I'm aware that the bulk of commentators include the spirit realm in the creation mentioned at Genesis 1:1, but the matter is not quite settled in the eyes of OT scholars. Here is a sampling of remarks I found that show the complexity of exegeting the Bible's first verse.
Nincsnevem asked if the angels are not included at Genesis 1:1, then where does the Bible refer to their creation? Well, I believe we're told that the angels were created in the NT (Ephesians 3:14-15; Colossians 1:15-17) and possibly in the OT. However, the first verse of Tanakh doesn't necessarily have to contain that information.
Btw, I will not be interacting much today on the blog but will approve comments. I'm taking a little break.
John Skinner, (Genesis in the ICC Series, page 14):
Skinner limits the scope and reference of Genesis 1:1 to "only the organised universe" but not to the "chaotic stuff from which the universe was putatively formed. However, if he thinks the heavens were made from the earth, how can Skinner think the heavens refers to the spirit realm? That wouldn't make a lot of sense. Seems to me that he's limiting the "heavens and earth" language to the material world. But see Gordan Wenham's commentary for a critique of Skinner.
Ferdinand O. Regalodo ("The Creation Account in Genesis 1," page 120): "The question whether the creation account of Gen 1 is also talking about what is beyond the human world has been adequately answered in this paper. We have seen that when we closely examine Gen 1, especially such words as 'in the beginning' and 'heavens and earth,' contextually and linguistically, we can say that the creation narrative is talking only about our world and is silent about the creation of the entire universe, as we understand the universe today. Moreover, in our study of the Hebraic understanding of the world in the framework of creation, we discover that there is no hint whatsoever that Gen 1 is concerned with the creation of other planets or other worlds."
From Kenneth A. Matthews, the New American Commentary on Genesis 1-11:26, page 136:
Augustine of Hippo (The City of God): "Where Scripture speaks of the world's creation, it is not plainly said whether or when the angels were created; but if mention of them is made, it is implicitly under the name of heaven, when it is said, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, or perhaps rather under the name of light, of which presently. But that they were wholly omitted, I am unable to believe, because it is written that God on the seventh day rested from all His works which He made; and this very book itself begins, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, so that before heaven and earth God seems to have made nothing. Since, therefore, He began with the heavens and the earth — and the earth itself, as Scripture adds, was at first invisible and formless, light not being as yet made, and darkness covering the face of the deep (that is to say, covering an undefined chaos of earth and sea, for where light is not, darkness must needs be) — and then when all things, which are recorded to have been completed in six days, were created and arranged, how should the angels be omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from which on the seventh day He rested? Yet, though the fact that the angels are the work of God is not omitted here, it is indeed not explicitly mentioned; but elsewhere Holy Scripture asserts it in the clearest manner."
See https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/genesis/augustine-on-genesis-from-the-city-of-god
24 comments:
I think the Colossians 1:16 explains the Genesis 1:1 well.
Anyway, check this:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1074.htm
admittedly Iv skimmed this source... based on past ones, that I have either read preciously or recognise from some time ago. This really proves nothing..
Your nomina scara/ "emptied" claim really made me lose faith in your sources Ninc, sorry.. you were caught in a blatant lie, doesn't bode well for any other claim you make.
Its a simple check of wikipedia or David trobish' Book to see the logical fallacy you made.
http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ids/v54n1/31.pdf
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/66156/is-jesus-called-yhwh-in-joel-232-romans-1013
Also interesting how Aquinas approaches Genesis 1:1 in the Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Quest. 61, Art. 3:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1061.htm
In part, he writes:
I answer that, There is a twofold opinion on this point to be found in the writings of the Fathers. The more probable one holds that the angels were created at the same time as corporeal creatures. For the angels are part of the universe: they do not constitute a universe of themselves; but both they and corporeal natures unite in constituting one universe. This stands in evidence from the relationship of creature to creature; because the mutual relationship of creatures makes up the good of the universe. But no part is perfect if separate from the whole. Consequently it is improbable that God, Whose "works are perfect," as it is said Deuteronomy 32:4, should have created the angelic creature before other creatures. At the same time the contrary is not to be deemed erroneous; especially on account of the opinion of Gregory Nazianzen, "whose authority in Christian doctrine is of such weight that no one has ever raised objection to his teaching, as is also the case with the doctrine of Athanasius," as Jerome says.
