Catholic Biblical Quarterly
76/4 (2012), forthcoming.John H. Walton,

Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011). Pp.xiv + 214. $34.50.

The first chapter of Genesis has long intrigued the faithful for its account of cosmic and humanorigins. In recent years, the interpretation of Genesis 1 has received even more pronouncedattention with the publication of Mark Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis:Fortress, 2010); William Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation (New York: Oxford University,2010); Stephen Barton & David Wilkinson (eds),  Reading Genesis After Darwin (Oxford:Oxford University, 2009), and Peter Bouteneff,  Beginnings
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), toname a few. This increased interest was equally apparent at the 2011 Society of BiblicalLiterature annual meeting in San Francisco, in which John Anderson presided over a session on Genesis with the theme, “Wrestling with Gen 1: The State of the Question and Avenues Moving Forward.”

Walton has been a significant figure in this recent discussion on Genesis, with his participation in the SBL session, as well as the publication of  The Lost World of Genesis One  (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009) and the current volume under review.In
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology , W. attempts not only to understand the ancient Near Eastern texts that shape our understanding of ancient cosmology, “but also to demonstrate that afunctional ontology pervaded the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East” (p. viii).

The latter objective contains two ideas that are integral to W.’s thesis. First, “cognitive environment” pertains to “the pervasive connection that ancient Israel had with the legacy of ancient Near Eastern literature and thought” (p. 13). W. is careful to
articulate that a shared cognitiveenvironment does not necessitate an indistinguishable culture. That is, two distinctive culturesmay share many of the same notions the universe’s machinations, but diverge on some of thespecifics, such as which deity is in charge. Second, “functional ontology” refers to the concept that things exist because they have purpose, not because they have substance. Whereas mostinterpretations of Genesis 1 have focused on the creation of material substance (e.g., land, seas,stars, fish, animals), W. posits that in ancient cosmic ontology, “everything exists by virtue of itshaving been assigned a function and given a role in the ordered cosmos” (p. 24).

While parallels of Genesis 1 to Mesopotamian literature, particularly Enuma Elish, are well documented, W. argues for a broader cognitive milieu from which its author operated,including Anatolia, Canaan, and Egypt. Citing copious examples from a broad scope of the ancient Near East, he contends that temples “serve as the foundation for the cosmos or even function as the bond that holds the cosmos together” (p. 102).

In ancient cosmogonies, temples defined the culmination of the creative process, because the “temple is a prerequisite of the deitywho has achieved ruling status” (p. 113). Having established the ancient Near Eastern precedentthat the cosmogonic culmination was a 7-day temple dedication ceremony, W. applies theseprinciples to Genesis 1. He ultimately concludes that the divine rest on the seventh day pertains to “God’s dwelling in his sanctuary” (p. 191), and the six previous days of creation
constitute “establishing and maintaining order” (p. 167) by doing, rather than making.

Walton’s analysis of ancient Near Eastern cosmogony provides an innovative entry into our understanding of Genesis 1. His focus on the emphasis of functional ontology and the cosmictemple in cognate literature offers a unique perspective and fresh insight into the foundationalcreation account of the Old Testament. In addition to a thorough summation of the ancient NearEastern cosmogonic material, W. offers a detailed analysis of each day of creation in Genesis 1.He notes that each created thing serves an existential purpose, making a compelling argument that bārā’ means “to bring something into (functional) existence” (p. 133), and tōhû refers to “the functionless cosmic waters” (p. 143). In spite of the persuasive nature of W.’s thesis, one may question whether the Genesis 1 account of creation is purely functional, or if it may entail both functional and material ontology.For example, although fish, birds, animals, and humans were created for a specific purpose, it ishard to envision their function without the presence of the material. Similarly, the lights and thefirmament seem to be created as physical properties. In other words, while W. may be accuratein his assesment of the priority of functional creation, it is important to recognize that the text isalso interested in the physical formation of many of these same components.

Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology is more than just another reading of the first book of theHebrew canon. Without being so technical as to being unreadable, it engages the ancient NearEastern texts intricately, thoughtfully, and objectively. Its thesis is well-defined, and theconclusions are clearly stated throughout. Although W. has hardly written the final word onGenesis 1, his conclusions cannot be ignored in future discussions on the issue.

Kyle R. Greenwood, Colorado Christian University, Lakewood, CO 80226