Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36.4
(1984) 208-15.
American Scientific Affiliation,
Copyright © 1984; cited with permission.
The Narrative Form of Genesis 1:
Cosmogonic, Yes; Scientific, No
CONRAD HYERS Department of Religion
A basic mistake through much of the history
of interpreting Genesis 1 is the failure to
identify the type of literature and linguistic
usage it represents. This has often led, in
turn, to various attempts at bringing Genesis into
harmony with the latest scientific
theory or the latest scientific theory into harmony
with Genesis. Such efforts might be
valuable, and indeed essential, if it could first
be demonstrated (rather than assumed)
that the Genesis materials belonged to the same
class of literature and linguistic usage
as modern scientific discourse.
A careful examination of the 6-day account
of creation, however, reveals that there is
a serious category-mistake involved in these
kinds of comparisons. The type of
narrative form with which Genesis 1 is presented
is not natural history but a
cosmogony. It is like other ancient cosmogonies in
the sense that its basic structure is
that of movement from chaos to cosmos. Its logic,
therefore, is not geological or
biological but cosmological. On the other hand it
is radically unlike other ancient
cosmogonies in that it is a monotheistic cosmogony;
indeed it is using the cosmogonic
form to deny and dismiss all polytheistic
cosmogonies and their attendant worship of
the gods and goddesses of nature. In both form and
content, then, Genesis I reveals
that its basic purposes are religious and
theological, not scientific or historical.
Different ages and different
cultures have conceptually
organized the cosmos in different ways. Even the
history of
science has offered many ways of organizing the
universe,
from Ptolemaic to Newtonian to Einsteinian.
How the uni-
verse is conceptually organized is immaterial to the
concerns
of Genesis. The central point being made is that,
however this
vast array of phenomena is organized into regions
and
forms--and Genesis 1 has its own method of
organization for
its own purposes--all regions and forms are the
objects of
divine creation and sovereignty. Nothing outside this
one
Creator
God is to be seen as independent or divine.
In one of the
known phenomena is subdivided into two groupings:
those
things related to the red cockatoo, and those related
to the
white cockatoo. Since there are both red and white
cockatoos
in the region, these contrasting plumages have
become the
208a
Conrad Hyers 208b
focal points around which everything is conceptually orga-
nized. The religious message
of Genesis relative to this
"cockatoo-cosmos"
would not be to challenge its scientific
acceptability, but to affirm that all
that is known as red
cockatoo, and all that is known as white
cockatoo, is created
by the one true God.
Or, one may take a similar example from
traditional
where all phenomena have, from early antiquity, been
divided up according to the principles of Yang
and Yin. Yang
This
is the second of two essays on interpreting the creation texts, the first of
which appeared in the September 1984 issue of the
journal.
209a THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
is light; yin is darkness. Yang is heaven; yin is
earth. Yang is
sun; yin is moon. Yang is rock; yin is water. Yang
is male; yin
is female. It would be inappropriate to enter into
a discussion
of the scientific merits of the Chinese system
relative to the
organization of Genesis 1; for what
Genesis, with its own
categories, is affirming is that the totality of
what the Chinese
would call Yang and Yin forces are created by God who
transcends and governs them all.
There are certain uniquenesses
in the 6-day approach to
organizing the cosmic totality, spacially
and temporally, but
the--point of these uniquenesses
is not to provide better
principles of organization, or a truer picture of
the universe,
in any scientific or historical sense. It is to
provide a truer
theological picture of the universe, and the
respective places
of nature, humanity and divinity within the
religious order of
things. In order to perform these theological and
religious
tasks, it was essential to use a form which would
clearly affirm
a monotheistic understanding of the whole of
existence, and
decisively eliminate any basis for a polytheistic
understand-
ing.
The Cosmogonic
Form
The alternative to the "creation
model" of Genesis was
obviously not an "evolutionary model."
Its competition, so to
speak, in the ancient world was not a secular,
scientific theory
of any sort, but various religious myths of origin
found among
surrounding peoples: Egyptian, Canaanite, Hittite,
Assyrian,
Babylonian, to name the most prominent. The field of
engagement, therefore, between Jewish-monotheism
and the
polytheism of other peoples was in no way the field
of science
or natural history. It was the field of cosmology
which, in its
ancient form, has some resemblances to science,
but is
nevertheless quite different.
