| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
| Part ofa series on | ||||
| Creationism | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||
| History | ||||
| Types | ||||
| Biblical cosmology | ||||
| Creation science | ||||
| Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
| Religious views | ||||
| ||||
TheGenesis creation narrative is thecreation myth[a] of bothJudaism andChristianity,[1] told in thebook of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. While the Jewish and Christian tradition is that the account is one comprehensive story,[2][3] modern scholars ofbiblical criticism identify the account as a composite work[4] made up of two different stories drawn from different sources.[b]
The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:3, is from what scholars call thePriestly source (P), largely dated to the 6th century BC.[5] In this story,Elohim (the Hebrew generic word for "god") creates the heavens and the Earth in six days, and then rests on, blesses, and sanctifies the seventh (i.e., theBiblical Sabbath). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from theJahwist source (J),[6][7] commonly dated to the 10th or 9th centuries BC.[5] In this story, God (now referred to by the personal nameYahweh) createsAdam, the first man, from dust and places him in theGarden of Eden. There, he is given dominion over the animals.Eve, the first woman, is created from Adam's side as his companion.
The first major comprehensive draft of thePentateuch[c] (the J source) is thought to have been composed in either the late 7th or the 6th century BC, and was later expanded by other authors (the P source) into a work much alike to Genesis as known today.[8] The authors of the text were influenced byMesopotamian mythology andancient near eastern cosmology, and borrowed several themes from them, adapting and integrating them with their uniquebelief in one God.[9][10][d] The combined narrative is a critique of theMesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirmsmonotheism and deniespolytheism.[11]
Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, agenre offolklore consisting primarily ofnarratives that play a fundamental role in a society. For scholars, this is in contrast to more vernacular usage of the term "myth", which refers to a belief that is not true. Instead, the veracity of a myth is not a defining criterion.[12][e]
AlthoughOrthodox Jews andfundamentalist Christians attribute the authorship of thebook of Genesis toMoses "as a matter of faith", the hypothesis ofMosaic authorship has been questioned since the 11th century and rejected in scholarship since the 17th century.[2][3] Scholars ofbiblical criticism conclude that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call theTorah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods".[4][b]
The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts drawn from different sources.[b] The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:3, is from what scholars call thePriestly source (P), largely dated to the 6th century BC.[5] The second account, which is older and takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from theJahwist source (J),[6] commonly dated to the 10th or 9th centuries BC.[5]
The two stories were combined, but there is currently no scholarly consensus on when the narrative reached its final form.[13] A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive narrative of the Pentateuch was composed in the 7th or 6th centuries BC.[8] A sizeable minority of scholars believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, also known as theprimeval history, can be dated to the 3rd century BC based on discontinuities between the contents of the work and other parts of theHebrew Bible.[14]
The "Persian imperial authorisation", which has gained considerable interest and controversy,[citation needed] proposes that thePersians, after theirconquest of Babylon in 538 BC, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a singlelegal code accepted by the entire community. According to this theory, there were two powerful groups in the community: the priestly families who controlled theTemple and the landowning families who made up the "elders", which were in conflict over many issues. Each had its own "history of origins", but the Persian promise of greatly increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in producing a single text.[15]
The creation narrative is made up of two stories,[16][b] roughly equivalent to the two first chapters of the book of Genesis[17] (there are no chapter divisions in the original Hebrew text; seechapters and verses of the Bible).
In the first story, the Creator deity is referred to as "Elohim" (the Hebrew generic word for "god"), whereas in the second story, he is referred to with a composite divine name; "LORD God". Traditional Jewish andevangelical scholars such as Collins explain this as a single author's variation in style in order to, for example, emphasize the unity and transcendence of "God", who created the heavens and Earth by himself, in the first narrative.[18] Critical scholars such asRichard Elliot Friedman, on the contrary, take this as evidence of multiple authorship. Friedman states that the J source originally only used the "LORD" (Yahweh) title, but a later editor added "God" to form the composite name: "It therefore appears to be an effort by the Redactor (R) to soften the transition from the P creation, which uses only 'God' (thirty-five times), to the coming J stories, which use only the name YHWH."[19]
The first account[20] employs a repetitious structure of divine fiat and fulfillment, then the statement "And there was evening and there was morning, the [nth] day", for each of the six days of creation. In each of the first three days, there is an act of division: day one divides thedarkness from light, day two the "waters above" from the "waters below",, and day three the sea from the land. In each of the next three days, these divisions are populated: day four populates the darkness and light with the Sun, Moon, and stars; day five populates seas and skies with fish and fowl; and finally, land-based creatures and humanity populate the land.[21]
In the second story, Yahweh createsAdam, the first man, from dust and places him in theGarden of Eden. There, he is given dominion over the animals.Eve, the first woman, is created from Adam's rib as his companion.
