———————————————————————
If you put the “ANE phenomenon” with item 1 then you are saying that until ANE creation myths were available, the Christian Church had a defective theology and doctrine. If you put “ANE pehenomenon” with item 2 then you are saying until the creation myths were available to the Christian Church, Psalm 74 12-17 was not fully understood.
Bill Stephens
3 July 2008 at 8.11 pm
Item 1 addresses the completeness of Scripture and item 2 addresses understanding Scripture. If someone uses ANE/DSS as part of “using all the helps of true learning” then one is doing well. However, if one says that Scriptures are incomplete without ANE/DSS then he is contra the WCF.
Contra WCF, or contra the interpretation provided by A.A. Hodge on the WCF?
The authority of the Scriptures as the ultimate rule of faith rests alone in the fact that they are the Word of God. Since all these writings are one revelation, and the only revelation of his will concerning religion given by God to men, it follows: –
(1.) That they are complete as a revelation in themselves, and are not to be supplemented or explained by light drawn from any other source. (2.) That the different sections of this revelation mutually supplement and explain one another. The Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures is the only adequate expounder of his own words, and he is promised to all the children of God as a Spirit of light and truth. In dependence upon his guidance, Christians are of course to study the Scriptures, using all the helps of true learning to ascertain their meaning; but this meaning is to be sought in the light of the Scriptures themselves taken as a whole, and not in the light either of tradition or of philosophy.
So in other words, the KJV was right when it translates Unicorns into the OT, and the use on non canonical lexical information may not be used to better understand your Bible or you are outside the WCF?
(Should I grab a lighter and torch my NA27 in favor of jerome’s inerrant vulgate?)
Pax Christi…Nick
3 July 2008 at 9.46 pm
I don’t understand why are we left with either an ” inability to interpret Psalm 74: 12-17 or, perhaps less desirable understanding of creation…”
Wouldn’t there also be a third option? Like Psalm 74 teaches us that God crushed leviathan and sea monsters.
Why isn’t that an option too?
Is it possible there is a fourth option? Like a prophecy, partially fulfilled but also more to come, as in Satan’s destruction?