Cf. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18:1
'Hο ζῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔκτισεν τὰ πάντα κοινῇ.
"qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia SIMUL"
The word "κοινῇ" is an adverb derived from the adjective "κοινός," which can mean "common," "shared," or "joint." However, in the given context, a better translation might be "together".
simul - "at the same time" or "together"
"He who lives forever created everything together."
The highly esteemed church fathers, like Clement of Alexandria and Origenes, alongside Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Procopus of Gaza, and especially Augustine (particularly relying on Sir 18:1 "creavit omnia simul") taught that creation truly took place in a single moment.
Granted, this is a point that Aquinas knew, but one reason I quoted him was because although he favored one interpretation of Genesis 1:1, he did not favor condemning the notable Cappadocian Nazianzen or the Damascene. He noted that there were two streams of thought among the Fathers concerning Gen. 1:1 and even Augustine supplies qualifying remarks on the passage. I've quoted Augustine earlier and he allows for explaining Gen. 1:1 another way.
It's been a little while but I've read papers discussing Eccl. 18:1, but I'm not going there tonight.
Augustine attempting to explain creation with some coherence: https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/anthro/Previous_Lectures/sustain/AugustineCosmology0.html
https://catholicorigins.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/CREATION-AND-TIME-Full-Booklet-v-1014.pdf
Wasn't Ben Sira written in Hebrew?
https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Sira?tab=contents
@Duncan
The Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) was written in Hebrew, but since the Jews, when they defined their canon of the Ketuvim in the 2nd century AD as a sign of separation from the Christians, in the context of polemics, did not include it in their canon, therefore the Hebrew text was not preserved by the Jews. However, the original Hebrew versions have since been recovered, including fragments recovered within the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Cairo Genizah.
https://www.bensira.org
Unfortunately, the entire book is not available in Hebrew, but only a part of it.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/371957
Question:
WHEN AND HOW LONG DID GOD CREATE THE WORLD?
Answer:
Regarding the time of creation, it can be said with certainty that God created the world with an eternal creative activity, but it began in time.
Explanation:
The "first creation", i.e., the creation of matter, time, space, natural and mathematical laws, did not take place in time. It could not have happened in time, as time presupposes space, and space presupposes matter. Therefore, with respect to the first creation, there is no sense in asking the question "when." Based on the opinions of the Church Fathers and philosophical arguments, it is most likely that the first creation took place instantaneously.
As for the time of the second creation, by which we mean the transformation of the primordial chaos into an ordered world, it happened in time. However, there is no consensus about its duration. The Church has not decided with full authority, and it may never do so because this question lies on the border of theology and natural science, and crossing that boundary is risky from both sides.