Given this as the field of engagement, Genesis 1
is cast in
cosmological form--though, of
course, without the polytheis-
tic content, and in fact over against it. What form
could be
more relevant to the situation, and the issues of
idolatry and
syncretism, than this form? Inasmuch as the passage
is
dealing specifically with origins, it may be
said to be cosmo-
gonic. Thus, in order to
interpret its meaning properly, and to
understand why its materials are organized in this
particular
way, one has to learn to think cosmogonically, not scientifi-
cally or, historically--just
as in interpreting the parables of
Jesus
one has to learn to think parabolically. If one is
especially attached to the word
"literal," then Genesis 1
Conrad Hyers 209b
"literally" is not
a scientific or historical statement, but is a
cosmological and cosmogonic
statement which is serving very
basic theological purposes. To be faithful to it, and
to
faithfully interpret it, is to be faithful to what
it literally is, not
what people living in a later age assume or desire
it to be.
Various patterns, themes and images used in
Genesis 1 are
familiar to the cosmogonic
literatures of other ancient
peoples. To point this out does not detract in
the least from
the integrity of Genesis. Rather, it helps
considerably in
understanding the peculiar character
and concern of this kind
of narrative literature. And it indicates more
clearly where
the bones of contention are to be located, and what
the
uniquenesses of the Genesis view of
creation are.
The act of creation, for example, begins in
Genesis 1:2 in a
way that is very puzzling to modern interpreters,
yet very
natural to ancient cosmogonies: with a picture
of primordial
chaos. This chaos--consisting of darkness, watery
deep and
formless earth--is then formed, ordered, assigned
its proper
place and function, in short, cosmocized.
Chaos is brought
under control, and its positive features are made
part of the
cosmic totality.
If one is determined to interpret the account as
a scientific
statement, then one would need--to be consistent--to
affirm
several undesirable things. There is no
scientific evidence
whatsoever, whether from geology or astronomy, that
the
initial state of the universe was characterized
by a great
watery expanse, filling the universe. Nor is there any
evidence that the existence of water precedes
light (day 1)
and sun, moon, and stars (day 4). Nor is there any
evidence
that the earth in a formless state precedes light
(day 1), or sun,
moon and stars (day 4). On the theological side, one
would
also be affirming--if this is to be taken completely
literally-
that water is co-eternal with God, since nowhere
does the
account specifically speak of God as creating
water. Day 2
refers to water as being separated by the creation of
the
firmament, and Day 3 only speaks of water as being
sepa-
rated from the earth in order that the formless earth
may
appear as dry land.
The only viable alternative is to recognize that
Genesis 1 is
intentionally using a cosmogonic approach, and to reflect on
210a THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
the logic of the account in its own cosmological
terms--not in
geological or biological or chronological terms. The account is
not pre-scientific or un-scientific but
non-scientific--as one
may speak of poetry (unpoetically)
as non-prose. This does
not mean that the materials are in any sense
irrational or
illogical or fantastic. They are perfectly
rational, and have a
logic all their own. But that logic is cosmological, and in the
service of affirmations that are theological.
So the issue is not at all, How
is Genesis to be harmonized
with modern science, or modern science harmonized
with
Genesis? That kind of question is beside the
point, if by the
question one is proposing to try to synchronize
the Genesis
materials with materials from the various fields
of natural
science: biology, geology, paleontology,
astronomy, etc. That
would presuppose that they are comparable--that they
belong to the same type of literature, level of
inquiry, and
kind of concern. But they do not. Trying to compare
them is
not even like comparing oranges and apples. It is
more like
trying to compare oranges and orangutans.
The questions then, are: Why is this cosmogonic form
being used, and how does a cosmogonic
interpretation make
sense of the passage?
Like anything else in biblical literature, the cosmogonic
form was used because it was natural, normal and
intelligible
in that time period. For some, it has been an
offense to call
attention to ancient Near Eastern parallels of the
Genesis
materials. This approach has appeared to undermine
accep-
tance of the Bible as a
unique vehicle of divine revelation, Yet
the Bible, obviously, does not speak with a divine
language-
which, to say the least, would be unintelligible to
all. The
biblical authors necessarily used the language
forms and
literary phrases immediately present and
available in
which included materials available through the long
history
of interaction with surrounding peoples. They did
not use a
whole new vocabulary, or fresh set of metaphors and
symbols,
suddenly coined for the purpose or revealed on
the spot.
When
one speaks of the Word of God, one must be careful not
to suggest by this term that what is being
delivered is some
sacred language, complete with heavenly thesaurus and
handbook of divine phrases, specially parachuted
from
above.