A literary bridge joins the primary accounts in each chapter in Genesis 2:4, reading, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created."[22] This echoes the first line of Genesis 1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and is reversed in the next phrase, "...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". This verse is one of ten "generations" (Hebrew:תולדותtoledot) phrases used throughout Genesis, which provide a literary structure to the book.[23] They normally function as headings to what comes after, but the position of this, the first of the series, has been the subject of much debate.[24]
The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are usually regarded as contradictory but also complementary,[b][f] with the first (the P story) concerned with the creation of the entirecosmos while the second (the J story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment.[17][g]
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives forJewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative were influenced byMesopotamian mythology,[25][9][26][10] borrowing several themes from them but adapting them toIsraelite religion[9][10][d] and establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth ofancient Israel's neighbors.[27][28][page needed][10][h]
Genesis 1 bears striking similarities and differences withEnuma Elish, theBabylonian creation myth.[26] The myth begins with two primeval entities:Apsu, the male freshwater deity, andTiamat, the female saltwater deity. The first gods were born from their sexual union. The younger gods killed both Apsu and Tiamat.Marduk, the leader of the gods, builds the world with Tiamat's body, which he splits in two. With one half, he creates a dome-shapedfirmament in the sky to hold back Tiamat's upper waters. With the other half, Marduk forms dry land to hold back her lower waters. Marduk then organises the heavenly bodies and assigns tasks to the gods in maintaining the cosmos. When the gods complain about their work, Marduk creates humans out of the blood of the godKingu. The grateful gods build a temple for Marduk inBabylon.[29] This is similar to theBaal Cycle, in which the Canaanite godBaal builds himself a cosmic temple over seven days.[30]
In both Genesis 1 andEnuma Elish, creation consists of bringing order out ofchaos. Before creation, there was nothing but acosmic ocean. During creation, a dome-shaped firmament is put in place to hold back the water and make Earth habitable.[31] Both conclude with the creation of a human called "man" and the building of a temple for the god (in Genesis 1, this temple is the entire cosmos).[32] In contrast toEnuma Elish, Genesis 1 is monotheistic. There is notheogony (account of God's origins), and there is no trace of the resistance to the reduction of chaos to order (Greek:theomachy, lit. "God-fighting"), all of which mark the Mesopotamian creation accounts.[9] The gods inEnuma Elish areamoral, they have limited powers, and they create humans to be theirslaves. In Genesis 1, however, God is all-powerful. He creates humans in the divine image and cares for their wellbeing,[33] and gives them dominion over every living thing.[34]
Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2. Both begin with a series of statements of what did not exist at the moment when creation began;Enuma Elish has a spring (in the sea) as the point where creation begins, paralleling the spring (on the land; Genesis 2 is notable for being a "dry" creation story) inGenesis 2:6 that "watered the whole face of the ground"; in both myths, Yahweh/the gods first create a man to serve him/them, then animals and vegetation. At the same time, and as with Genesis 1, the Jewish version has drastically changed its Babylonian model: Eve, for example, seems to fill the role of amother goddess when, inGenesis 4:1, she says that she has "created a man with Yahweh", but she is not a divine being like her Babylonian counterpart.[35]
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, theAtra-Hasis epic – parallels that, in fact, extend throughoutGenesis 2–11, from the Creation to theFlood and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot details (e.g., the divine garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance ofimmortality), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals.[36]
Genesis 1–2 reflects ancient ideas about science: in the words ofE. A. Speiser, "on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian science."[37] The opening words of Genesis 1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", sum up the belief of the author(s) thatYahweh, the God of Israel, was solely responsible for the creation and had no rivals.[38] Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas fromGreek philosophy, concluded thatGod's Wisdom,Word andSpirit penetrated all things and gave them unity.[39] Christianity, in turn, adopted these ideas and identifiedJesus with thecreative word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).[40] When the Jews came into contact with Greek thought, there followed a major reinterpretation of the underlying cosmology of the Genesis narrative. The biblical authors conceived the cosmos as a flat disc-shaped Earth in the centre, an underworld for the dead below, and heaven above.[41] Below the Earth were the "waters of chaos", the cosmic sea, home to mythic monsters defeated and slain by God; in Exodus 20:4, God warns against making an image "of anything that is in the waters under the earth".[38] There were also waters above the Earth, and so theraqia (firmament), a solid bowl, was necessary to keep them from flooding the world.[42] During theHellenistic period, this was largely replaced by a more "scientific" model as imagined by Greek philosophers, according to which the Earth was a sphere at the centre of concentric shells of celestial spheres containing the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets.[41]
