Definition of Phenomenology Language
Glossary
Phenomenology, The Language of
By Stephen Michael Leininger
Published: 04/02/2026
STOSS Books
According to David Woodruff Smith:
From a purely philosophical standpoint, The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience.”[1]
The Stanford Encyclopedia does not attempt to apply its characterization to biblical exegesis. John Lennox, however, writes:
Suppose, for instance, that God had intended to explain the origin of the universe and life to us in detailed scientific language. . . . If the biblical explanation were at the level, say, of twenty–second–century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone. . . . Rather than scientific language, the Bible often uses what is called phenomenological language—the language of appearance. It describes what anyone can see.[2]
Obviously, when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture, there remains the question of determining the accurate correlation between “appearance” and valid exegesis of the passages in question. Where Genesis is involved, the correlation can be ascertained through a cousin of phenomenological language—the language of myth.
Bernard Batto describes myth:
Myth is defined . . . as the profound symbolization [similar to Phenomenology in Genesis 1] of realities which transcend human capacity to comprehend and express them in ordinary language but which are profoundly true and paradigmatic for authentic life, even the central Christian mysteries of incarnation, resurrection and the second coming of Jesus may be understood as myth.”[3]
John Lennox provides a biological example of a paradigmatic shift when he writes,
[When Ernest] Rutherford discovered the nucleus of the atom he at once overthrew a dogma of classical physics and an immediate paradigm shift resulted. And DNA replaced protein as the basic genetic material virtually overnight.[4]
Likewise, the discovery that the primordial dust of the Earth described in Genesis 1 actually points to DNA is a paradigmatic shift in our biblical understanding.
According to Bernard F. Batto:
[M]yth refers to a traditional story, usually associated with the time of origins (e.g., creation or some important institution) that has paradigmatic significance for the society in which the story is operative. In this latter meaning, myth is characteristic of every traditional society; some would argue that myth continues to be operative even in modern, scientific society, camouflaged under other terms, including science itself (e.g., the big bang theory). Persons who hold that the Bible has been infallibly revealed by God and those who consider myth as something untrue may well find it offensive to posit that myth is present in the Bible. By contrast, those who see myth as one of the ways that a traditional society expresses its most profound truths may find inspiration in seeing biblical narratives as myth.[5]
Batto writes:
Many of the motifs that we previously encountered appear also in Hebrew literature: a primeval substance from which all creation is made, whether chaotic waters (Gen 1:1-2) or barren desert (Gen 2:4-5); a special creation of humankind, whether out of clay infused with a divine substance (Gen 2:7).[6]
Interestingly, the primordial materials described above are the same materials described in Biological Mystery #1 of the article about the thirty-four mysteries of biology hidden in the Bible. Furthermore, in Scripture, the primordial matter known as clay, is believed to symbolize the chemical composition of a living human body.
Many believe that the origin myth, Enuma Elish, was the blueprint the human author(s) used to write Genesis 1. Batto says no, it was not. He writes:
In the creation story Genesis 1:1-23, there is a deliberate muting of a conflict between the creator and the chaos monster. Anyone who reads Genesis 1:1–2:3 alongside Enuma Elish and other ancient Near Eastern mythological texts will be struck by the careful, circumscribed language of the Genesis author. He purposely avoids every hint of the polytheism typical of other origin myths.[7]
Endnotes
[1] Smith, David Woodruff, “Phenomenology” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/phenomenology/.
[2] John Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 26, ISBN: 978-0-310-12782-6.
[3] Bernard F. Batto, “Myth.” In The New Theological Dictionary, edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, and Dermot A. Lane (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 697–701, ISBN: 0–8146-5609–9 (hardcover).
[4] John C. Lennox, Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? (London: Lion Books, 2021), Kindle Edition, 80, eISBN: 978 0 7459 8141 3.
[5] Bernard F. Batto, “Myth in the Hebrew Bible,” Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies, February 24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0125.
[6] Bernard F. Batto, In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East and the Bible, (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), p.44.
[7] Batto, Bernard F. “When God Sleeps,” in Bible Review 3, no. 4 (1987): 16–23, https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/when-god-sleeps/.