Jewish scripture abounds in literary allusion
and poetic
usage which bear some relation, direct or indirect,
to images
and themes found among the peoples with which
Conrad Hyers 210b
contact. An analogy may be drawn from
contemporary
English
usage which contains innumerable traces of the
languages and literatures, myths and legends,
customs and
beliefs, of a great many cultures and periods
which have
enriched its development. Thus one finds not only
a consider-
able amount of terminology drawn from Greek, Latin,
French. German. etc.--including
the terms "term" and "ter-
minology"--but references
derived from the myths, legends,
fables and fairy tales of many peoples: the Greek
Fates, the
Roman
Fortune, the arrows of Cupid, Woden's day and
Thor's day, and even Christmas and Easter.
The issue, then, is not where the language
(Hebrew) and
certain words and phrases came from, but the
uses to which
they are put, and the ways in which they are put
differently,
The
cosmogonic form and imagery, in this case, is not
chosen
in order to espouse these other cosmogonies, or to
copy them,
or to ape them, or even to borrow from them, but
precisely in
order to deny them. Putting the issue in terms of
"borrowing"
or "influence" is to put matters in a
misleading way. Various
familiar motifs and phrasings to be found in
surrounding
polytheistic systems are being used,
but in such a way as to
give radical affirmation to faith in one God, a God
who
transcends and creates and governs all that which
surround-
ing peoples worship as
"god.”
Such a God, furthermore, is not only
transcendent but
immanent in a way that the gods and goddesses
could not be.
These
divinities were neither fully transcendent nor fully
immanent, for all were finite, limited, and
localized, being
associated with one aspect and region of nature.
The gods and
goddesses of light and darkness, sky and water,
earth and
vegetation, sun, moon and stars. each
had their own particu-
lar abode and sphere of
power. One or another divinity, such
as Marduk of Babylon or
Re of Egypt, might rise to suprem-
acy in the pantheon and be
exalted above every other name.
But
they were still restricted and circumscribed in their
presence, power and authority.
The biblical affirmation of One God is
decisively different
from all finite and parochial attributions of
divinity. In the
words of the Apostle Paul, this God is "above
all and through
all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6). The very fact
that God is
''above
all" makes possible a God who is at the same time
"through all and in all." Radical immanence presupposes
210c THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
radical transcendence. At the same time all
things are in God,
for apart from God they have no being; they do not
exist. As
Paul
also says, citing a Greek poet: "He is not far from each
one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have
our being'
(Acts 1728).
Genesis 1 is, thus, a cosmogony to end all
(polytheistic)
cosmogonies. It has entered, as it were, the playing
field of
these venerable systems, engaging them on their own
turf,
with the result that they are soundly defeated. And
that
victory has prevailed, first in
also Islam. and thence
through most of subsequent Western
civilization, including the
development of Western science.
Despite
the awesome splendor and power of the great
Conrad Hyers 211a
empires that successively dominated
East--
and despite the immediate influence of the
divinities in
whose names they conquered, these gods and goddesses
have
long since faded into oblivion, except for
archeological,
antiquarian or romantic interests. This victory
belongs, in
large part, to the sweeping and decisive manner with
which
the Genesis account applied prophetic monotheism to
the
cosmogonic question.
The Plan of Genesis 1
How, then, does an understanding of this cosmogonic
form--as radically reinterpreted in Genesis--help in
under-
standing the organization and movement of the
passage?
The emphasis in a cosmogony is on the
establishment of
order (cosmos), and the maintenance of that order,
and
therefore upon the ultimate sources of power and
authority.
Given
these concerns, there are three amorphous realities that
are seen as especially threatening to order: the
watery
"deep," darkness, and the formless earth
("waste" and
"void"). These potentially chaotic realities must be cosmo-
cized. They are not, however,
simply threatening or demonic,
but rather ambiguous. They have a potential for
good as well
as evil, if controlled and placed in an orderly
context. The
particular organization and movement of Genesis 1
is readily
intelligible when this cosmological
problem, with which the
account begins, is kept clearly in mind.
Water, for example, has no shape of its own.
And,
unchecked or uncontained, as in flood or storm or
raging sea,
water can destroy that which has form. Darkness,
also, in
itself has no form, and is dissolvent of form. Only
with the
addition of light can shapes and boundaries and
delineations
appear. Similarly, earth is basically formless--whether
as
sand, dust, dirt or clay. And it is doubly formless
when
engulfed by formless and form--destroying water
and dark-
ness.