The idea that God created the world out of nothing (creatioex nihilo) has become central today to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism – indeed, the medieval Jewish philosopherMaimonides felt it was the only concept that the three religions shared[43] – yet it is not found directly in Genesis, nor in the entire Hebrew Bible.[44] According to Walton, the Priestly authors of Genesis 1 were concerned not with the origins of matter (the material which God formed into the habitable cosmos), but with assigning roles so that the cosmos should function.[45] John Day, however, considers that Genesis 1 clearly provides an account of the creation of the material universe.[46] Even so, the doctrine had not yet been fully developed in the early 2nd century AD, although early Christian scholars were beginning to see a tension between the idea of world-formation and the omnipotence of God; by the beginning of the 3rd century this tension was resolved, world-formation was overcome, and creationex nihilo had become a fundamental tenet of Christian theology.[47]
The Genesis narratives are not the only biblical creation accounts. The Bible preserves two contrasting models of creation. The first is the "logos" (speech) model, where a supreme God "speaks" dormant matter into existence. Genesis 1 is an example of creation by speech.[48]
The second is the "agon" (struggle or combat) model, in which it is God's victory in battle over the monsters of the sea that marks his sovereignty and might.[49] There is no complete combat myth preserved in the Bible. However, there are fragmentary allusions to such a myth inIsaiah 27:1,Isaiah 51:9–10,Job 26:12–13. These passages describe how God defeated the forces of chaos. These forces arepersonified assea monsters. These monsters are variously namedYam (Sea), Nahar (River),Leviathan (Coiled One),Rahab (Arrogant One), andTannin (Dragon).[50]
Psalm 74 and Isaiah 51 recall aCanaanite myth in which God creates the world by vanquishing the water deities: "Awake, awake! ... It was you that hacked Rahab in pieces, that pierced the Dragon! It was you that dried up the Sea, the waters of the great Deep, that made the abysses of the Sea a road that the redeemed might walk..."[51]
_British_Museum.jpg)
The first creation account is divided into seven days during which God creates light (day 1); the sky (day 2); the earth, seas, and vegetation (day 3); the sun and moon (day 4); animals of the air and sea (day 5); and land animals and humans (day 6). God rested from his work on the seventh day of creation, theSabbath.[52]
The use of numbers in ancient texts was oftennumerological rather than factual – that is, the numbers were used because they held some symbolic value to the author.[53] The number seven, denoting divine completion, permeates Genesis 1: verse 1:1 consists of seven words, verse 1:2 has fourteen, and 2:1–3 has 35 words (5×7); Elohim is mentioned 35 times, "heaven/firmament" and "earth" 21 times each, and the phrases "and it was so" and "God saw that it was good" occur 7 times each.[54]
The cosmos created in Genesis 1 bears a striking resemblance to theTabernacle inExodus 35–40, which was the prototype of theTemple in Jerusalem and the focus of priestly worship ofYahweh; for this reason, and because other Middle Eastern creation stories also climax with the construction of a temple/house for thecreator god, Genesis 1 can be interpreted as a description of the construction of the cosmos as God's house, for which the Temple in Jerusalem served as the earthly representative.[55]
The opening phrase ofGenesis 1:1 is traditionally translated in English as "in the beginning God created".[57] This translation suggestscreatio ex nihilo ('creation from nothing').[58] The Hebrew, however, is ambiguous and can be translated in other ways.[59] TheNRSV translates verses 1 and 2 as, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void ..." This translation suggests that earth, in some way, already existed when God began his creative activity.[60]
Biblical scholarsJohn Day andDavid Toshio Tsumura argue that Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the universe, the former writing: "Since the inchoate earth and the heavens in the sense of the air/wind were already in existence in Gen. 1:2, it is most natural to assume that Gen. 1:1 refers to God's creative act in making them."[61][62] Other scholars such asR. N. Whybray,Christine Hayes,Michael Coogan, Cynthia Chapman, andJohn H. Walton argue that Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of an ordered universe out of preexisting,chaotic material.[63][64][65][66]
The word "created" translates the Hebrewbara', a word used only for God's creative activity; people do not engage inbara'.[67] Walton argues thatbara' does not necessarily refer to the creation of matter. In theancient Near East, "to create" meant assigning roles and functions. Thebara' which God performs in Genesis 1 concerns bringing "heaven and earth" from chaos into ordered existence.[68] Day disputes Walton's functional interpretation of the creation narrative. Day argues that material creation is the "only natural way of taking the text" and that this interpretation was the only one for most of history.[46]
