ABSTRACT
Creation accounts can be classified as mythological, scientific or a hybrid of the two. Past studies on the creation account in Genesis 1 have assumed that it represents an Ancient Near Eastern tradition and consequently falls into the category of myth rather than science, although it is frequently maintained that this creation myth has been “demythologized." The present chapter questions whether the creation account in fact belongs to the Ancient Near Eastern genre of creation myth, a proposition that has not been adequately tested by comparative analysis. Both Ancient Near Eastern and Greek creation myths share the same basic typologies, namely theogonies (genealogies of the gods), theomachies (wars between the gods), palatial world-myths (where heaven and earth are constructed in the form of a divine palace or temple) or local palatial myths (that situate the gods and their creative acts in local geographical regions). After discussing these typologies, the current chapter concludes that none describe Genesis 1, which possessed none of the distinctive qualities of creation myth, despite being cast in a narrative format. This raises a new possibility that has not previously been explored in a serious, systematic way: that Genesis might instead represent a scientific rather than mythological discourse.