These fundamental problems confronting the
establish-
ment and maintenance of an
orderly cosmos, therefore, in the
logic of the account, need to be confronted and accommo-
dated first. The amorphousness and ambiguousness of
water,
darkness and formless earth must be dealt with in
such a way
as to restrain their negative potential and
unleash their
positive potential. Otherwise, it would be like
building a
house without giving careful consideration to
potential
threats in the region, such as the adjacent
floodplain, or
shifting sand.
211b THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
The structure of the account, then, is that of
beginning with
a description of a three-fold problem (the
chaotic potential of
darkness, water and earth) which is given a
solution in the
first three days of creation, The first day takes
care of the
problem of darkness through the creation of
light. The second
clay takes care of the problem of water through the
creation of
a firmament in the sky to separate the water into
the waters
above (rain, snow, hail) and the waters below (sea,
rivers,
subterranean streams). The third day
takes care of the
problem of the formless earth by freeing earth
from water
and darkness, and assigning it to a middle region
between
light and darkness, sky and underworld.
This then readies the cosmos for populating
these various
realms in the next three days, like a house which has
been
readied for its inhabitants. In fact, the third
day also takes
care of providing food for its forthcoming residents
through
the creation of vegetation. We thus observe a
symmetrical
division of the account into three movements
(Problem,
Preparation, Population), each with three
elements.
The
account could be read as if written in three
parallel columns
as shown in Table 1.
The problem of the three "chaotic"
forces is resolved in the
first three days by circumscribing their negative
potential
and making use of their positive potential. As a
result a
harmonious context is established in preparation for
the
population of these three regions. Darkness is
contained and
counterbalanced by light; water is
separated and confined to
its proper spheres by the firmament; and the earth
is demar-
cated from the waters,
allowing dry land and vegetation to
appear.
Thus, with everything readied and in order, the
inhabitants
of these three cosmicized
regions are created and invited to
Table 1
Outline of Genesis 1
Problem Preparation Population
(vs.
2) (days 1-3) (days
4-6)
Darkness la Creation of light (Day)
4a Creation of Sun
b Separation from Darkness b Creation of Moon, Stars
(Night)
Watery
Abyss 2a Creation of Firmament
5a Creation of Birds
b
Separation of Waters above b
Creation of Fish
from Waters below
Formless Earth 3a Separation of Earth from Sea 6a Creation of Land
Animals
b
Creation of Vegetation
b Creation of Humans
Conrad Hyers 212a
take their proper places. The light and darkness of
day one
are populated by the sun, moon and stars of day
four. The sky
and waters of day two are populated by the birds
and fish of
day five. The earth and vegetation of day three
make possible
a population by the land animals and human beings
of day
six.
In this way of reading the account, the dilemmas
that arise
for a literalist (i.e., scientific and historical)
interpretation
disappear. The three problems, which are
envisioned as
difficulties for cosmicizing,
are dealt with first, followed by a
sketch of the way in which these cosmocized
regions are then
inhabited. This is the logic of the account. It is
not chrono-
logical, scientific or historical. It is
cosmological.
The procedure is not unlike that of a landscape
painter,
who first sketches in with broad strokes the
background of the
painting: its regions of light and darkness, of
sky and water,
and of earth and vegetation. Then within this
context are
painted birds and fish, land animals and human
figures. It
would be quite inappropriate for anyone to try to defend
the
artistic merit and meaning of the painting by
attempting to
show that the order in which the painting was
developed was
scientifically and historically
"correct." That order is irrele-
vant to the significance of
the painting as a whole and the
attribution of its authorship. It is a painting of
the totality.
And
the critical concern is to sketch in all the major regions
and types of creatures, so as to leave no quarter
that has not
been emptied of its resident divinity, and no
elements that
have not been placed under the lordship of the
Creator.
The Numerology of
Genesis 1
In this way of organizing the material, Genesis
has used a
numerological structure built around
the number three-a
hallowed number, as is apparent in the sacred
formula,
"Holy, holy, holy." Three is the first
number to symbolize
completeness and wholeness, for
which neither number one
nor two is suitable. Three also symbolizes
mediation and
synthesis, as the third term in a triad
"unites" the other two.