Most interpreters consider the phrase "heaven and earth" to be amerism meaning the entire cosmos.[69] Genesis 1:2 describes the earth as "formless and void". This phrase is a translation of the Hebrewtohu wa-bohu (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ).[70]Tohu by itself means "emptiness, futility". It is used to describe the desert wilderness.Bohu has no known meaning, although it appears to be related to theArabic wordbahiya ('to be empty'),[71] and was apparently coined to rhyme with and reinforcetohu.[72] The phrase appears also inJeremiah 4:23 where the prophet warnsIsrael that rebellion against God will lead to the return of darkness and chaos, "as if the earth had been 'uncreated'".[73]
Verse 2 continues, "darkness was upon the face of the deep". The worddeep translates the Hebrewtəhôm (תְהוֹם), aprimordial ocean. Darkness andtəhôm are two further elements of chaos in addition totohu wa-bohu. InEnuma Elish, the watery deep is personified as the goddessTiamat, the enemy ofMarduk. In Genesis, however, there is no such personification. The elements of chaos are not seen as evil but as indications that God has not begun his creative work.[74]
Verse 2 concludes with, "And theruach of God [Elohim] moved upon the face of the waters." There are several options for translating the Hebrew wordruach (רוּחַ). It could mean 'breath', 'wind', or 'spirit' in different contexts. The traditional translation is "spirit of God".[75] In the Hebrew Bible, the spirit of God is understood to be an extension of God's power. The term is analogous to saying the "hand of the Lord" (2 Kings 3:15). Historically, Christian theologians supported "spirit" as it provided biblical support for the presence of theHoly Spirit, the third person of theTrinity, at creation.[76]
Other interpreters argue for translatingruach as "wind". For example, the NRSV renders it "wind from God".[66] Likewise, the wordelohim can sometimes function as a superlative adjective (such as "mighty" or "great"). The phraseruach elohim may therefore mean "great wind". The connection between wind and watery chaos is also seen in theGenesis flood narrative, where God uses wind to make the waters subside in Genesis 8:1.[77][78]
InEnuma Elish, the storm god Marduk defeats Tiamat with his wind. While stories of a cosmic battle prior to creation were familiar to ancient Israelites(seeabove), there is no such battle in Genesis 1 though the text includes the primeval ocean and references to God's wind. Instead, Genesis 1 depicts a single God whose power is uncontested and who brings order out of chaos.[79]
.jpg)
Creation takes place over six days. The creative acts are arranged so that the first three days set up the environments necessary for the creations of the last three days to thrive. For example, God creates light on the first day and the light-producing heavenly bodies on the fourth day.[64]
| Day 1 | light | Day 4 | celestial bodies |
| Day 2 | sea and firmament | Day 5 | birds and fish |
| Day 3 | land and plants | Day 6 | land animals and humans |
Each day follows a similar literary pattern:[80]
Verse 31 sums up all of creation with, "God saw every thing that He had made, and, indeed, it was very good". According to biblical scholarR. N. Whybray, "This is the craftsman's assessment of his own work ... It does not necessarily have an ethical connotation: it is not mankind that is said to be 'good', but God's work as craftsman."[67]
At the end of the sixth day, when creation is complete, the world is a cosmic temple in which the role of humanity is the worship of God. This parallelsEnuma Elish and also echoesJob 38, where God recalls how the stars, the "sons of God", sang when the corner-stone of creation was laid.[81]
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.[82]
The process of creation illustrates God's sovereignty andomnipotence. God creates by fiat; things come into existence by divine decree.[83] Like a king, God has merely to speak for things to happen.[84] On day one, God creates light and separates the light from the darkness. Then he names them.[66] God therefore creates time.[85]
Creation by speech is not found in Mesopotamian mythology, but it is present in someancient Egyptian creation myths.[86] While some Egyptian accounts have a god creating the world by sneezing or masturbating, theMemphite Theology hasPtah create by speech.[87] In Genesis, creative acts begin with speech and are finalized with naming. This has parallels in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. In the Memphite Theology, the creator god names everything. Similarly,Enuma Elish begins when heaven, earth, and the gods were unnamed. Walton writes, "In this way of thinking, things did not exist unless they were named."[86] According to biblical scholarNahum Sarna, this similarity is "wholly superficial" because in other ancient narratives creation by speech involvesmagic:[88]
The pronouncement of the right word, like the performance of the right magical actions, is able to, or rather, inevitably must, actualize the potentialities which are inherent in the inert matter. In other words, it implies a mystic bond uniting matter to its manipulator ... Worlds apart is the Genesis concept of creation by divine fiat. Notice how the Bible passes over in absolute silence the nature of the matter—if any—upon which the divine word acted creatively. Its presence or absence is of no importance, for there is no tie between it and God. "Let there be!" or, as the Psalmist echoed it, "He spoke and it was so", [Psalm 33:9] refers not to the utterance of the magic word, but to the expression of the omnipotent, sovereign, unchallengeable will of the absolute, transcendent God to whom all nature is completely subservient.