The indirect creation is described in Scripture in the six-day creation story (hexaëmeron). Its interpretation is still not completely clear, and several free opinions prevail in the Church. One thing is sure, the Scriptures are never wrong nor misleading. However, one must always pay attention to the intended purpose of the writer and the literary genres. There can be no real disagreement between the true (!) meaning of the only reliable place in Scripture and the certain (!) results of natural science. Saint Thomas Aquinas warns: "We should not concede anything from the truthfulness of the Scriptures, but with wrong interpretation, we should not expose them to the mockery of unbelievers" (Thom. Aqin. STh. I. 68 1, c). Considering this, some ideas are listed in order of their likelihood:
1. The most probable view is that the hexaëmeron should be interpreted literally. However, this literal interpretation should not be understood in a primitive and exaggerated way. Not every aspect demands a literal interpretation from the sacred text. It should only be applied where the revealed truth and the nature of the text require it. Nonetheless (within certain limits), it is free to follow another interpretation. The position of the Church Fathers on this point is not uniform and not clear. Some explained the creation story in a literal sense, while others followed an allegorical interpretation, and these weren't just lesser-known figures but include St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. They believed either that the secondary creation also occurred in an instant or that we simply do not know how long it took. The six biblical days were then interpreted as a visionary account. According to this, the creation story is the faithful testimony of the archaic revelation given to Adam, which, despite the pre-Mosaic oral tradition, still retains traces of its original form. The six days are not days of creation, but rather six days experienced as a vision. Each day's morning and evening signify the beginning and end of the vision. This theory seems to be supported by the fact that the second creation story does not take into account the first (there is a change in the order of creation). Thus, the inspired writer did not seem to want to convey a documentary-like material about the world's formation. Instead, they wanted to convey religious truths through the integration of the orally preserved version of the archaic revelation into the Bible. With this perspective in mind, the creation story is entirely the product of divine revelation and, as such, is beyond criticism.
2. Another hypothesis commits to the absolute literal interpretation of the six days of creation. Because modern science seems to challenge this, some devout scientists have formulated the tenets of "scientific creationism", which tries to demonstrate that the assumption of six days of creation and a relatively young world is scientifically unrefutable, and even proves it. While this hypothesis has its critics, its findings cannot be dismissed outright. However, one must be careful not to support our claims with weak arguments, as this would undermine the very authority of the Scripture we seek to defend. Some proponents of this theory, with strong faith but perhaps naive sensibility, fail or refuse to see its issues. Not only do they take the creation story literally, but by mixing it with modern interpretation models, they interpret more than what is actually present. The classification of this theory is a "pious opinion" – a theological stance that isn't binding but isn't refutable either, and it is in harmony with church sentiment.
3. Some theologians see the six days as six significant periods. However, this theory raises numerous issues. The Bible clearly mentions six cycles of 24 hours. If we interpret the days in the creation story symbolically, then why should we take the number six literally? Interpreting one part of the same sentence symbolically and another part literally is not customary in Catholic exegesis. Moreover, the six periods do not match the evolutionary or geological timelines generally accepted by science. If the theory neither satisfies proponents of evolution nor aligns with traditional beliefs, the efforts of those who promote it seem redundant.
4. Nowadays, many people hold the controversial opinion that the six days of Scripture have no historical message and that the Book of Genesis merely proclaims the truth using the Babylonian worldview: nothing has existed forever, nothing (neither sun, moon, nor stars) is a god, only the one eternal and true God from whom every other being originates. According to this theory, the reason creation is divided into 6 + 1 days is that the Scriptures want to lay the foundation for the sanctification of the Sabbath and the seven-day cycle. However, this periodical explanation doesn't underpin the sanctification of the Sabbath because, in its view, the scriptural foundation relies on no factual or historical truth. The primary flaw of this theory is its circular logic: The Sabbath must be sanctified because it's written that God rested on the seventh day. But if God didn't rest, especially not after six days, then why was it written? Just for the Jews to sanctify the Sabbath? This would be a classic example of faulty circular logic. The theory's credibility is further diminished since it essentially seems like a revised version of the pan-Babylonian and mythic explanation by the anti-Christian and atheist Friedrich Delitzsch, which was heavily criticized by Christian counterarguments to the point of being unsustainable in its original form. Yet, because of some partial truths in it, it is tolerated even in proximity to Catholic belief. Therefore, its classification is a "tolerated opinion" (sententia tolerata): an opinion in a free matter that many believe goes against sound theological stance but hasn't drawn the disapproval of the teaching authority.
The above four theories don't have the same theological value or likelihood. Their classifications range from the generally accepted to the tolerated opinion. Naturally, apart from the above, many other theories interpreting the creation story have been proposed, but all of these can be related to one of the four mentioned, so it can be generally stated that — since no opinion is binding in terms of the obedience of faith — anyone wishing to remain Catholic should choose from one of the four theories, at least until there's a church stance of dogmatic value.
I think the Tanach (1985) nails it:
1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3 God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.
Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (Ge 1). Jewish Publication Society.
It then go on to define its own terms:
* Heaven:
6God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water.” 7God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so. 8God called the expanse Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (Ge 1:6–8). Jewish Publication Society.
And the "earth" (IE: "dry land"):
9God said, “Let the water below the sky be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas. And God saw that this was good. 11And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (Ge 1:9–13). Jewish Publication Society.
The LORD is being described as the tamer of the chaos, and the populator of "world."
Genesis 1 refers to a preexistent but dark, chaotic, windy, bottomless abyss.
"Moreover, the six periods do not match the evolutionary or geological timelines generally accepted by science." - meaningless speculation. They don't have a time line that is defensible. Darwin even stated that this was a major problem to his theories.
But when it comes to Babylonian base 6 numbers, that's another matter all together, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal
This is probably why the Hebrew mind configured around 7, going one better.
There are numerous ways to interpret the genesis myth. What makes either of yours more probable than any other?
JPS is just another interpretation.
Why would we even be inclined to bring science into this?
Mr. Foster,
what do you think of this OT translation into Modern Israeli Hebrew?
"But, Shlesinger noted that she, like others, “found the rephrasing jarring because I grew up on the original text.” Indeed, articles have been devoted to picking apart the translation. Take Genesis 1:1, which the King James version rendered “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” Ahuvia translates this as “At the beginning of creation, when God created the world,” ending with a comma leading into the next verse.
“I didn’t say ‘heaven and earth’ but ‘the world,’ because on the second day he created the firmament and called it heaven,” noted Ahuvia. “In the Bible, the phrase ha-shamayim ve-ha’aretz means ‘the world.’”"
https://www.hadassahmagazine.org/2012/02/28/israeli-life-translating-bible-hebrew/
https://shorturl.at/vACH7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh_Ram
Now here I am not talking about merging the phrase "heavens and earth" into "world", but about the translation solution that interprets Genesis 1:1 not as a closed full sentence, but as a statement describing the condition of the world when God began creating ("When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was untamed and shapeless."). According to some authors, that meaning seems to be the meaning intended by the original Priestly author, see: Walton, John H. (2006). Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible
Nincsnevem, first, I still don't accept the opening words of the Hebrew Bible as an instance of merism. As we've discussed previously, Genesis 1:1 is one of the most controversial passages in Scripture, and even the ancients gave different perspectives on ha-shamayim ve-ha’aretz. Second, I am not fond of "When in the beginning" either.
See Barry Bandstra's handbook on Genesis and note how he handles Gen. 1:1.
https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/calendars-ancient-medieval-project/2015/07/08/the-origins-of-the-seven-day-week/
Nincsnevem, please see Umberto Cassuto's commentary on Genesis. Some scholars have called him one of the top Jewish biblical scholars, and his remarks on Gen. 1:1 are worth consideration. I am going to post what he writes about the "heavens and the earth" terminology:
"The heavens and the earth] It has been widely held that Scripture used this phrase because classical Hebrew had no special word for what we call today ‘the universe’; hence it was necessary to employ a circumlocution of this kind. But this view is incorrect. The concept of the unity of the world was unknown among the Israelites till a late period, and then the appropriate term for it was immediately coined. The ancient Hebrew conceived God alone as a unity; what we designate ‘the universe’, they regarded as two separate entities: the HEAVENS are the Lord’s heavens, but the earth He has given to the sons of men (Psa. cxv 16). By earth is to be understood here everything under the heavens, including the sea; cf. Psa. cxlviii 7: Praise the Lord from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps."
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: from Adam to Noah (Umberto Cassuto Biblical Commentaries) (Kindle Locations 614-619). Magnes Press / Varda Books. Kindle Edition.
https://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/gods/ladies/ladynammu.html
Post a Comment