These
symbolic uses of three are evident in the way in which
phenomena are organized in terms of two sets of
opposite
forms which are separated from one another (days 1
and 2, 4
and 5), then completed and mediated by days 3 and
6. Light
212b THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
and darkness of day 1, and sky above and waters
below of day
2,
are completed and mediated by the earth and vegetation of
day 3. The triadic movement is then repeated as the
first
three days are populated by the second three: the
sun, moon
(and stars) of the day and night skies (day 4), and the birds
of
the air and fish of the sea (day 5), are completed
and
mediated by the land animals and humans of day 6.
The ultimate mediation is then given to human
beings who,
while belonging to the earth and with the animals
(and
therefore in the "image" of the earth
and the "likeness" of
animals), are also created in the "image
and likeness" of God.
Humanity
is thus placed midway between God and
Nature--which has now become nature by being emptied of
any intrinsic divinity. Hence the traditional
theological
phrasing of "Nature, Man and God." As
the Psalmist in a
parallel passage put it with enthusiastic
exclamation:
Thou has made him
little less than God
and dost crown him with glory and honor.
Thou hast given him dominion over the works of
thy hands;
then has put all things under his feet,
all sheep and oxen,
and also the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the sea.
Psalm 8:5-8
This triadic structure of three sets of three
points up
another problem with a literal reading of the
account.
Literalism
presumes that the numbering of days is to be
understood in an arithmetical sense, whether as
actual days or
as epochs. This is certainly the way in which
numbers are
used in science, history and mathematics-and in
practically
all areas of modern life. But the use of numbers in
ancient
religious texts was often numerological rather
than numer-
ical. That is, their
symbolic value was the basis and purpose
for their use, not their secular value as counters.
While the
conversion of numerology to arithmetic was
essential for the
rise of modern science, historiography and
mathematics, the
result is that numerological symbols are reduced to
signs.
Numbers
had to be neutralized and secularized, and com-
Conrad Hyers 212c
pletely stripped of any
symbolic suggestion, in order to be
utilized as digits. The principal surviving
exception to this is
the negative symbolism attached to the number 13,
which
still holds a strange power over Fridays, and over
the listing of
floors in hotels and high rises.
In the literal treatment of the six days of
creation, a
modern, arithmetical reading is substituted for the
original
symbolic one. This results, unwittingly, in a
secular rather
than religious interpretation. Not only are the
symbolic
associations and meanings of the
text lost in the process, but
the text is needlessly placed in conflict with
scientific and
historical readings of origins.
In order to understand the use of the imagery of
days, and
the numbering scheme employed, one has to think,
not only
cosmologically, but numerologically. One of the religious
considerations involved in numbering
is to make certain that
any schema works out numerologically:
that is, that it uses,
and adds up to, the right numbers symbolically.
This is
distinctively different from a
secular use of numbers in which
the overriding concern is that numbers add up to
the correct
total numerically.
213a THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
In this case, one of the obvious interests of
the Genesis
account is to correlate the grand theme of the
divine work in
creation with the six days of work and seventh
day of rest in
the Jewish week. If the Hebrews had had a five-day
or a
seven-day work week, the account would have read
differ-
ently in a corresponding
manner. Seven was a basic unit of
time among West Semitic peoples, and goes back to
the
division of the lunar month into 4 periods of 7
days each. By
the time Genesis was written, the 7-day week and
the sabbath
observance had been long established. Since what is
being
affirmed in the text is the creative work of God, it was quite
natural to use the imagery of 6 days of work,
with a 7th day of
rest. It would surely have seemed inappropriate and
jarring to
have depicted the divine creative effort in a schema
of, say, 5
days or 11 days.
It was important for religions reasons, not
secular ones, to
use a schema of seven days, and to have the work of
creation
completed by the end of the sixth day. "And
God ceased on
the seventh day from all work which he had
done" (Genesis
2:2).
The word "ceased" is shabat,
a cognate of the term
shabbat, sabbath.
The "creation model" being used here is
thus in no sense a scientific model, but a
liturgical-calendrical
model based on the sacred division of the week and
the
observance of sabbath.
This is the religious form within which
the subject of work is to be treated, even the
subject of divine
work.
The seven-day structure is also being used for
another, not
unrelated, reason. The number 7 has the
numerological
meaning of wholeness, plenitude, completeness.