6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.[90]
On day two, God creates thefirmament (rāqîa), which is namedšamayim ('sky' or'heaven'),[91] to divide the waters. Water was a "primal generative force" in pagan mythologies. In Genesis, however, the primeval ocean possesses no powers and is completely at God's command.[92]
Rāqîa is derived fromrāqa', the verb used for the act of beating metal into thin plates.[93] Ancient people throughout the world believed the sky was solid, and the firmament in Genesis 1 was understood to be a solid dome.[94] Inancient near eastern cosmology, the earth is aflat disc surrounded by the waters above and the waters below. The firmament is a solid dome that rests on mountains at the edges of the earth. It is transparent, allowing men to see the blue of the waters above with "windows" to allow rain to fall. The sun, moon and stars are underneath the firmament. Deep within the earth is theunderworld orSheol. The earth is supported by pillars sunk into the waters below.[95]
The waters above are the source of precipitation, so the function of therāqîa was to control or regulate the weather.[96] In theGenesis flood narrative, "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth" from the waters beneath the earth and from the "windows" of the sky.[97]
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.[98]
By the end of the third day God has created a foundational environment of light, heavens, seas and earth.[99] God does not create or make trees and plants, but instead commands the earth to produce them. The underlying theological meaning seems to be that God has given the previously barren earth the ability to produce vegetation, and it now does so at his command. "According to (one's) kind" appears to look forward to the laws found later in the Pentateuch, which lay great stress on holiness through separation.[100]
In the first three days, God set up time, climate, and vegetation, all necessary for the proper functioning of the cosmos. For ancient peoples living in anagrarian society, climatic or agricultural disasters could cause widespread suffering through famine. Nevertheless, Genesis 1 describes God's original creation as "good" – the natural world was not originally a threat to human survival.[101]
The three levels of the cosmos are next populated in the same order in which they were created – heavens, sea, earth.
%2c_vol.1%2c_f.3_-_BL_Royal_MS_19_D_III.jpg)
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.[102]
On the first day, God makes light (Hebrew:'ôr). On the fourth day, God makes "lights" or "lamps" (Hebrew:mā'ôr) set in the firmament.[103] This is the same word used elsewhere in the Pentateuch for the lampstand ormenorah in theTabernacle, another reference to the cosmos being a temple.[104] Specifically, God creates the "greater light", the "lesser light", and the stars. According toVictor Hamilton, most scholars agree that the choice of "greater light" and "lesser light", rather than the more explicit "sun" and "moon", is anti-mythological rhetoric intended to contradict widespread contemporary beliefs insun andmoon deities.[105] Indeed,Rashi posits that the account of the fourth day reveals that the sun and the moon operate only according to the will of God, and so demonstrates that it is foolish to worship them.[106]
On day four, the language of "ruling" is introduced. The heavenly bodies will "govern" day and night and mark seasons, years and days. This was a matter of crucial importance to thePriestly authors, as thethree pilgrimage festivals were organised around the cycles of both the sun and moon in alunisolar calendar that could have either 12 or 13 months.[107]
In Genesis 1:17, the stars are set in the firmament. In Babylonian myth, the heavens were made of various precious stones with the stars engraved in their surface (compare Exodus 24:10 where the elders of Israel see God on the sapphire floor of heaven).[108]
And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.[109]
On day five, God creates animals of the sea and air. In Genesis 1:20, the Hebrew termnepeš ḥayya ('living creatures') is first used. They are of higher status than all that has been created before this, and they receive God'sblessing.[66]
The Hebrew wordtannin (translated as "sea creatures" or "sea monsters") in Genesis 1:21 is used elsewhere in the Bible in reference tochaos-monsters namedRahab andLeviathan (Psalm 74:13,Isaiah 27:1 and51:9). In Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythologies (Instruction of Merikare andEnuma Elish), the creator-god has to do battle with the sea-monsters before he can make heaven and earth. In Genesis, however, there is no hint of combat, and thetannin are simply creatures created by God. The Genesis account, therefore, is an explicitpolemic against the mythologies of the ancient world.[110]
_-_Vasco_Fernandes_(Museu_de_Lamego).png)
24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed—to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so.31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.[111]
On day six, God creates land animals and humans. Like the animals of the sea and air, the land animals are designatednepeš ḥayya ('living creatures'). They are divided into three categories: domesticated animals (behema), whild herd animals that serve as prey (remeś), and wild predators (ḥayya). The earth "brings forth" animals in the same way that it brought forth vegetation on day three.[112]
In Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man ..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" ismajestic plural,[113] or that it reflects a setting in adivine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings.[114] A traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflectsTrinitarianism. Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".[115]
The creation of mankind is the climax of the creation account and God's implied purpose for creating the world. Everything created up to this point was made for humanity's use.[67] Man was created in the "image of God". The meaning of this is unclear but suggestions include:[116][117]
When in Genesis 1:26 God says "Let us make man", the Hebrew word used isadam; in this form it is a generic noun, "mankind", and does not imply that this creation is male. After this first mention the word always appears asha-adam, 'the man', but as Genesis 1:27 shows ("So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."), the word is still not exclusively male.[118]
God blesses humanity, commanding them to reproduce, 'subdue' (kbš) the earth and 'rule' (rdh) over it, in what is known as thecultural mandate. Humanity is to extend the Kingdom of God beyond Eden, and, imitating the Creator-God, is to labour to bring the earth into its service, to the end of the fulfilment of the mandate.[119] This would include the procreation of offspring, the subjugation and replenishment of the earth (e.g., the use of natural resources), dominion over creatures (e.g., animal domestication), labor in general, and marriage.[120][121] God tells the animals and humans that he has given them "the green plants for food" – creation is to bevegetarian. Only later, after the Flood, is man given permission to eat flesh. The Priestly author of Genesis appears to look back to an ideal past in which mankind lived at peace both with itself and with the animal kingdom, and which could be re-achieved through a proper sacrificial life inharmony with God.[122]
Upon completion, God sees that "every thing that He had made ... was very good" (Genesis 1:31). According toIsrael Knohl, this implies that the materials that existed before the Creation (tohu wa-bohu, "darkness",tehom) were not "very good". He thus hypothesized that the Priestly source set up this dichotomy to mitigatethe problem of evil.[123] However according to Collins, since the creation of man is the climax of the first creation account, "very good" must signify the presentation of man as the crown of God's creation, which is to serve him.[124]
And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work which God in creating had made.[125]
These three verses belong with and complete the narrative in chapter 1.[126] Creation is followed by "rest".[127] In ancient Near Eastern literature the divine rest is achieved in a temple as a result of having brought order to chaos. Rest is both disengagement, as the work of creation is finished, but also engagement, as the deity is now present in his temple to maintain a secure and ordered cosmos.[128] Compare with Exodus 20:8–20:11: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy GOD, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Genesis 2–3, theGarden of Eden story, was probably authoredc. 500 BC as "a discourse on ideals in life, the danger in human glory, and the fundamentally ambiguous nature of humanity – especially human mental faculties".[129] The Garden in which the action takes place lies on the mythological border between the human and the divine worlds, probably on the far side of thecosmic ocean near the rim of the world; following a conventional ancient Near Eastern concept, the Eden river first forms that ocean and then divides into four rivers which run from the four corners of the earth towards its centre.[129] According toMeredith Kline, who representscovenant theology and theframework interpretation, the narrative establishes the site of the "climactic probation test", which is also where the "covenant crisis" of Genesis 3 occurs.[130]
Thepericope that constitutes the second narrative is generally taken to begin atGenesis 2:4 ("These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens",) because it is widely recognized as achiasmus (in the following quote, each subject of the chiasmus is preceded by "[x]" to denote its place in the chiastic configuration; "These are the generations [a] of the heavens [b] and of the earth [c] when they were created [c'] in the day that theLORD God made [b'] the earth [a'] and the heavens").[131]
The content of the verse 4 opening is a set introduction similar to those found in Babylonian myths.[132] Before the man is created, the earth is a barren waste watered by an’êḏ (אד);Genesis 2:6 of theKing James Version has the translation "mist" for this word, following Jewish practice. Since the mid-20th century, Hebraists have generally accepted that the real meaning is "spring of underground water".[133]
In Genesis 1 the characteristic word for God's activity isbara, 'created'; in Genesis 2 the word used when he creates the man isyatsar (ייצרyîṣer), meaning 'fashioned', a word used in contexts such as a potter fashioning a pot from clay.[134] God breathes his own breath into the clay and it becomesnephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ), a word meaning 'life', 'vitality', "the living personality"; man sharesnephesh with all creatures, but the text describes this life-giving act by God only in relation to man.[135]
The word "Eden" comes from a root meaning "fertility": the first man is to work in God's miraculously fertile garden.[136] The "tree of life" is a motif from Mesopotamian myth: in theEpic of Gilgamesh (c. 1800 BC)[j] the hero is given a plant whose name is "man becomes young in old age", but a serpent steals the plant from him.[137] Kline regards the tree of life as a symbol or seal of the reward of eternal life for successful fulfilment of the covenant by humanity.[138] There has been much scholarly discussion about the type of knowledge given by the second tree. Suggestions include: human qualities, sexual consciousness, ethical knowledge, or universal knowledge; with the last being the most widely accepted.[139] In Eden, mankind has a choice between wisdom and life, and chooses the first, although God intended them for the second.[140]
The mythic Eden and its rivers may represent the real Jerusalem, theTemple and the Promised Land. Eden may represent the divine garden onZion, the mountain of God, which was also Jerusalem; while the realGihon was a spring outside the city (mirroring the spring which waters Eden); and the imagery of the Garden, with its serpent and cherubs, has been seen as a reflection of the real images of theTemple of Solomon with its copper serpent (thenehushtan) and guardiancherubs.[141] Genesis 2 is the only place in the Bible where Eden appears as a geographic location: elsewhere (notably in theBook of Ezekiel) it is a mythological place located on the holy Mountain of God, with echoes of a Mesopotamian myth of the king as a primordial man placed in a divine garden to guard the tree of life "in the midst of the garden" (2:9).[142]
Kline states that the terms of the covenant (a divine legal transaction with divinely sanctioned commitments), specifically theCovenant of Works, are summarised in verses 15-17. In verse 15, humanity is to "dress" and "keep" the garden (KJV), or to "work it" and "take care of it" (NIV). In verse 17, God gives the "focal probationary proscription", that Adam must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which refers to "judicial discernment" (cf.2 Samuel 14:17;1 Kings 3:9, 28) and a curse is attached if the proscription is transgressed, which is said to be death, although Kline interprets this to be spiritual death or eternal perdition rather than physical death.[143] The Hebrew behind this is in the form used in the Bible for issuingdeath sentences.[144] "Good and evil" can also be interpreted as amerism, so in this case it would mean simply "everything".
