Reply to reader who asked for “something more on the Six Days”:
....
Thank you ... for the information brochure pertaining to the recent lecture tour of Australia by Dr. Hugh Owen of The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation [KCSC]. .... This information prompted me to refresh myself regarding the KCSC site. Whilst I believe that it contains some highly interesting articles, on a variety of topics, the site gives a bit of a different slant from the AMAIC on e.g. the subject that you have raised: the “SIX DAYS”. I think that KCSC still prefers the more common view of a creation occupying a six-day period. To my mind, KCSC takes an approach that is in line with typical “Creation science”. The problem that I have with this is that it reads early Genesis as if it were a modern scientific magazine rather than an ancient Middle Eastern document. In Cowboy terms, it hitches up the wagon to go West (California), when it might be more appropriate here to take a smooth train ride Eastwards (to New York).
The KCSC articles that appeal to me the most are those by the likes of the Polish professor Maciej Giertych, and by Dean Kenyon, for instance, that use hard science to refute evolution. That is something that could impress both those who have faith and those who do not.
As to the Hexaëmeron, I think that the “something more on the Six Days”, as you have requested in your letter, is sorely needed today. I, although very happy with Air Commodore P. J. Wiseman’s explanation of the “Six Days” - especially in conjunction with his thesis on the toledôt structure of the entire Book of Genesis - have come to think in recent times that there must be more to it all than just that. That what Wiseman has provided us with, so superbly, is an account of the structure of Genesis One, as well as his restoration of, as he put it, “a common-place truth to its first uncommon lustre” by his reviving of what you have rightly attributed to Saint Augustine: namely, the notion of “a progressive revelation” [as opposed to a progressive creation]. That explains the - to us - peculiar nature of this most ancient book (cf. Septuagint Genesis 2:4: “This is the BOOK of the origins of the heavens and the earth”), with its catch lines and parallelistic structure. Seemingly strange to us all of this, but perfectly reasonable when one considers that this is an ancient document written on tablets, with a typical colophon ending.
Perhaps a beginning towards our arriving at “something more on the Six Days” was the insight of Professor John Walton (included in a MATRIX), based on his appreciation of ancient thinking, that the document is more about functionality than about material origins:
It is my belief that when we read Genesis 1 as the ancient piece of literature that it is, we will find new understanding of the passage that will result in a clearer understanding of how the initial audience would have heard it. In the process, we will also find that many of the perceived conflicts with modern science will be able to be resolved. I have explored this in a recent book titled The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP) and the technical aspects of ancient Near Eastern literature and the Hebrew text will be explored in greater depth in a forthcoming monograph, Genesis One As Ancient Cosmology (Eisenbrauns).
By John H. Walton
Professor of Old Testament
Wheaton College
March 2010
Genesis 1 is Ancient Cosmology
The Bible was written for everyone, but specifically to Israel. As a result we have to read all biblical texts, including (and maybe especially) Genesis 1 in its cultural context—as a text that is likely to have a lot more in common with ancient literature than with modern science. This does not result in claims of borrowing or suggestions that Genesis should also be read as “mythology” (however defined), but that ancient perspectives on the world and its origins need to be understood.
Ancient Cosmology is Function-oriented
In the ancient world and in the Bible, something existed not when it had physical properties, but when it had been separated from other things, given a name and a role within an ordered system. This is a functional ontology rather than a material ontology. In this view, when something does not exist, it is lacking role, not lacking matter. Consequently, to create something (cause it to exist) means to give it a function, not material properties.
“Create” (Hebrew Bara’ ) Concerns Functions
The Hebrew word translated “create” should be understood within a functional ontology—i.e., it means to assign a role or function. This is evident through a word study of the usage of the biblical term itself where the direct object of the verb is always a functional entity not a material object. Theologians of the past have concluded that since materials were never mentioned that it must mean manufacture of objects out of nothing. Alternatively, and preferably, it does not mention materials because it does not refer to manufacturing. Bara’ deals with functional origins, not material origins. …
[End of quote]
That is not to endorse everything that Professor Walton has to say on the subject, but I think that it has relevance for what I am leading to later on in this letter.
Then there was:
The Temple Symbolism in Genesis
by Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D, 1977
that we also used in a MATRIX, in which the author showed that Cain and Abel were in the vicinity of a Temple-like structured Paradise to where their offerings were seasonally brought. The “Creation science” type of erasure of the ancient world by the Noachic Flood, which I think KCSC would also embrace, destroys the necessary geographico-topological link between Paradise and later Jerusalem (of which Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich was aware, e.g. the Agony in the Garden occurring in a hollow to where Adam and Eve had formerly been expelled), and this mind-set then disallows for Abel to have been slain by ‘Jerusalemites’ (Matthew 23):
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ….
Now Wiseman, Walton and Martin (were) are all good Protestants, which may not impress some Catholics. For I had found that it was hard generally to get Catholics interested in the alternative theory of the “Six Days” (Wiseman’s) until I began to include Saint Augustine (already part of Wiseman’s package) and Sts. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.
Anyway, here now is a recent Catholic interpretation of the meaning of the Six Days, written by Jeff Morrow of Seton Hall University, who I think may have nailed the whole important matter, basically with Genesis One focussing, as he reads it, upon man as Homo Liturgicus.
....
Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1-3
…. Genesis 1-3, in its account of creation, presents the cosmos as one large temple, the Garden of Eden as the Holy of Holies, and the human person as made for worship. The very content and structure of Genesis 1-3 is in a very real sense liturgical; the seventh day is creation’s high point. ….
The Sevenfold Structure of Creation in Genesis 1
The number seven is important for the form and content of Genesis 1 as the number of perfection in the ancient Near East, the number relating to covenant, and of course, the number of the day known as the Sabbath, the pinnacle of creation. ….
Genesis 1:1 contains seven words: běrē’šît bārā’ ’elōhîm ’ēt hašāmayim wě’ēt hā’āreṣ. Genesis 1:2 has fourteen words, seven times two.
Furthermore, significant words in this passage occur in multiples of seven: God (35 times, i.e., seven times five), earth (21 times, i.e., seven times three), heavens/firmament (21 times), “and it was so” (7 times), and “God saw that it was good” (7 times). ….
The heptadic structure is sufficiently apparent and scholars from Umberto Cassuto to Jon Levenson have commented upon it. 5 Gordon Wenham observes, “The number seven dominates this opening chapter in a strange way.” 6 Wenham notes further that Genesis 2:1-3 makes reference to the seventh day three times, in three separate sentences composed of seven words each. This focus on seven highlights the unique status of the seventh day. 7 Moreover, although we find ten divine announcements and eight divine commands in Genesis 1:1-2:3, there are three nouns that occur in the first verse and express the basic concepts of the section, viz God [’Elōhīm] heavens [šāmayim], earth [’ereṣ], are repeated in the section a given number of times that is a multiple of seven: thus the name of God occurs thirty-five times, that is, five times seven…; earth is found twenty-one times, that is, three times seven; similarly heavens (or firmament, rāqīaʽ) appears twenty-one times….The ten sayings with which, according to the Talmud, the world was created…that is, the ten utterances of God beginning with the words, and…said—are clearly divisible into two groups: the first group contains seven Divine fiats enjoining the creation of the creatures…; the second group comprises three pronouncements that emphasize God’s concern for man’s welfare….Thus we have here, too, a series of seven corresponding dicta….The terms light and day are found, in all, seven times in the first paragraph, and there are seven references to light in the fourth paragraph….
Water is mentioned seven times in the course of paragraphs two and three….In the fifth and sixth paragraphs forms of the word ḥayyā…occur seven times….The expression it was good appears seven times (the seventh time—very good)….In the seventh paragraph, which deals with the seventh day, there occur the following three consecutive sentences (three for emphasis), each of which consists of seven words and contains in the middle the expression the seventh day: And on THE SEVENTH DAY God finished His work which He had done, and He rested on THE SEVENTH DAY from all His work which He had done. So God blessed THE SEVENTH DAY and hallowed it….
…
The Garden of Eden as the Inner Sanctuary and the Human Person as Created for Worship
So far we have seen a poetic heptadic structure that portrays the creation of Genesis 1 as related to the construction of a temple. This has both canonical parallels—as with Moses’ construction of the Tabernacle at Sinai and Solomon’s construction of the Temple on Zion—as well as extra-biblical ancient Near Eastern parallels, such as the Gudea Cylinders. What remains to be seen is the implications of this on understanding humanity. Genesis 2-3 depicts the Garden of Eden as the Holy of Holies, and this has implications for our understanding of humanity’s purpose. In this section, I will first discuss Eden’s image as an Inner Sanctuary and then discuss human beings as homo liturgicus, liturgical humanity made for worship. 46
Gregory Beale notes that the distinction of regions of creation described by Genesis are similar to those of the Temple. The heavens represent the holy of holies, the earth the inner sanctuary, and the sea the outer court. 47 Other indications of this similarity appear in the text. In Genesis 3:8, for example, God walks back and forth (using a form of hlk) in Eden, which is also how God’s presence is described in the tabernacle in Leviticus 26:12 and Deuteronomy 23:14. 48
In examining the rest of the canon, we find other evidence that points to intentionality in these parallels that make creation appear as a temple. The Temple, and Mount Zion in general, are frequently associated with Eden, and in some instances actually identified with Eden. Ezekiel 28’s discussion of the king of Tyre is the most famous example where Mount Zion, and the temple, are associated with Eden. 49 Sirach also associates Eden with the Temple and tabernacle, where the Temple is the new Eden. 50
Moreover, the Temple was often described with garden-like elements, further associating it with Eden and creation in general. 51 Eden in turn was seen as a prototype of the Temple. 52 As Lawrence Stager remarks, “the original Temple of Solomon was a mythopoeic realization of heaven on earth, of Paradise, the Garden of Eden.” 53 Some of the other elements important in this connection include the presence of cherubim and the eastward-facing entrance. One might mention in addition that the tabernacle and temple menorah was stylized as a symbol of the tree of life. Wenham concludes: “Thus in this last verse of the narrative there is a remarkable concentration of powerful symbols that can be interpreted in the light of later sanctuary design….These features combine to suggest that the garden of Eden was a type of archetypal sanctuary, where God was uniquely present in all his life-giving power.” ….
Conclusion
If Eden is the Holy of Holies in God’s Temple of creation, the implication is that humanity, created for this inner sanctuary, is best understood as Homo liturgicus. Living in the Holy of
Holies, humanity is called to give worship to God in all thoughts, words, and deeds. When we look at the Genesis account of Eden, we find other instances of people portrayed as created for worship. Adam, for example, is told to “till” (from the root ‘bd) and “keep” (from the root šmr). When šmr and ‘bd occur together in the OT (Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14) they refer to keeping/guarding and serving God’s word and also they refer to priestly duties in the tabernacle. And, in fact, šmr and ‘bd only occur together again in the Pentateuch in the descriptions in Numbers for the Levites’ activities in the tabernacle. 55 Such an association reinforces the understanding of Adam as a sort of priest-king, or even high priest, who guarded God’s first temple of creation, as it were. 56 In light of this discussion, therefore, what we find in Genesis 1-3 is creation unfolding as the construction of a divine temple, the Garden of Eden as an earthly Holy of Holies, and the human person created for liturgical worship.
[End of quote]
Whilst the ‘Go West Young Man’ approach yields artificiality in my opinion, those who follow the ‘Go [Middle] East’ approach have managed to uncover the very structure of the ancient Book and the fact that it involves a revelation to Adam (Wiseman), that it is about functionality, not western science, and that it pertains to a cosmic liturgy (Walton, Martin).
Jeff Morrow seems to have built upon this type of approach (though he may not have followed the same path as outlined above), culminating in his most helpful notion of “human beings as homo liturgicus, liturgical humanity made for worship”.
....
No comments:
Post a Comment