This symbol-
ism is derived, in part, from the combination of
the three
major zones of the cosmos as seen vertically (heaven,
earth,
underworld) and the four quarters and directions of
the
cosmos as seen horizontally. Both the numbers 3 and 4
in
themselves often function as symbols of totality,
for these and
other reasons. Geometrically speaking, 3 is the triangular
symbol of totality, and 4 is the rectangular symbol
(in its
perfect form as the square). But what would be
more "total"
would be to combine the vertical and horizontal
planes. Thus
the number 7 (adding 3 and 4) and the number 12
(multiply-
ing them) are recurrent
biblical symbols of fullness and
perfection: 7 golden candlesticks, 7 spirits, 7
words of praise, 7
Conrad Hyers 213b
churches, the 7th year, the 49th year, the 70
elders, forgive-
ness 70 times 7, etc. Even Leviathan, that dread
dragon of the
abyss, was represented in Canaanite myth as having 7
heads--the "complete" monster.
Such positive meanings are now being applied by
Genesis
to a celebration of the whole of creation, and of
the parenthe-
sis of sabbath rest. The
liturgically repeated phrase "And God
saw that it was good," which appears after
each day of
creation, and the final capping phrase "And
behold it was
very good," are paralleled and underlined by
being placed in
a structure that is climaxed by a 7th day. The 7th
day itself
symbolizes its completeness and
"very-goodness."
The account also makes use of the corresponding
symbol of
wholeness and totality: 12. Two sets of phenomena
are
assigned to each of the 6 days of creation, thus totalling 12. In
this manner the numerological symbolism of
completion and
fulfillment is associated with the work of creation,
as well as
the rest from it on the 7th day. The totality of
nature is
created by God, is good, and is to be celebrated
both daily and
in special acts of worship and praise on the
Sabbath day. The
words "six" and "seven" are
themselves words of praise: six
expressing praise for creation and work; seven for sabbath
and rest.
Uses of the number 12, like 7, abound throughout
the Bible.
Not
only is there a miscellany of references to 12 pillars, 12
springs, 12 precious stones, 12 gates, 12
fruits, 12 pearls, etc.,
but it was important also to identify 12 tribes of
as 12 tribes of Ishmael, and later the 12
districts of Solomon, as
well as Jesus' 12 disciples.
Though in the modern world numbers have become
almost
completely secularized, in antiquity they could
function as
significant vehicles of meaning and power. It was
important
to associate the right numbers with one's life and
activity, and
to avoid the wrong numbers. To do so was to
surround and fill
one's existence with the positive meanings and powers
which
numbers such as 3, 4, 7 and 12 conveyed. In this
way one gave
religious significance to life, and placed one's
existence in
harmony with the divine order of the cosmos. By
aligning and
synchronizing the microcosm of one's
individual and family
life, and the mesocosm of
one's society and state, with the
macrocosm itself, life was tuned to the larger
rhythms of this
sacred order.
213c THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
For twentieth century, western societies the
overriding
consideration in the use of numbers
is their secular value in
addition, subtraction, division and
multiplication. We must
therefore have numbers that are completely devoid
of all
symbolic associations. Numbers such as 7 and 12
do not make
our calculators or computers function any better,
nor does the
number 13 make them any less efficient. Our numbers
are
uniform, value-neutral "meaningless"
and "powerless."
What
is critical to modern consciousness is to have the right
numbers in the sense of having the right figures
and right
count. This sense, of course, was also present in the
ancient
world: in commerce, in construction, in military
affairs, in
taxation. But there was also a higher, symbolic
use of num-
bers. In a religious
context, it was more important to have the
right numbers in a sacred rather than profane sense.
While
we give the highest value, and nearly exclusive
value, to
Conrad Hyers 214a
numbers as carriers of arithmetic
"facts," in religious texts
and rituals the highest value was often given to
numbers as
carriers of ultimate truth and reality.
Those, therefore, who would attempt to impose a
literal
reading of numbers upon Genesis, as if the
sequence of days
was of the same order as counting sheep or
merchandise or
money, are offering a modern, secular interpretation
of a
sacred text--in the name of religion. And, as if this
were not
distortion enough, they proceed to place this
secular reading
of origins in competition with other secular
readings and
secular literatures: scientific, historical,
mathematical, tech-
nological. Extended footnotes are
appended to the biblical
texts on such extraneous subjects as the Second Law
of
Thermodynamics,
radiometric dating, paleontology, sedi-
mentation, hydrology, etc. These
are hardly the issues with
which Genesis is concerning itself, or is exercised
over.