After God's observation that it is "not good that man should be alone" inGenesis 2:18, but before he causes Adam to sleep, then creating Eve from his side in verses 21–22, Adam's first recorded action is carried out alone, his naming of each of the other creatures brought to him by God (Genesis 2:19–20). This appears to be an exercise of the authority and the dominion given to Adam inGenesis 1:28.[145] Verse 20 also states that, among all the animals, none was found to be a suitable helper for him, which leads into the account of the creation of Eve.[146]
The first woman is created out of one of Adam'sribs to beezer kenegdo (עזר כנגדו‘êzer kəneḡdō)[147] – a term notably difficult to translate – to the man.Kəneḡdō means "alongside, opposite, a counterpart to him", and‘êzer refers to active intervention on behalf of the other person.[148] God's naming of the elements of the cosmos in Genesis 1 illustrated hisauthority over creation; now the man's naming of the animals (and of woman) illustrates Adam's authority within creation.[149]
The woman is calledishah (אשה’iš-šāh), 'woman', with an explanation that this is because she was taken fromish (אִישׁ’îš), meaning 'man',[147] but the two words are not in fact connected.[150]
Adam rejoices at being given a helper, exclaiming (or singing) that she is "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh".[151]Henri Blocher refers to Adam's words as "poetry";[152] Alistair Wilson proposes that they should be treated as "song".[153]
Later, after the story of the Garden is complete, the woman receives a name:Ḥawwāh (חוה, Eve).[154] This means 'living' in Hebrew, from a root that can also mean 'snake'.[155] AssyriologistSamuel Noah Kramer connects Eve's creation to the ancient Sumerian myth ofEnki, who was healed by the goddessNin-ti, "the Lady of the rib"; this became "the Lady who makes live" via apun on the wordti, which means both "rib" and "to make live" in Sumerian.[156] The Hebrew word traditionally translated "rib" in English can also mean "side", "chamber", or "beam".[157] A long-standing exegetical tradition holds that the use of a rib from man's side emphasises that both man and woman have equal dignity, for woman was created from the same material as man, shaped and given life by the same processes.[158]
The Genesis creation narrative inspired a genre of Jewish and Christian literature known as theHexameral literature. This literature was dedicated to the composition of commentaries, homilies, and treatises concerned with the exegesis of the biblical creation narrative through ancient and medieval times. The first Christian example of this genre was theHexaemeron of the fourth-century theologianBasil of Caesarea, and many other works went on to be written by authors includingAugustine of Hippo,Jacob of Serugh,Jacob of Edessa,Bonaventure, and so on.[159]
The framework interpretation (also known as the "literary framework" view, "framework theory", or "framework hypothesis") is a description of thestructure of the first creation narrative (more precisely,Genesis 1:1–2:4a).[160] Biblical scholars and theologians present the structure as evidence that the first creation narrative constitutes a symbolic rather than literal presentation of creation.