Phenomenal Language
Since Genesis is teaching creation over against
procreation,
and monotheism over against polytheism, it cannot
be said to
be teaching science, or any one form of science
over against
any other. Insofar as Genesis deals with
relationships within
nature, it does so in a phenomenal manner: as things appear
to
ordinary observation. Genesis is not in the
business of teach-
ing a "young
earth" theory of sudden creation in 6 literal
24-hour days. Nor is it teaching some
form of "progressive
creation" with a mix of fiat creation and
epochs of gradual
development. Nor is it teaching "theistic
evolution" or "pan-
theistic evolution" or "panentheistic evolution." It does not
teach any of these views of science and natural
history
because it is not using language in that way,
for that purpose,
or out of that concern.
If scientists wish to take such positions on
their own, it is
certainly within their province and right as
scientists to do so,
and to debate such positions within scientific
forums. But it
should not be done for religious reasons, or motivated
by a
supposed greater fidelity to the Bible. Nor
should anyone
presume that such efforts in any way confirm or
deny biblical
teaching. It is a linguistic confusion to try to
argue that any of
these scientific positions, or any other scientific
positions,
past, present or forthcoming, represent the biblical
position,
and can therefore be questioned by science,
verified by
science, or falsified by science.
A prime example of this confusion is the energy
expended
by certain biologists in construing the frequent
reference to
214b THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
reproducing "each according to its kind"
as a statement
concerning biological species and speciation. The
phrasing is
repeated 10 times in Genesis 1 with reference to
vegetation,
birds, sea creatures and land animals. If one may
take this to
be a biological statement, then it would be
appropriate to
introduce extended discussion of fixity of
species, genetic
mutations, natural selection, missing links, stratigraphic evi-
dence, and the like. If not,
then the discussion, however
interesting and important, is beside the point. And
it is not.
The
repeated stress upon "kinds" is not a biological or genetic
statement. It is a cosmological statement. While
that may
appear to modern interpreters very much like a
biological
statement, it is actually a different
"species" of statement that
cannot be "cross-bred" with scientific
statements. The type of
species-confusion involved here is not
that of biological
species but linguistic species!
Since cosmologies are concerned with the
establishment
and maintenance of order in the cosmos, central to
the
achievement of order is the act of separating things
from one
another. Without acts of separation, one would
have chaos.
Thus
ancient cosmologies commonly begin with a depiction
of a chaotic state, where there are no clear lines
of demarca-
tion, and then proceed to
indicate ways in which the present
world-order (cosmos) with its lines of demarcation
has been
organized. In other cultures this was achieved by
divine
births, wars, etc. Here cosmos is accomplished by
separating
things out from one another, and by creating other
things
(e.g., light or firmament) that aid in the
separation.
Every-
thing is thus assigned its proper region, allowing it
to have its
own identity, place and function in the overall
scheme. The
imagery used in Genesis 1, in fact, is drawn
largely from the
political sphere. It is that of a divine
sovereign, issuing
commands, organizing territories, and governing the
cosmic
kingdom.
In Genesis 1 the inanimate features of the first
four days
are achieved by being "separated" or
"gathered together."
On
the first day "God separated the light from the darkness."
On
the second day "God made the firmament and separated
the waters which were under the firmament from the
waters
which were above the firmament." On the third
day God
said, "Let the waters under the heavens be
gathered together
into one place, and let the dry land appear."
And on the
fourth day God said, "Let there be lights in the
firmament of
the heavens to separate the day from the
night."
The
same theme is then pursued on the third, fifth and
Conrad Hyers 214c
sixth days in dealing with plant and animal life.
"Each
according to its kind" is a continuation on
the animate level of
the acts of separation on the inanimate level. The
process is
then climaxed by the creation of human beings who
are
granted their unique place in the cosmos by
being separated
from the rest of the animals by virtue of being in
the image
and likeness of God, yet at the same time separated
from God
as creatures of divine creation.
Beyond this general cosmological concern to
attribute all
types of beings, and all types of order, to the
creation and
control of God, there is no specific interest in
or reference to
what we might recognize as a biological statement on
species,
genera, phyla, etc., or a geological statement on the
history of
water and earth, or an astronomical statement on the
relation-
ship between sun, moon, stars and earth. The
language used is
phenomenal and popular, not scientific and
technical. As
John
Calvin wisely noted, early in the growing controversies
over religion and science: "Nothing is here
treated of but the
visible form of the world. He who would learn
astronomy and
the other recondite arts, let him go
elsewhere."1
This observation on biblical usage is very
important for the
doctrine of revelation. The biblical message
offers itself as a
universal message. It is addressed to all human
beings,
whatever their knowledge or lack of it. It is
therefore couched
in a form that employs the universal appearances
of things
215a THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
which anyone anywhere can identify with. As Calvin
also
states: "Moses does not speak with philosophical
(i.e., scien-
tific) acuteness on occult
mysteries, but states those things
which are everywhere observed, even by the
uncultivated,
and which are in common use."2 Thus
when Genesis 1
discusses the "separating" or
"gathering" of inanimate forces,
these are not astronomical or geological terms, but cosmologi-
cal ones, which draw upon everyday observations of
nature.