Kline's analysis divides the six days of creation in Genesis into two groups of three ("triads"). The introduction, Genesis 1:1–2, "In the beginning… the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep…", describes the primal universe containing darkness, a watery "deep", and a formless earth, over which hovers the spirit of God. The following three days describe the first triad: the creation of light and its separation from the primal darkness (Genesis 1:3–5); the creation of the "firmament" within the primal waters so that the heavens (space between the firmament and the surface of the seas) and the "waters under the firmament" can appear (Genesis 1:6–8); and the separation of the waters under the firmament into seas and dry land with its plants and trees. The second triad describes the peopling of the three elements of the first: sun, moon, and stars for the day and night (Genesis 1:14–19), fish and birds for the heavens and seas (Genesis 1:20–23), and finally animals and man for the vegetated land (24–31).[161] This framework is illustrated in the following table.[162]
| First triad— Creation Kingdoms | Second triad— Creature Kinds | ||
| Day 1 (Light) | Let there be light (1:3). | Let there be lights (1:14). | Day 4 (Luminaries) |
| Day 2 (Sky/Water) | Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (1:6). | Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20). | Day 5 (Birds/Fish) |
| Day 3 (Land/Vegetation) | Let dry land appear (1:9). Let the land produce vegetation (1:11). | Let the land produce living creatures (1:24). Let us make man (1:26). I give you every seed bearing plant... and every tree that has fruit with seed in it... for food (1:29). | Day 6 (Land animals/Humans) |
| The Creator King | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 7 (Sabbath) | |||
Differences exist in classifying the two triads, but Kline's analysis is suggestive: the first triad (days 1–3) narrates the establishment of the creation kingdoms, and the second triad (days 4–6), the production of the creature kinds. Furthermore, this structure is not without theological significance, for all the created realms and regents of the six days are subordinate vassals of God, who takes his royal Sabbath rest as the Creator on the seventh day. Thus, the seventh day marks the climax of the creation week.[161]
The framework interpretation is held by manytheistic evolutionists and someprogressive creationists. Some argue that it has a precedent in the writings of theChurch FatherAugustine of Hippo.[163] Arie Noordzij of theUniversity of Utrecht was the first proponent of the Framework Hypothesis in 1924.[citation needed] Nicolaas Ridderbos (not to be confused with his more well-known brother,Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos) popularized the view in the late 1950s.[164] It has gained acceptance in modern times through the work of such theologians and scholars as Meredith G. Kline,Henri Blocher,John H. Walton andBruce Waltke. Old Testament andPentateuch scholarGordon Wenham supports a schematic interpretation of Genesis 1 as described in the following quote.
It has been unfortunate that one device which our narrative uses to express the coherence and purposiveness of the creator's work, namely, the distribution of the various creative acts to six days, has been seized on and interpreted over-literalistically… The six day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been built into creation. Other devices include the use of repeating formulae, the tendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens, literary techniques such as chiasm and inclusio, the arrangement of creative acts into matching groups, and so on. If these hints were not sufficient to indicate the schematization of the six-day creation story, the very content of the narrative points in the same direction.[165]
The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it is seen as a resolution of the traditional conflict between the Genesis creation narrative and contemporary science. It presents an alternative toliteralist interpretations of the Genesis narratives, which are advocated by some conservative Christians andcreationists at a popular level. Creationists who take a literalist approach reject symbolic or allegorical interpretations of the Genesis creation narrative as conceding to scientific authority at the expense of biblical authority.[166] Advocates of the framework view respond by noting that scripture affirms God'sgeneral revelation in nature (seePsalm 19;Romans 1:19–20); therefore, in the search for the truth about the origins of the universe, we must be sensitive to both the "book of words" (scripture) and the "book of works" (nature). Since God is the author of both "books", we should expect that they do not conflict with each other when properly interpreted.[167][page needed]
Opponents of the framework interpretation includeJames Barr,Andrew Steinmann, Robert McCabe, and Ting Wang.[168] Additionally, some conservativesystematic theologians, such asWayne Grudem andMillard Erickson, have criticised the framework interpretation, deeming it an unsuitable reading of the Genesis text.[169] Grudem states that "while the 'framework' view does not deny the truthfulness of scripture, it adopts an interpretation of scripture which, upon closer inspection, seems very unlikely".[170]
.jpg)
The meaning to be derived from the Genesis creation narrative will depend on the reader's understanding of itsgenre, the literary "type" to which it belongs (e.g., creation myth, historical saga, or scientific cosmology).[171]
Whilebiblical criticism has deconstructed many traditional views on the Bible, conservative evangelical traditions have tended to interpret the Genesis creation narrative in a literal way but have also engaged in (sometimes heated) disputes on the interpretation of Genesis.[172]
According to Biblical scholarFrancis Andersen, misunderstanding the intention of the author(s) and the culture within which they wrote will result in a misreading.[173]Reformed and evangelical scholarBruce Waltke cautions against one such misreading: the "woodenly literal" approach, which leads to "creation science", but also to such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory", the presumption of a "young earth", and the denial ofevolution.[174] Scholar ofJewish studiesJon D. Levenson goes further in doubting whetherhistoricity can be attributed to Genesis at all:
How much history lies behind the story of Genesis? Because the action of the primeval story is not represented as taking place on the plane of ordinary human history and has so many affinities with ancient mythology, it is very far-fetched to speak of its narratives as historical at all.[175]
Another scholar,Conrad Hyers, summed up the same thought by writing, "Aliteralist interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there."[176]
In conclusion, while the 'framework' view does not deny the truthfulness of Scripture, it adopts an interpretation of Scripture which, upon closer inspection, seems very unlikely.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)Narratives here are considered to be part of human mental activity and give meaning to experiences.
J.A Thompson Jeremiah.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
| General | |
|---|---|
| Book of Genesis | |
| Types | |
| Controversies | |
| Related | |