Similarly,
the word "kind" (min) is
not functioning as a
genetic term, but describes the animate order as
it is
perceived in ordinary experience. Biblical
statements in all
these areas are the equivalent of phenomenal
statements still
commonly in use, despite centuries of astronomy,
such as
"sunrise" and "sunset."
Calvin pointed out, for example, that the biblical
state-
ment--if construed as a
scientific statement-that the sun
and moon are the two great lights of the heavens,
cannot be
reconciled with astronomy, since "the star of
Saturn, which,
on account of its great distance, appears the
least of all, is
greater than the moon."3 And, as
we now know, there are
many suns greater than our sun. But, Calvin
insisted, "Moses
wrote in a popular style things which, without
instruction, all
ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are
able to
understand."4 Similarly, in his
commentary on the reference
to the two "great lights" in Psalm 136,
Calvin affirmed that
"the Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy; and in
proposing instruction meant to be common to the
simplest
and most uneducated persons, he made use by Moses
and the
other prophets of popular language that none might
shelter
himself under the pretext of obscurity."5
As Francis Bacon perceptively argued in 1605,
addressing
the apparent flat earth teaching of the Bible,
there are two
books of God: "the book of God's Word" and
"the book of
God's Works." These books, however,
must not be confused in
their nature, language and purpose. We must not,
Bacon
warned, "unwisely mingle or confound these learnings
together."' Religion and science are not
necessarily running a
collision course along the same track, except when
someone
mistakenly switches them onto the same track.
Religious
language and scientific language intersect at
many points, to
be sure, as they touch upon many of the same
issues and
realities. But they do not move along the same
plane of
Conrad Hyers 215b
inquiry and discourse. They intersect at
something more like
right angles.
Science, as it were, moves along a horizontal
plane, with its
steadfast attention to immediate causes and
naturalistic
explanations for phenomena. Religion
moves along a vertical
plane that intersects this horizontal plane from
beginning to
end-and not just in certain "gaps" which
are defended so as
to make room for God at intermittent points along
the line.
Science,
with its eyes focussed on the dimensions of the
horizontal plane, tends to have a naturalistic
bias, and to see
all experience and knowing, and all affirmation, as
reducible
to this plane. Religion, however, adds another
dimension, a
supernatural dimension, which it
insists intersects this hori-
zontal plane at every moment,
and in fact is the ultimate
source of its being, meaning and direction. It is a
dimension
which, along its vertical axis, is both transcendent
and imma-
nent. It is simultaneously
present with the natural, and
without it the natural does not exist. But it is
not reducible to
the natural, nor is language about it reducible to
natural
forms.
If one wishes to argue for deeper meanings and
mysteries
in scripture, they are certainly there. But they
are not
scientific in character. They are theological and
spiritual.
They
are not meanings and mysteries hidden from the
ancients, but now revealed to 20th century
scientists, which
lie along the horizontal plane. They are rather
inexhaustible
depths of meaning and mystery which lie along the
vertical
plane. "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and
knowledge
of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how
inscrutable his ways.... For from him and through
him and
to him are all things" (Romans 11:33, 36).
NOTES
1.
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of
Genesis, ed. John King (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1981), pp. 184-5.
2.
Ibid., p. 84.
3.
Ibid., p. 85.
4.
Ibid., p. 86.
5.
John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms,
vol. V (
1981), pp. 184-5.
6.
For an excellent discussion of Bacon and Calvin, see Roland Mushat
Frye,
"The Two Books of God," Theology Today (October, 1982), pp.
260-266.
science, or falsified by
science.
215c THE NARRATIVE FORM OF GENESIS 1
Conrad
Hyers is Professor and Chairman of the Department of
Religion,
from
ship between biblical themes and comic symbolism,
THE COMIC VISION AND
THE CHRISTIAN FAITH (Pilgrim Press, 1981). His essay is an
abridgment of
several chapters of his most recent book, THE
MEANING OF CREATION:
GENESIS
AND MODERN SCIENCE, (John Knox Press, December 1984.)
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
ASA
http://www.asa3.org/
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: